Worship Director named for Archdiocese of Portland

Jesson Mata The Archdiocese of Portland has a new director for the Office of Divine Worship. Jesson Mata, former director of liturgy and music at Blessed Sacrament Parish in Seattle, has accepted the position. “Divine worship is at the heart of everything we do as the People of God in western Oregon,” says Archbishop Alexander Sample. The archbishop calls Mata “an exceptional candidate” with the background, knowledge, talent and excellent communication skills needed to be successful. “His thorough knowledge of and passion for the sacred liturgy will be a tremendous support to me and our pastors and parishes,” the archbishop says, asking that people keep the office in their prayers. Mata will start work at the pastoral center on July 7.  A native of the Philippines, Mata was raised in a Catholic household and came to the United States with his family at age 9. He quickly learned English and became fascinated with American culture and politics. He studied political science and philosophy at Seattle University and later continued his studies in philosophy and theology at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Mata directed liturgy and music for 10 years at Blessed Sacrament, where he developed liturgical and musical programs aimed at centralizing the focus of worship on the Eucharist. He worked with hundreds of volunteers and taught and trained liturgical and music ministers. As a former seminarian with the Dominican Order, Mata developed a love for prayer and a devotion to the Eucharist. He focused study and prayer on the liturgy, particularly on the development of the celebration of the Mass as well as the Divine Office. He gives talks on the topics. Mata’s devotion to the Eucharist originated from his work with Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India, where he volunteered alongside the Sisters to attend to the poor, dying, and orphaned. He prayed the Mass with the sisters each morning and ended the day with adoration. He also spent many hours praying at Mother Teresa’s tomb. Mata says he is most excited to share his faith and pray with the people of the Archdiocese of Portland. He is looking forward to meeting clergy and the lay faithful and hopes to deepen their love of the sacred liturgy. Mata says he plans to hike and enjoy the beauty of the outdoors. He is an avid gardener, a health and fitness enthusiast, and a photographer.

"Just who do we think we are?" How the Supreme Court’s conservatives explained their votes against "gay marriage".

 From Quartz.com an interesting article on why these Supreme Court Justices voted against this decision.  Their decisions on maintaining the status quo for the common good is excellent reading.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage throughout the US split along familiar lines, with the nine-member court’s four most conservative justices voting against a nationwide right to homosexual unions.

Chief justice John Roberts joined justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito in opposing the majority’s opinion on the case brought by Ohio resident James Obergefell, whose 2013 marriage to his now-deceased partner was not recognized by the state.

Here are excerpts from the four dissenting opinions (pdf) the naysaying justices filed.  From page 41 of this pdf you will find the complete arguments against this decision.

Go to page 41 of the pdf attachment for the whole text.  There's so much good reading.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Justice Antonin Scalia

It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.

Justice Clarence Thomas

The majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

Justice Samuel Alito

The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning. To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” … And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

USCCB on SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges – “tragic error”

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court decision, June 26, interpreting the U.S. Constitution to require all states to license and recognize same-sex “marriage” “is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us,” said Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The full statement follows:

"Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today.

Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote.

Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.
I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth."

