Cardinal Pell commends new English translation of Missal

4/5/10; Peter Jennings; (5 Items)

Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, commended the new English translation of the Roman Missal now formally approved by the Holy See that is to replace the present English Missal at the start of the new Church Year that will begin on the First Sunday of Advent, 27 November 2011.”Doubters will be pleasantly surprised by the quality of the translation of the new Roman Missal,” said Cardinal Pell, Chairman of the Vox Clara Committee, a commission set up in 2001 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to advise it about the work being done on the new translation.”The translation, the fruit of many years’ work, is a bit different from what we are used to, although the people’s parts are not much changed,” said Cardinal Pell during an exclusive interview at the Pontifical North American College in Rome on Thursday 29 April, where two hours earlier the 19th and final meeting of the Commission completed its work.

See: http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16078

Keep out Pell: Irish sex victims
Jacqueline Maley & Barney Swartz; 8/5/10; (2 Items); See: http://www.theage.com.au/national/keep-out-pell-irish-sex-victims-20100508-ujzs.html
Irish victims of Catholic sex abuse are trying to block any visit by Cardinal George Pell intended to help end paedophilia cover-ups within the clergy there. A group in Ireland called Child Aware, headed by Hanora Brennan, has written to every member of the Irish lower house to protest against Cardinal Pell having any role in the plan. Ms Brennan has also requested a meeting with Diarmuid Martin, the Archbishop of Dublin, to argue that Cardinal Pell – Sydney’s Archbishop and Australia’s most senior Catholic clergyman – should not be allowed to visit on behalf of the Vatican.

Damian Thompson Religion; 5/5/10 See: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100038095/cardinal-pell-critic-of-the-english-hierarchy
Cardinal Pell, critic of the English hierarchy and no fan of the Tablet, takes charge of the world’s Catholic bishops and-no-fan-of-the-tablet-takes-charge-of-the-worlds-catholic-bishops/Like minds: Cardinal Pell and Pope Benedict; “… I have long been disappointed by The Tablet’s persistent subversions of some Catholic teaching and mystified by the inability of the English bishops to nudge it towards a more productive line of witness …”
Now, you may think it rather bad form of me to resurrect a letter written to the Bitter Pill by Cardinal George Pell back in 2002, but I’m sure Ma Pepinster and the gang have been re-reading it this week.
For, according to authoritative sources in Rome, the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney (a Benedict loyalist), is to succeed Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re (not a Benedict loyalist) as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. That will give him a significant degree of authority over the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops.
He will be able to “nudge” them – for example, to observe the conservative liturgical reforms for which he is partly responsible, such as the new English translation of the Missal.
And he will also have a huge say in who becomes a bishop in England Wales, a Church whose maladministration in recent decades has concerned him greatly. He knows this country well, and from an interesting perspective: while he was studying for his doctorate in church history at Oxford he served as chaplain to Eton. One of his best friends is Fr Alexander Sherbrooke, the OE parish priest of St Patrick’s, Soho, and one of the finest evangelists in London.
Cardinal Pell knows – knows for an absolute fact – that many English bishops are
(a) not up to the job intellectually, and
(b) passively obstructive towards Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum Coetibus. Future bishops will not enjoy the luxury of ignoring papal directives. Indeed, I suspect it won’t be long before certain current bishops have their collars felt. (Sorry to use such crude language, but he is an Aussie, and the way the E&W hierarchy ignores Vatican directives is little short of criminal.)
He’s a fascinating man. I’ll return to the subject in a day or so, spelling out just why the Tabletistas will be so outraged by this news, but let me leave you with a taster of Pell’s plain-spoken approach. In 2007, he tightened up the rules allowing family members to speak at funerals, offering the following typically candid explanation (my emphasis):
“On not a few occasions, inappropriate remarks glossing over the deceased’s proclivities (drinking prowess, romantic conquests etc) or about the Church (attacking its moral teachings) have been made at funeral Masses.”

