Archbishop apologises for steamy video filmed in Spanish cathedral

[GiftOfGod]

Blacks still say "fag" and "nohomo" in their rap music, but white people lose their jobs if they don't put their pronouns in their Instagram bios.

For every righteous use of the word "fag", there's 10 praises of fornication, drugs, and violence. I wouldn't call that "conservative".

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Blacks still say "fag" and "nohomo" in their rap music, but white people lose their jobs if they don't put their pronouns in their Instagram bios.

For every righteous use of the word "fag", there's 10 praises of fornication, drugs, and violence. I wouldn't call that "conservative".

Fornication, intoxication, and violence (presumably against someone who wronged them, not an innocent) are all lesser sins than the queer stuff.  Gotta start somewhere.

[GiftOfGod]

violence (presumably against someone who wronged them, not an innocent)

Police who arrest them from selling drugs, perhaps.

[Gardener]

Canonical status is not a determiner of being in communion. In fact, that one has any canonical status, regular or irregular, is an indicator of being Catholic and in communion.

The FSSP scare tactic mindset wants to have its cake and eat it too, but realistically and factually if one accepts Francis as the true pope, then they must accept that he has extended faculties to the SSPX. That's impossible if they are canonically irregular (feel free to correct me), or at least by the act removes irregular status.

If he isn't Pope, then the territory in which we live is so confusing that it must be acknowledged the Church supplies where there is a defect in legal status.

Again, it has been shown over and over by competent authorities that the SSPX is not in schism. Now you move the goalposts to juridical status. If that is shown to be of no concern, where will you move the goalposts... to obedience to a pastor who himself has an axe to grind? To maintaining "full communion" with a Bishop that is impious and hates you and all you hold dear?

If it's so unthinkable to leave the Church, then don't. Simply embrace that which She has said countless times over the last 20+ years: the SSPX is Catholic and you may be sustained in the Sacraments through their efforts without fear.

I don't think it's impossible to have certain faculties AND be canonically irregular, but I could be wrong: I'm no canon lawyer. For example, the SSPX have been given faculties for confessions and marriages, but what about the other sacraments? Additionally, the SSPX can go ahead and say that they're part of the Catholic Church, but does the pope recognize them as such? Does the local bishop? As far as I can tell, that has been and continues to be the benchmark that the universal Church upholds.

As well, where has it been shown that the SSPX is not in schism? I haven't seen anything definitive from the Catholic Church saying, "Yep, these are ours." I have seen Pope Benedict XVI saying that they do not possess canonical status and "do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church" (2009). Is there something you could direct me to that's more recent and more definitive than that?

Christina, apologies for the late reply.

Anyway... Fr. Z has an article on the SSPX which answers some of your concerns (https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/). I will quote from it where pertinent, though reading the whole thing is probably a good idea. I hope it helps, as he raises indisputable points that aren't often talked about.


The SSPX does have a sort of Canonical status, though perhaps not in the way which is often touted as lacking:

The SSPX (technically Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Santi Pii X) is a priestly Fraternity or Society of priests.  The SSPX does not have formal canonical status other than they are exercising a canonical right to associate with each other.  Their "association of the faithful" does not now have canonical recognition.  Hopefully one day they will be set up and recognized formally as a, say, Personal Prelature or some variant.  However, can. 299 §1 says that by private agreement among themselves, the faithful have the right to constitute associations for the purposes mentioned in can. 298 §1, which are, for example, when clerics or laity want to strive with common effort to foster a more perfect life, promote public worship, etc.   The SSPX is an association of the faithful.  No question.

Could it have higher status?  Sure.  It doesn't have no status.

Faculties (this is very interesting, so pay attention!):

On 8 December 2015, Francis told the Catholic faithful that for the Holy Year of Mercy they could go to priests of the SSPX for the Sacrament of Penance and that they could be validly absolved.  That provision was extended beyond the "Year of Mercy" in the 2016 Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera.  It stands today.  This is a little odd, because it was not really a formal grant of faculties in the usual and expected way to the priests of the SSPX, as when a bishop grants faculties to a priest to receive sacramental confessions.  Those faculties are demonstrable with a document saying that Fr. Soandso has the faculty, etc.  In this case there is no document that I'm aware of that explicitly grants faculties to the priests of the SSPX to hear confessions and to absolve.  However, Popes can do what they want in this regard.  It's better when they do things in a way that make things clear, with all the i's dotted.  In this case, Francis said that people can be absolved by SSPX priests and that, as they say, is that.  Popes can do that sort of thing, whereas other entities such as dicasteries of the Holy See (e.g., the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" (PCED) of old and now CDF, and diocesan bishops) have to use another procedure.    So, SSPX priests can validly absolve sins even when there is no danger of death.   You can go to confession to them not just because there are no other priests around.  You can go to them because you want to.  No question.

