I understand Pope Francis' effort to make the Church more "user-friendly", but I'm not a big fan of how he's going about it.
Pope Francis seems to couch his language in the typical political jargon of the progressives, both within and without the Church. Thus, when he makes off-the-cuff comments about homosexuality, women's ordination, the liturgy, etc., it's couched in a nuanced manner that makes progressives rejoice and traditionalists cringe.
The bad thing is, his comments leave a lot to be explained in a more thorough manner. This unwinding of his thoughts usually gets done by the progressive media, furthered along by those progressive priests, nuns, and laymen in the Church who have made it a goal to take down the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church a brick at a time.
For example, when the Holy Father says that "we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.", and that "it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.", the public response is amazing. Those on the left interpret it to mean that abortion, gay marriage, and the use of artificial contraception is okay. Those on the right are left trying to explain away what the pope was really trying to say, within the greater context of traditional Church thought.
Is this good for the Church? I have my doubts. It seems to make past efforts at promoting authentic Church teaching on such hot-button topics futile. It raised even more doubt, and it gives those on the left political cover to continue in their obstinate sin.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Denial isn't just a river.
The following snippet from a TIME article has me a little upset:
Father Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia found out last week that Pope Francis had excommunicated him, and he was shocked. [There have been on-going talks between former priest Reynolds and the Holy See for over a year. Reynolds refused to uphold core Christian beliefs, and participated in the desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Why he was "shocked" is beyond me] Granted, Reynolds holds less than traditional views in the Catholic Church ["less than traditional"? Osama bin Laden held "less than traditional" views of the Catholic Church...] —he supports women’s ordination and gay marriage—but Pope Francis has more than hinted lately that the Church needs to adopt a new tone towards those social issues. “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done,” Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter, a widely read source for Catholic news.
Excommunication is a severe penalty in the Catholic Church. Today it is the church’s harshest punishment, and it means an individual can no longer participate in the sacraments or worship ceremonies, much less ever officiate a mass again. Reynolds’ letter of excommunication itself contained no official explanation for his excommunication. It accused Reynolds of heresy and claimed he had violated the sacrament of the Eucharist. [Maybe he was excommunicated because at one of Reynolds’ ‘Inclusive Catholics’ Masses, he allowed an attendee to give a Host to his dog. Or maybe it was because he supports so-called "gay marriage" and women's "ordination", both of which are heretical. One wonders why he would want to stay within the confines of Holy Mother Church while espousing these views.]
Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter that he also believes he was excommunicated because of his support for the gay community. He has officiated mass weddings for gay couples, even though he claimed they were unofficial, and he justified his actions as a call for reform. “I still love the church and am committed to it,” he told the Standard newspaper, arguing he was trying “to help highlight some of the failing and limitations.”
Pope Francis has made waves lately for advocating for necessary reforms in the Catholic Church [some of which are long-overdue], especially when it comes to gays and women. While the Supreme Pontiff does have to sign off on excommunications, Francis may not be as directly responsible for Reynolds’ dismissal as it might initially appear [trying to give the Holy Father a way out with the left-wing progressives in the Church, I see...]. Excommunication processes tend to take a long time, even years, and Reynolds was likely already tagged for removal before Francis took office in March. His non-traditional views stem back years. He preached in support of women’s ordination in 2010, resigned as a priest in the Melbourne Archdiocese in 2011, and yet continued to practice as a priest without the authority and backing of the church. He then founded a group called “Inclusive Catholics” for people who also support women’s ordination and gay marriage [yet he was still "shocked"].
However, the announcement serves as a reminder that despite the recent excitement over Pope Francis’ reforming attitudes and calls for increased compassion for women and gays, he has not changed any actual Catholic doctrine, nor is he likely to do so [ can I get an "AMEN"!]. Women’s ordination and gay marriage are still closed doors [and will continue to be so] . The Pope, as they say, is still Catholic.
Pope Francis Excommunicates Priest Who Backed Women’s Ordination and Gays
Despite his reforming attitude, Francis still supports traditional doctrine
Father Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia found out last week that Pope Francis had excommunicated him, and he was shocked. [There have been on-going talks between former priest Reynolds and the Holy See for over a year. Reynolds refused to uphold core Christian beliefs, and participated in the desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Why he was "shocked" is beyond me] Granted, Reynolds holds less than traditional views in the Catholic Church ["less than traditional"? Osama bin Laden held "less than traditional" views of the Catholic Church...] —he supports women’s ordination and gay marriage—but Pope Francis has more than hinted lately that the Church needs to adopt a new tone towards those social issues. “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done,” Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter, a widely read source for Catholic news.