George Pell on Intolerance
6/5/’09; See: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/03/13/george-pell-on-intolerance/
Last week Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, gave a very important speech at Oxford University. In the talk, “Varieties of Intolerance: Religious and Secular,” he made a number of important points about the collapse of the West and the rise of a new intolerance – specifically an anti-Christian intolerance.
The entire speech is well worth reading, and I provide the link to it below. Please have a read. But I here offer a few snippets to hopefully whet your appetite. He begins by noting how those groups who most mouth-off about tolerance are often the least tolerant.
Consider the homosexual lobby. Every second sentence from these activists includes the word tolerance. Yet if anyone dares to stand in their way, they turn into a very intolerant gaystapo. Recall the recent US presidential election late last year. A number of other measures were voted on at the time, including same-sex marriage in California.
Proposition 8 was passed, which recognises only marriage between a man and a woman. So how did the tolerant homosexual lobby respond? “Great” they said. “This is a democracy after all, and the people have spoken, so we will happily abide by the decision of the majority”. Not.
As Pell reminds us, “Mormon temples in particular, as well as Catholic and Evangelical churches, have been the focus for demonstrations, often attended by violence, vandalism and intimidation. White powder has been sent to places of worship, and some blogs are calling for them to be burnt down. Individual supporters of Proposition 8 have received death threats and been assaulted. Businesses which contributed to the campaign in favour of Proposition 8 are being boycotted, and individuals who made personal donations are being blacklisted and in some cases forced to resign from their jobs. The situation is so serious that the non-partisan Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which takes no position on same-sex marriage and works with churches and organizations on both sides of the question, ran a full-page advertisement in the New York Times on 5 December condemning the harassment and anti-religious bigotry being directed at Proposition 8 supporters.”
Homosexual intolerance is alive and well, and woe betide anyone who considers taking a stand against this militant minority group. But there are other groups which are intimidating and threatening those who disagree with them. They are intent on proclaiming their supremacy, and are happy to beat the West into submission. Consider militant Islam.
Pell spends some time documenting the rise of recent Islamic intolerance. Many of the stories would be familiar to those who are concerned about the West and its capitulation to its enemies. But Pell offers a nice summary of the many ways in which Islam is seeking to cow the West into submission. Given that the word “Islam” after all means “submission,” this is not unexpected or unsurprising.
After listing some of these examples, including the case of the two Australian pastors in Victoria, he says this: “The expense of defending frivolous hate speech allegations, the time consumed in dealing with them, and the anxiety that comes from being enmeshed in a legal process straight out of Kafka all have an effect on the climate of openness, stifling robust discussion and fomenting intolerance under the surface. Since Ayatollah Khomeini placed a death sentence on Salman Rushdie twenty years ago last month, many in the West have grown used to practicing self-censorship when it comes to Islam, just as we seem to accept that ex-Muslims who criticize Islam and extremism, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, require round the clock police protection.”
The battle is on other fronts as well.
Consider the family. He notes how anti-discrimination legislation “has been used very effectively to redefine marriage and to make a range of relationships acceptable as the foundation for various new forms of the family. Anti-discrimination legislation in tandem with new reproductive technologies has made it possible for children to have three, four or five parents, relegating the idea of a child being brought up by his natural mother and father to nothing more than a majority adult preference. The rights of children to be created in love and to be known and raised by their biological parents receives scant consideration when the legislative agenda is directed to satisfying adult needs and ambitions.”
He notes that in the past churches and religious bodies were often exempt from such legislation, but increasingly this is no longer the case. He offers numerous examples of how the state is coercing religious groups and individuals into betraying their own conscience and being forced to go against deeply-held beliefs and values. It is part of a bigger push to dethrone God and divinise man:
“The use of anti-discrimination law and human rights claims to advance the autonomy project is not new in itself, but the withholding or retrenchment of exemptions for church agencies and conscience provisions for individuals is a newer and dangerous trend. A number of factors are at play here, but the broad effect is to enforce conformity. It seems that just as the faith and convictions of individual believers have to be privatisd and excluded from public life, the services that church agencies provide to society have to be secularised.
The service the church gives has always been a source of its growth and strength, and church agencies working in the areas of welfare, family, education, health and aged care bear witness to the values that Christian leaders put forward in public debate. Part of the logic in attacking the freedom of the church to serve others is to undermine the witness these services give to powerful Christian convictions. The goal is to neutralize this witness to the reality of Christian revelation. There is no need to drive the church out of services if the secularization of its agencies can achieve this end.”
He concludes with these words: “Resolving these questions requires us to expand the boundaries of what is thought possible, especially by bringing into focus the experiences and ideas which are not acknowledged or legitimized by the secularist worldview. Put simply, Christians have to recover their genius for showing that there are better ways to live and to build a good society; ways which respect freedom, empower individuals, and transform communities.
They also have to recover their self-confidence and courage. The secular and religious intolerance of our day needs to be confronted regularly and publicly. Believers need to call the bluff of what is, even in most parts of Europe, a small minority with disproportionate influence in the media. This is one of the crucial tasks for Christians in the twenty-first century.”
George Pell is in many ways a modern-day prophet.
He courageously takes on the many challenges to what is important, what is right, and what is true. He knows that faith, family and life are all under major attack, and he is unafraid to stand up for them, politically incorrect as this may be.
He of course has many critics, even within his own church. But that is always the case with prophets. They are the ones most people refuse to tolerate. But prophets are desperately needed in these dark days. May there be many more George Pell’s raised up to counter the gathering gloom.
March 18th, 2009;  http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/03/18/pell-%E2%80%98i%E2%80%99m-a-victim-of-intolerance%E2%80%99/5001@ 11:53 am
– Gary Burns said,
I met George Pell once in Queen Street at Woollahra, of all places.  It was one of the most momentous moments in my life thus far.  I pulled him up on the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality.  I said, ”why are you and the Catholic Church ostracising homosexuals”?  He finger suddenly pointed to the sky as he said “it’s not me, it’s God”. I responded quickly and said,” does God tell your priests to molest alter boys”?  All of a sudden George Pell was gone like a puff of smoke from a Bette Davis chain smoker puffing away. All I could see was his black smock blowing in the breeze as he scurried out of view.
-Oliver said, March 19th, 2009
 Gary Burns, I would have loved to have been there when you confronted George Pell. It was a typical response of him pointing to the sky. That’s how Catholics justify hatred.
– Peter said,  March 20th, 2009
 Pell is the archetype religious bigot of our age – an iconic example of the dying Catholic church out-of-touch with modern thinking.
– James said,  March 20th, 2009
 Peter – here’s a sobering thought for you; Muslims make up 19.2% of World population and Catholics 17.4%. I don’t think either of these religions are dying out.
– Cactus said,  March 21st, 2009
Hells Pells, Oxford University is lowering its standards.
 In the 80s, as our demonstrations for gay rights took us past the Gothic pile in College Street, we chanted ‘dykes and fairies hate Saint Mary’s’. Somethings change, some things stay the same.
– luke Bracken said,  March 22nd, 2009
 I have denounced my Catholicism because of scum like pope Benedict and George Pell. And I sleep soundly at night Knowing they will one day join Pope John Paul in hell.
– Darryl said, March 22nd, 2009
 I suspect the good archbishop is having a small crisis of faith to resort to this very old ploy of blaming his victims. His freedom to practice his own religion is unsullied, unlike his utterances. On the other hand, if by persecution he means that he can no longer as effectively dictate what is the right thing for others, then I am a whole hearted supporter of his persecution.
 If by persecution he means that Australians, including those that do not agree with him or his church, should have no right to work for a free and just society for all, as they see it, then he deserves to be rebuffed and rebuked.
 If by persecution he thinks it intolerable that the church should have no special consideration for its point of view over and above ordinary Australians, then he has become self seeking and has lost sight of whatever vocation he may have once had.