On 27 March 2017 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which had absorbed my old office, the PCED) informed all the bishops of the world that they could give faculties to SSPX priests to witness marriages.   As in the case of hearing confessions, marriages require that a priest have the appropriate faculty.    There had been considerable debate about the validity of SSPX witnessed marriages.  What Francis did removed doubt.  The priests can now have the faculty themselves and they can work with a local diocesan priest.  Since then, I think most, not all, diocesan bishops have worked with local SSPX priests in this regard and simply given the SSPX priests the faculty.

Something important to note about this is that that letter of the CDF did NOT say that, "Up until now, the marriages witnessed by the SSPX priests were invalid."  The Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera did NOT say that, "Until now, the absolutions given by priests of the SSPX were invalid."  That's food for thought.  That moves the goal posts significantly.  We can't just think of the SSPX priests and confession and marriages in the same way that we did before those grants.

Furthermore – AND PAY ATTENTION because this is really important – suspended priests cannot receive faculties.  If the SSPX priests can receive faculties, and they have, all over the place, then they are not suspended!

This brings up some questions...

1) Did Francis licitly and validly give them faculties? If so, it would seem that by doing so, he ipso facto lifted their suspensions.

2) If they are not suspended, then every single excuse about them either a) was never true or b) is no longer true. Either way, you're good to go to them, despite the stuck-in-1988 attitude of many FSSP priests. Is it A or B? I dunno and I don't care. I just know that we have no issues of conscience in this regard moving forward.

Obligation being met:

The Masses celebrated by SSPX priests are celebrated in a Catholic rite.  No question.   As I have written a zillion times on this blog about fulfilling Sunday and Holy Day obligations, in can. 1248 §1 we read that a person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.    Again, the SSPX priests use a Catholic rite, the Missale Romanum and other liturgical books of the Latin Church.    So, yes, you can choose to go to a Mass of the SSPX, not just because there is no other Mass, but because you want to.  No question.

As to the question: "Is it sinful to go to an SSPX Mass?"  Answer: It depends on why you are going there.

Frankly, yes, it would be sinful to go to their Masses out of sheer desire to hurt local parishes or priests or because you hate the local bishop, or Pope, or some aspect of the Church, blah blah blah.  Frankly, yes, it would be sinful to attend a parish where there are liturgical abuses that you happen to know are abuses but you like those abuses and you don't care about authority.   Frankly, no, it is not sinful to attend an SSPX Mass if you are seeking sound liturgy and preaching and other good people who desire the same.  No question.

As a matter of fact, you can contribute money to their collections: it is a matter of justice.  If you receive services from them, you can contribute.

Not in communion/full communion:

Sometimes I hear the claim that the SSPX is "not in communion" with the Catholic Church.  I have heard that they are "not Catholic".  These claims are absurd on the face of it.  No reasonable and even half-informed mind can conclude that they are not "Catholic".   They are clearly not Protestant, who are heretics.  They are clearly not Orthodox, who are schismatics.   And I am not sure that there is such as thing as "imperfect communion".  What would that be, exactly?   You are either in communion or you aren't.  In the past, sometimes we have seen statements, for example in the decree issued by the Congregation for Bishops in 2009 which lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, that such a gesture aimed at "full communion" and as well as "proof of visible unity".  It doesn't say that there wasn't/isn't communion or unity.  It aims at making both more apparent, which is not the same as bringing either one about.

Moreover, the three bishop members of the SSPX – excluding the fourth, a separate case –  are NOT excommunicated.  Benedict XVI lifted that excommunication incurred in 1988 – probably with retroactive effect – in 2009.  And the priests are not excommunicated.

Schism? Cut that out!

Also, it is claimed that the SSPX has been in schism since 1988 because the illicit consecration of bishops by Archbp. Lefevbre was a "schismatic act" (cf. Ecclesia Dei adflicta 3).  However, it takes more than "an act" to create a real schism.

It was obviously, manifestly, NOT Archbp. Lefevbre's intention to set up a separate or rival Church, or to make himself or someone else an anti-Pope, or to create other aspects of a true schism.  The SSPX priests quite openly have used the names of the Popes in the Roman Canon during Mass.  They have recourse to diocesan tribunals in marriage and other matters.  They follow the decrees of the Sacra Penitentieria Apostolica in the matter of indulgences.  They accept faculties for marriages etc. from local bishops.  Recently, they communicated to their followers the dispensations and provisions given by local bishops in this time of Coronavirus lockdown.  These are not the acts of schismatics.