Excommunication is a severe penalty in the Catholic Church. Today it is the church’s harshest punishment, and it means an individual can no longer participate in the sacraments or worship ceremonies, much less ever officiate a mass again. Reynolds’ letter of excommunication itself contained no official explanation for his excommunication. It accused Reynolds of heresy and claimed he had violated the sacrament of the Eucharist. [Maybe he was excommunicated because at one of Reynolds’ ‘Inclusive Catholics’ Masses, he allowed an attendee to give a Host to his dog. Or maybe it was because he supports so-called "gay marriage" and women's "ordination", both of which are heretical. One wonders why he would want to stay within the confines of Holy Mother Church while espousing these views.]
Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter that he also believes he was excommunicated because of his support for the gay community. He has officiated mass weddings for gay couples, even though he claimed they were unofficial, and he justified his actions as a call for reform. “I still love the church and am committed to it,” he told the Standard newspaper, arguing he was trying “to help highlight some of the failing and limitations.”
Pope Francis has made waves lately for advocating for necessary reforms in the Catholic Church [some of which are long-overdue], especially when it comes to gays and women. While the Supreme Pontiff does have to sign off on excommunications, Francis may not be as directly responsible for Reynolds’ dismissal as it might initially appear [trying to give the Holy Father a way out with the left-wing progressives in the Church, I see...]. Excommunication processes tend to take a long time, even years, and Reynolds was likely already tagged for removal before Francis took office in March. His non-traditional views stem back years. He preached in support of women’s ordination in 2010, resigned as a priest in the Melbourne Archdiocese in 2011, and yet continued to practice as a priest without the authority and backing of the church. He then founded a group called “Inclusive Catholics” for people who also support women’s ordination and gay marriage [yet he was still "shocked"].
However, the announcement serves as a reminder that despite the recent excitement over Pope Francis’ reforming attitudes and calls for increased compassion for women and gays, he has not changed any actual Catholic doctrine, nor is he likely to do so [ can I get an "AMEN"!]. Women’s ordination and gay marriage are still closed doors [and will continue to be so] . The Pope, as they say, is still Catholic.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Same Old Same Old
While watching and reading the latest news on the upcoming papal conclave, I've noticed that the major American news outlets (AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC) all seem to go to the most progressive-minded "catholics" for their perspectives on the next Pope.
Most of them come from ultra-progressive rags such as the National Catholic Reporter, The Tablet, America magazine, Commonweal magazine, etc.
I would find it hard to believe that the same news outlets would look for opinions on the U.S. presidential election from the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Vladimir Putin.
These so-called "catholic" publications tend to employ numerous public dissenters, such as Richard McBrien, Thomas Reese, Joan Chittister, etc.
It seems that FoxNews is alone in it's object coverage, preferring to focus on the positive aspects of the papal election, and not descend into muckraking and partisan religious politics.
Most of them come from ultra-progressive rags such as the National Catholic Reporter, The Tablet, America magazine, Commonweal magazine, etc.
I would find it hard to believe that the same news outlets would look for opinions on the U.S. presidential election from the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Vladimir Putin.
These so-called "catholic" publications tend to employ numerous public dissenters, such as Richard McBrien, Thomas Reese, Joan Chittister, etc.
It seems that FoxNews is alone in it's object coverage, preferring to focus on the positive aspects of the papal election, and not descend into muckraking and partisan religious politics.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Personal Responsibility vs. Other People's Money
After watching two nights of the Democratic National Convention, and a week after the RNC in Tampa, I've come to this conclusion: it's all about Personal Responsibility vs. OPM (Other People's Money).
The Republicans will tell you that there's a finite amount of money available to fund the government, therefore, we must be fiscally frugal, and share in the overall responsibility, especially those who benefit most from government dollars (a hand-up).
The Democrats, on the other hand, will tell you that debt is not an issue. The DNC is willing to throw money at every problem, no matter what the consequences (a hand-out), in order to garner the most votes.
Republicans believe that those who benefit from taxpayer money the most, should pay their fair share in return.