L. Rawlings, OP,  Homily: 6th Easter, Year C
As always I love to compare this text with our current situation.
Bureaucratic empires always suspect anything that sniffs of independent thinking. The early part of Acts displays the suspicions of, and the resultant actions taken by, the early Christians.
It is rather amazing that so-called “1st Council” of the church found so little to worry them. Or, perhaps, were the majority Jewish Christians really not worried about the way that non-Jewish Christians behaved?
Actually apart from fornication one would tend to think that today the only other grievous sin is worshipping idols. Those two aspects should still raise issues in Rome and elsewhere. Money, for instance, is a huge idol…but, as we know, so is pedophilia and celibacy failure, and a false sense of importance.
Meanwhile the strange thing is that we are going to spend mountains of money buying new prayer-books.
Shades of Peter and the Jewish Christians. The added issue is never understood by Romanists. Neither Latin nor Italian are sacred (divine) languages. But somehow they are considered bench-marks for faith.
And I always giggle. The creed will begin ( I understand) with “I believe” – despite the fact that the original language was Greek and begins with “we believe”.
It is sad that so much time, and money, is spent on language when if fact the call of the people is to an understanding of their own personal needs and a clergy that knows how to encourage and respond to their own and the peoples baptismal obligations.
We forget that all Catholics when baptised are sealed with the words that they are to “hear God’s word and go out and speak it”.
To do that they hardly need a language that uses idioms and words which no longer carry pre-conceived weight.
At times so much time, moneyand effort is wasted keeping bureaucrats and priests happy.