The SSPX has common and shared faith, sacrament and governance.  Protestants have some shared faith, a couple sacraments, and no governance.  Orthodox have shared faith and sacraments but not shared governance.  The SSPX has all three, as it clear by the fact that Francis acted in their regard about the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony in way that would be impossible with, say, heretics or schismatics.  They are not "separated brethren".  No question.

Recap:

So, the SSPX is in a strange state, but not really the state that some (most?) think they are in.  Their chapels are not parishes; a parish is a formal canonical structure.  They don't have a clear ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as dioceses or a personal prelature or religious order does.  Their priests are not incardinated anywhere, which make them odd ducks in a way, but not less priests than priests who are incardinated in a diocese or in a religious group.   They can and do receive faculties from legitimate authority and, hence, they are not suspended.

the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):

Meanwhile, quite a few people would do well to stick a sock in it when it comes to the SSPX.  Carping at them, or parroting inaccuracies, does no one any good and it confuses people.  This is a really complicated situation that is not helpfully characterized by glib cliches or reduced to simplistic conclusions.  Having a gentler attitude, even in regard to their lawful status, as suggested by the Latin dictum I quoted above, seems to me to be the better and the more Catholic approach.  We might apply a little mercy.

Speaking of mercy, during the Year of Mercy convoked by Francis – which the SSPX observed! – the leadership, 250 priests and 5500 followers of the SSPX had their pilgrimage to St. Peter's Basilica, where they were welcomed.  Then-Superior Bp. Fellay gave a sermon and they prayed for Francis.

I have on my wall a reproduction of a painting in London's National Gallery by Salvatore Rosa called "The Philosopher", possibly a self-portrait.  The stern, somberly garbed figure holds a sign with the words: AUT TACE AUT LOQUERE MELIORA SILENTIO.

"Either shut up or say something better than silence would be."

[trentcath]

Generally, the Spanish Hierarchy is resolutely composed of Modernists, so this story just fits the picture I guess.

WARNING
(Some may feel it is inappropriate to view the video recording mentioned in the report, which is presented here for evidential purposes only)

"Archbishop apologises for steamy video filmed in Spanish cathedral
Video shows rapper C Tangana and singer Nathy Peluso grind against each other inside Toledo Cathedral

The archbishop of Toledo has apologised to offended Roman Catholics after one of Spain's most famous cathedrals was used as a location for a raunchy video that shows a couple grinding against each other in its hallowed precincts.

The video for Ateo (Atheist) features the Spanish rapper C Tangana and the Argentinian singer Nathy Peluso dancing steamily in Toledo's 13th-century cathedral, much to the fascination of onlookers, among them a priest.

Elsewhere in the video, a naked but partially pixelated Peluso holds aloft C Tangana's severed head, and he yanks her hair. The pulling of Peluso's hair is an echo of one of the paintings inside the cathedral, which shows a demon pulling a woman's hair to stop her reaching salvation. The painting is also used as the song's artwork.

Within hours of the video dropping on Friday morning, the cathedral authorities were being asked to explain exactly how a racy video for a song with a less than religious title had come to be filmed in the splendid gothic cathedral.

In a statement issued late on Friday afternoon, the archdiocese of Toledo said the archbishop "deeply regretted what had happened" and had known nothing whatsoever about the project, its contents, or the final result.



"We humbly and sincerely ask for the forgiveness of all the faithful, whether lay people or priests, who have rightly felt wounded by this inappropriate use of a sacred place," said the statement. The archdiocese, it added, would be revising its procedures to "ensure that nothing similar happens again".

The statement came after the cathedral's dean had acknowledged the reaction the video had prompted, but insisted both it and the song presented "the story of a conversion through human love".

Juan Miguel Ferrer Grenesche cited the song's chorus, which runs: "I was an atheist, but now I believe, because a miracle like you has to have come down from heaven."

The dean admitted the video used "a provocative visual language", but said it did not insult anyone's faith and could even help bring back those who had drifted away from the church. "We're sorry that some people may have been upset. We ask forgiveness for hurting their feelings. The aim was only ever to support a dialogue with contemporary culture while always respecting the faith of the church."

The dean also said that the final scenes of the video, in which the singers pose for photographs with an altar boy, showed the church's "welcoming and understanding" attitude.