Sadly, 47% of all Americans are on some sort of government assistance. They tend to vote for whoever is best for them (i.e., whoever promises to give them the most free stuff).
Difficult economic decisions in areas like MediCare, Social Security, Military, etc., can't keep getting kicked down the road. We will drown in our own debt if we don't stand up and address the problem of overspending.
The Republicans will tell you that there's a finite amount of money available to fund the government, therefore, we must be fiscally frugal, and share in the overall responsibility, especially those who benefit most from government dollars (a hand-up).
The Democrats, on the other hand, will tell you that debt is not an issue. The DNC is willing to throw money at every problem, no matter what the consequences (a hand-out), in order to garner the most votes.
Republicans believe that those who benefit from taxpayer money the most, should pay their fair share in return.
Sadly, 47% of all Americans are on some sort of government assistance. They tend to vote for whoever is best for them (i.e., whoever promises to give them the most free stuff).
Difficult economic decisions in areas like MediCare, Social Security, Military, etc., can't keep getting kicked down the road. We will drown in our own debt if we don't stand up and address the problem of overspending.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Back to the Future.
In a recent article in the NcR, John Allen describes the current situation of the LCWR, and what their future may hold. In one of the online comments, a writer describes the members of the LCWR as "the backbone of the Catholic denomination."
I would hardly call the nuns of the LCWR the "backbone of the Catholic denomination". That may have held true 50+ years ago, but that "backbone" is now pushing a median age of 80, and most of those wonderful Catholic schools that operated under the aegis of women religious are now closed, due (in part) to teaching sisters becoming extinct.
If these great communities of strong women would've stayed committed to their corporate apostolates, continued living in viable communities, placing the Mass and Divine Office at the center of their prayer lives, things may be different today.
Instead, the vast majority of women religious belonging to the LCWR have gone astray, deciding instead to focus on politically-charged, left-leaning agendas, and all but abandoning their original charism of educating Catholic youth.
They've abandoned traditional spirituality in exchange for New Age philosophies, including the enneagram and labyrinths. They have discarded their habits (a symbol of poverty and sign of their community to one another) for polyester pantsuits.
None of this was even remotely recommended by the Second Vatican Council. Maybe George and Sister Joan are right. The LCWR should disband as the canonically-recognized representative of women religious, and continue on their path of self-destruction.
As a vital part of Catholic America, the LCWR is dead. Long-live the CMSWR!
I would hardly call the nuns of the LCWR the "backbone of the Catholic denomination". That may have held true 50+ years ago, but that "backbone" is now pushing a median age of 80, and most of those wonderful Catholic schools that operated under the aegis of women religious are now closed, due (in part) to teaching sisters becoming extinct.
If these great communities of strong women would've stayed committed to their corporate apostolates, continued living in viable communities, placing the Mass and Divine Office at the center of their prayer lives, things may be different today.
Instead, the vast majority of women religious belonging to the LCWR have gone astray, deciding instead to focus on politically-charged, left-leaning agendas, and all but abandoning their original charism of educating Catholic youth.
They've abandoned traditional spirituality in exchange for New Age philosophies, including the enneagram and labyrinths. They have discarded their habits (a symbol of poverty and sign of their community to one another) for polyester pantsuits.
None of this was even remotely recommended by the Second Vatican Council. Maybe George and Sister Joan are right. The LCWR should disband as the canonically-recognized representative of women religious, and continue on their path of self-destruction.
As a vital part of Catholic America, the LCWR is dead. Long-live the CMSWR!
Thursday, May 10, 2012
5 Lies regarding the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment
Well, it's been one week since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its 8-page Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). Of course, the left is having it's usual spittle-flecked nutty over the whole thing.
Sadly, many of the typically level-headed reports are falling prey to some of the blather coming from the progressive wing of the Church. The top 5 errors (or lies, depending on your viewpoint) go something like this:
1. The evil bishops (men) are just trying to push around the nuns (women) and silence them.
It's not about men vs. women. The bishops are the true Magisterium of the Church. They teach the faith in an authoritative manner. This is doctrine. While other men (and women) can collaborate with the bishops, they have the final say.
2. It's all about the LCWR supporting "Obamacare", much to the chagrin of the US bishops.
The Doctrinal Assessment followed a Visitation of ALL women religious in the United States, not just the members of the LCWR. This Visitation was announced in 2008, while George W. Bush was still President. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if those involved in the Visitation to into account the recent comments by members of the LCWR over and against the US bishops, creating their own "Magisterium of Nuns", and diminishing the bishops' authentic role as shepherds of the Church.