Archbishop Alexander Sample marks 25 years as a priest

6/23/2015 3:22:00 PM Rick Keating/El Centinela Archbishop Alexander Sample accepts a gift from Fátima Rodas at the St. Juan Diego Congress in Turner. Ed Langlois Of the Catholic Sentinel Archbishop Alexander Sample says his 25th anniversary of ordination is no more important than anyone else’s. “I could not be more grateful to Almighty God for the tremendous blessing he has bestowed on me during these past 25 years,” Archbishop Sample says. “One of the greatest blessings has been the many people he has placed in my life and allowed me to serve.” He was raised in Nevada, the youngest of three. A teacher-priest told the 17-year-old he had a vocation to priesthood. But first, young Alex studied metallurgical engineering at Michigan Tech. Then, before pursuing a post-doctorate degree, he stunned professors by announcing plans for seminary. He studied at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn. and the Pontifical College Josephinum Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. After ordination for the Diocese of Marquette, he served as associate pastor of St. Peter Cathedral and then was pastor of area parishes. He studied canon law at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. During his seven-year tenure as bishop of Marquette, 2006-2013, he wrote four pastoral letters, undertook a $10 million capital campaign, set in place a unified catechesis, and developed plans to secure Catholic schools. He was named Archbishop of Portland in 2013. Here, he has identified pastoral priorities, visited parishes, prisons and migrant camps, spoken out against abortion and the death penalty and catechized on marriage. In homilies to new priests and deacons, Archbishop Sample says ministry is about Jesus, not gaining recognition. “I feel a great and awesome holiness about him,” says Angie Doyen, secretary at St. Anthony Parish in Gwinn, Mich. “He has been a courageous priest who clearly desires to reach and inspire his flock through his powerful words and prayerful, humble actions.” Denise Foye, director of faith formation for the Diocese of Marquette, calls him “truly a remarkable teacher of our beloved faith.” Her abiding memory is of the future archbishop teaching people who wanted to become Catholic. “He is quite simply a fine pastor, full of compassion while upholding truth,” say Francis and Theresa Darr, who belong to St. Peter Cathedral Parish in Marquette. “He is the kind of priest who boldly and unreservedly speaks the truth at all times, but always tempered with love,” say Todd and Susan Rapavi, members of St. Peter Cathedral. Archbishop Sample cites a retreat director who told western Oregon clergy that priesthood is a mission worthy of their existence. “This is a great life!” Archbishop Sample says. “I hope many young men will respond to the Lord’s call to serve him as a priest.”

Guest Post on Oregon Tax Court Documents regarding Archdiocese of Portland Rectory Taxation

Parishioners must be aware of this action by the Oregon Tax Court regarding rectories and make up their own minds.  Below is one Oregon Catholics viewpoint.

Please click on the link below the guest post for all court information. 

Guest post is referring to information contained in this VOCAL post. 
(Oregon Tax Court Approves Taxation Of Church Rectory - Forbes Magazine)

============

I read the decision after I read the article. The Archdiocese wasted their time. They tried to argue the case with Canon Law. Stupid (What's new?). However, the Court seemed to have decided the case on the issue of a rectory being used for "solely" religious activities. Whether the rectory was on or next door to the parish property or a mile away would not change the use of the Rectory. The priest will still be doing exactly the same things there regardless of location. Again, I am with your reader's questioning of the general idea of these "off-campus" rectories or their appointments. But I think there are larger issues at play here. 

We know there is a long standing antipathy towards Catholics and Catholicism in Oregon. This general anti-religious push is growing in our country driven by pro-abortion and homosexual lobbies which are now very powerful and influential. The "sole use" argument that the Court accepted is going to be used as a hammer in which to further tax church income/properties.

For example, an off property building owned by a parish is rented for non-religious purposes. That income goes to the parish tax free now and is probably used to sustain parish activities. I can see a Tax Court ruling that income from non-religious events is taxable (in other words it will be ruled a for-profit business). Next will come a case on whether on-site uses of church property for ostensively "non-religious" uses (a Lions Club event) will be considered taxable. Events such as those are secular activities. And on and on ending with the only things that can be done on church owned property will be sacramental activities (Baptism, Mass, Confession, Confirmation, and funerals), counseling and teaching.

Basically doing what Mexico did to the Church in the early 20th century. We are seeing it already where government is using grants to force religious entities to deny or restrain their beliefs or missions in order to get or retain government grants. Then again I'm not sure that losing government grants is a bad thing. Look at what has happened to Catholic Charities. So I do appreciate the comments. To be honest the wounds are often self inflicted or invited. This may be one of them. But it will not stop here. There is an agenda at play. 

One other thing and I know you'll agree. Where was the fancy pro-abortion lobbyist that the Archdiocese employs? Just what does he do for that $40,000-50,000 a year? With the Legislature in session, why no push for pre-emptive statutory relief? Where were those "allies" of our Chancellery crowd, AKA Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon?

 Also why were the people who would pay these taxes (those of us in the pews) not alerted to this? (Move on folks, nothing to see here. Just keep those envelopes coming). I called the Catholic Sentinel and asked Langlois about it. He did not even know of it. and I genuinely believe he was telling the truth. 

No one that I spoke with in Financial Services at the Chancellery knew. Its almost Keystone Cops down there. Our church authorities are completely clueless in the use of political action (rallies, protests, etc.) to protect Catholics from governmental encroachment. I could go on but I'll end it here. Again appreciate your reader's comments.

Jim Welsh

click on link for court document.
Oregon Tax Court Docs regarding Archdpdx Rectory Taxation