In August, C Tangana was accused of sexism after posting a picture of himself surrounded by women in bikinis to promote his song Yate (Yacht). He responded by posting the same picture, but superimposing his own head on those of the women. The rapper replaced his own head with that of the singer Zahara, who was recently criticised by the far-right Vox party for dressing as the Virgin Mary in posters for a concert in Toledo."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/08/archbishop-apologises-for-steamy-video-filmed-in-spanish-cathedral

The only thing that is surprising about this whole story is the apology, Spanish bishops and catholics are generally pretty shameless.

[Prayerful]

It's likely that some homo involved in producing that squalid video knows plenty of those priests who would have not reason not to annoy a friend like that.

[trentcath]

It's likely that some homo involved in producing that squalid video knows plenty of those priests who would have not reason not to annoy a friend like that.

Sad, but (probably) true. I don't know had bad the situation is in Spain as compared to the US or elsewhere to be honest.

[lauermar]

I agree with MaximGun.

The only channel that was carrying the election fraud hearings after the 2020 election was OANN on KlowdTV by subscription. I had a subscription for a year. I was at home laid off by Covid at the time, and looking for work online. I had the channel on all day. Testimony was coming from people of all races, young and old, all walks of life. Many minorities and recent immigrants. Some were left, some right. All reported seeing the chain of custody broken. Machine counts altered, ballots copied, delivered, faked, spoiled. Ballots delivered to single family residences in duplicate and triplicate. Ballots with preprinted votes for Biden delivered in a box from a Chinese manufacturer. Ballots pulled out from under a skirted table after midnight, then overcounted on video. Superfluous ballots that massively surpassed the number of eligible voters in the state. Ghost voting. Then came the massive denial, "nothing to see here," and the spineless SCOTUS refusing to hear anything. Not so different from the scandals in the Catholic church.

Fraud is fraud, regardless of which side wins, and it's always wrong. To say the election wasn't a mess is to deny the truth. This is nothing new. I remember democrats calling out election fraud in the 1990s and again in 2016, and the accusations were exactly the same as with 2020. Nobody questioned them.

Most people never watched the hearings, so they deny there was anything wrong with the election.

[Christina_S]

the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):

Meanwhile, quite a few people would do well to stick a sock in it when it comes to the SSPX.  Carping at them, or parroting inaccuracies, does no one any good and it confuses people.  This is a really complicated situation that is not helpfully characterized by glib cliches or reduced to simplistic conclusions.  Having a gentler attitude, even in regard to their lawful status, as suggested by the Latin dictum I quoted above, seems to me to be the better and the more Catholic approach.  We might apply a little mercy.

Speaking of mercy, during the Year of Mercy convoked by Francis – which the SSPX observed! – the leadership, 250 priests and 5500 followers of the SSPX had their pilgrimage to St. Peter's Basilica, where they were welcomed.  Then-Superior Bp. Fellay gave a sermon and they prayed for Francis.

I have on my wall a reproduction of a painting in London's National Gallery by Salvatore Rosa called "The Philosopher", possibly a self-portrait.  The stern, somberly garbed figure holds a sign with the words: AUT TACE AUT LOQUERE MELIORA SILENTIO.

"Either shut up or say something better than silence would be."

Thank you for the article by Fr. Z! I used to read his blog quite regularly, but I haven't been for the past few years. It would probably do me good to return to it  You've pointed out some very important considerations, and we will have to do some thinking on this.

I guess the point we are tripping over is based on our limited perspectives. My husband and I are under 30, and our perspective on the trainwreck after VII is entirely retrospective. We didn't live through the development of the SSPX or the roll-out of a new Mass/Code of Canon Law/Catechism/etc. The way the SSPX had been explained to us made it seem like a group that made a clear break from the Church and went off to do their own thing. But the more we learn, the more we think that maybe they never really left: they stood in the background, taking flack from prelates while trying to pass on the fire of tradition. Their position post-excommunication got more murky and the current pontiff is not helping to make things clearer (why hand out faculties in 2016 but yank their chain with a motu proprio in 2021?).
Our primary aim is communion with the Body of Christ on earth, which is the Catholic Church, but we are confused about this situation and are effectively shepherdless when it comes to finding authoritative answers. Looking for them on our own is a challenge, but I am deeply grateful for this information that you have provided.

[Gardener]

My wife struggled with the same things, but ultimately realized the reality of the SSPX's position. She now defends them in mom-at-the-park conversations and I provide her ample talking points.

The motu proprio was aimed at FSSP, et al., not the SSPX.

I don't want to keep on and on, as I feel it could just muddy the waters due to my insufficient phrasing.

I think I have provided enough at this point to chew on. Whether or not you swallow or spit is on you.