3. The LCWR is too busy with it's "social justice" agenda to focus on the pro-life mission of the Church.
Not only have the sisters of the LCWR lost their focus regarding abortion, contraception, etc., they actively OPPOSE the bishops and Church doctrine. Nuns have even worked FOR abortion clinics! A member of the Sisters of Providence in Terre Haute, IN, even commented that she gives out condoms at the health care clinic she works at.
4. The Church is misogynistic in it's view of women and the priesthood.
The members of the LCWR still think that the issue of women's ordination is up for discussion. Blessed Pope John Paul II ended all discussion, when he stated that it is a difinitive teaching of the Church that only men can be ordained ot the priesthood.
5. The bishops are meddling in the sisters' spirituality.
Spirituality that is based on enneagrams, labyrinths, and other New Age beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a conference sponsored by the LCWR that doesn't involved at least one of these. Absent from their "spirituality" is any link to the official worship of the Church: The Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.
Also absent from these meetings are traditional spiritual prayers, such as the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy Chaplet, Ignatian Exercises, etc.
Sadly, many of the typically level-headed reports are falling prey to some of the blather coming from the progressive wing of the Church. The top 5 errors (or lies, depending on your viewpoint) go something like this:
1. The evil bishops (men) are just trying to push around the nuns (women) and silence them.
It's not about men vs. women. The bishops are the true Magisterium of the Church. They teach the faith in an authoritative manner. This is doctrine. While other men (and women) can collaborate with the bishops, they have the final say.
2. It's all about the LCWR supporting "Obamacare", much to the chagrin of the US bishops.
The Doctrinal Assessment followed a Visitation of ALL women religious in the United States, not just the members of the LCWR. This Visitation was announced in 2008, while George W. Bush was still President. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if those involved in the Visitation to into account the recent comments by members of the LCWR over and against the US bishops, creating their own "Magisterium of Nuns", and diminishing the bishops' authentic role as shepherds of the Church.
3. The LCWR is too busy with it's "social justice" agenda to focus on the pro-life mission of the Church.
Not only have the sisters of the LCWR lost their focus regarding abortion, contraception, etc., they actively OPPOSE the bishops and Church doctrine. Nuns have even worked FOR abortion clinics! A member of the Sisters of Providence in Terre Haute, IN, even commented that she gives out condoms at the health care clinic she works at.
4. The Church is misogynistic in it's view of women and the priesthood.
The members of the LCWR still think that the issue of women's ordination is up for discussion. Blessed Pope John Paul II ended all discussion, when he stated that it is a difinitive teaching of the Church that only men can be ordained ot the priesthood.
5. The bishops are meddling in the sisters' spirituality.
Spirituality that is based on enneagrams, labyrinths, and other New Age beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a conference sponsored by the LCWR that doesn't involved at least one of these. Absent from their "spirituality" is any link to the official worship of the Church: The Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.
Also absent from these meetings are traditional spiritual prayers, such as the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy Chaplet, Ignatian Exercises, etc.
Misplaced accusations of misogyny
During this whole kerfuffle regarding the recently-announced results of the doctrinal assessment conducted on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, we've heard numerous claims that this was a "misogynistic attack" on women. The loudest complainers then run off a list of all the good things that the women religious of the LCWR have done in the past.
Of course, this just deflects from the real issues of heresy and illicit/invalid liturgical celebrations that are part and parcel of many LCWR-sponsored events.
But was is routinely overlooked, is the fact that the Holy See ordered a visitation of all U.S. seminaries in 2005, similar to the visitation of the LCWR and CMSWR in 2009-2011. Lest we forget, the seminaries are ALL-MALE.
I don't remember hearing all the whining, screeching, etc. during the seminary visitation, or claims that the Holy See "hates men."
Of course, this just deflects from the real issues of heresy and illicit/invalid liturgical celebrations that are part and parcel of many LCWR-sponsored events.
But was is routinely overlooked, is the fact that the Holy See ordered a visitation of all U.S. seminaries in 2005, similar to the visitation of the LCWR and CMSWR in 2009-2011. Lest we forget, the seminaries are ALL-MALE.
I don't remember hearing all the whining, screeching, etc. during the seminary visitation, or claims that the Holy See "hates men."
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The beginning of the end?
Word has come out that the Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious has come to an end. The results of the assessment are devastating for the LCWR.
As posted by Rocco Palmo:
The eight-page summary written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is pretty straightforward. In part, it gives the LWCR cudos for "a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine".
Nonetheless, "it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States."
The LWCR is silent because it doesn't believe, for the most part, in any type of "right to life" as the Church defines it. Many sisters in the LWCR are vocal proponents of abortion and/or artificial birth control. Sister Barbara Battista, SP, is one of those sisters of dissent.
Hopefully, real change is in store. If not, we may see the wholesale collapse of the LCWR. Maybe their charter will be revoked, and the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) will be the sole representative for women religious in the United States.
The congregations that are part of the CMSWR are traditional, young....and growing. Compare photos of members of the CWSWR to those of the LCWR.
This is a photo of LCWR members from the Sisters of Providence:
Below, a photo of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist:
As posted by Rocco Palmo:
Citing "serious doctrinal problems" found over the course of a four-year study of the umbrella-group representing the majority of the US' communities of nuns, the Holy See has announced a thoroughgoing shake-up of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), naming Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle as its delegate to conduct an overhaul of the group.
Among other concerns raised in an eight-page summary of the doctrinal inquest released today, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cited addresses at LCWR conferences that, it said, manifested a "rejection of faith," protests of church teaching on homosexuality and the ordination of women by officers of the group, and a "prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith" in some of the conference's events.
"The current doctrinal and pastoral situation of the LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern," the dicastery said.
The eight-page summary written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is pretty straightforward. In part, it gives the LWCR cudos for "a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine".
Nonetheless, "it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States."
The LWCR is silent because it doesn't believe, for the most part, in any type of "right to life" as the Church defines it. Many sisters in the LWCR are vocal proponents of abortion and/or artificial birth control. Sister Barbara Battista, SP, is one of those sisters of dissent.
Hopefully, real change is in store. If not, we may see the wholesale collapse of the LCWR. Maybe their charter will be revoked, and the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) will be the sole representative for women religious in the United States.
The congregations that are part of the CMSWR are traditional, young....and growing. Compare photos of members of the CWSWR to those of the LCWR.
This is a photo of LCWR members from the Sisters of Providence:
 |
| Shown are the Sisters of Providence 2010 general officers, from left, Sister Dawn Tomaszewski, Sister Jeneen Howard, Sister Mary Beth Klingel, Sister Lisa Stallings and Sister Denise Wilkinson, who was re-elected general superior |
Below, a photo of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist:
 |
| The average age: 28. |
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The many faces of Sister Battista
In our last post, we discussed how the dissenting views of a local religious sister were brought to the public eye in a weekly Indianapolis Star political column by Dan Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter brings up an email conversation he had with Sister Barbara Battista, SP, regarding the views of artificial contraception by the U.S. bishops.
After doing some digging (which didn't take much work, actually), it was discovered that Sister Barbara is no newcomer to the protest scene.
Sister Barbara has been protesting at the School Of America's (SOA) at Ft. Benning, for years, and appears to be a proud suporter of SOA Watch, a human rights group founded by former Maryknoll priest, Roy Bourgeois.
Fr. Bourgeois is a proud (I would say infamous) dissenter in his own right. He was excommunicated in November, 2008, for participating in a mock ordination of women to the priesthood a moth earlier. He has refused to recant his support for women's ordination. According to Wiki, the Vatican is currently considering Fr. Bourgeois removal from the priesthood.
Photos of Sister Battista and Fr. Bourgeois at this protest rally can be viewed here. I cannot post them due to copyright issues.
Sister Battista's public Twitter account shows a recent (Jan. 19, 2012) post asking readers to click on a link to a NARAL site. "Get the shocking facts on the 2011 War on Women from NARAL's infographic.", she shouts with glee.
Once on that site, NARAL asks "If you think that it's wrong for politicians to interfere in women's personal, private, medical decisions, please share this infographic with your friends." It then urges the reader to "post it on your Facebook wall, Tweet it, and email it far and wide."
Like the good foot-soldier of death that she is, Sister Barbara heeds their call.
For those of you who don't know, NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly National Abortion Rights Action League) is is an organization in the U.S. that engages in political action to oppose restrictions on abortion, and expand access to abortion. NARAL uses numerous tactics to lobby for liberalized access to abortion.
After doing some digging (which didn't take much work, actually), it was discovered that Sister Barbara is no newcomer to the protest scene.
Sister Barbara has been protesting at the School Of America's (SOA) at Ft. Benning, for years, and appears to be a proud suporter of SOA Watch, a human rights group founded by former Maryknoll priest, Roy Bourgeois.
Fr. Bourgeois is a proud (I would say infamous) dissenter in his own right. He was excommunicated in November, 2008, for participating in a mock ordination of women to the priesthood a moth earlier. He has refused to recant his support for women's ordination. According to Wiki, the Vatican is currently considering Fr. Bourgeois removal from the priesthood.
Photos of Sister Battista and Fr. Bourgeois at this protest rally can be viewed here. I cannot post them due to copyright issues.
Sister Battista's public Twitter account shows a recent (Jan. 19, 2012) post asking readers to click on a link to a NARAL site. "Get the shocking facts on the 2011 War on Women from NARAL's infographic.", she shouts with glee.
Once on that site, NARAL asks "If you think that it's wrong for politicians to interfere in women's personal, private, medical decisions, please share this infographic with your friends." It then urges the reader to "post it on your Facebook wall, Tweet it, and email it far and wide."
Like the good foot-soldier of death that she is, Sister Barbara heeds their call.
For those of you who don't know, NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly National Abortion Rights Action League) is is an organization in the U.S. that engages in political action to oppose restrictions on abortion, and expand access to abortion. NARAL uses numerous tactics to lobby for liberalized access to abortion.
Sister Barbara Battista, SP: The face of dissent.
Recently, The Indianapolis Star published a weekly column by the far-left progressive, Dan Carpenter. It can be read here in it's entirety. The article took the USCCB to task for revoking a grant to help ex-cons transition back into society. When the CCHD found out that this corporation was distributing condoms to the ex-cons, they stopped paying the company.
In this article, Mr. Carpenter described an email he received from Sister Barbara Battista, SP (Sisters of Providence). In it, Sister Battista takes the U.S. bishops to task for their stance on birth control (i.e. condoms).
"Please, let's ask the Hoosiers, not our bishops, what we want RecycleForce to do," she said by email."I bet that condom bowl will be put back out! I am a health-care provider gratefully working in a public facility.We happily have free condoms in our exam rooms."
Sister Battista is not just your run-of-the-mill liberal nun. She is president of the Indiana Academy of Physician Assistants!
She's also very active in the peace movement, having protested at the former School of Americas (SOA) in Fort Benning, Georgia.
Just so we don't misrepresent her position on artificial contraception, maybe we should go to her public Twitter account, and see if we can gleen her thoughts on the matter.
Amazingly (or not so amazingly), barb1840 (Sister Barbara) is an ardent follower of the following pro-abortion groups:
ChoiceUSA: Their website claims that "[a]s a national pro-choice organization, Choice USA gives emerging leaders the tools they need to organize, network, and exchange ideas to build a youth centered pro-choice agenda and mobilize communities for reproductive justice." Co-founded by Gloria Steinem.
Not Under The Bus: A project arm of the Women's Media Center (WMC). actively advocates to keep abortion legal. WMC was founded in 2005 as a non-profit progressive women's media organization by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem.
National Women's Law Center: Founded in 1972. According to their website, one of it's primary missions is "to ensure that women have access to abortion care by protecting and advancing this fundamental right."
SisterSong -Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective: Founded in 1997 with a mission "to amplify and strengthen the collective voices of Indigenous women and women of color to ensure reproductive justice through securing human rights." The national coordinator is Loretta Ross. Last year's national conference posted it's own weblogs called "blogforchoice" and "ChicagoAbortionFund".
Catholics For Choice: A radical dissenting group of marginal Catholics who support legalized abortion. There website says - in part: "Catholics for Choice believes in a world where everyone has equal access to the full range of reproductive healthcare services—including access to safe and legal abortion services and affordable and reliable forms of contraception. "
This is not just sad. It's disgusting. How can a catholic nun, who is apparently in good-standing with her order, promote views and beliefs so out-of-touch with definitive teaching of the Church?
But Sister Battista isn't alone in her dissent. In my next post, I'll travel a little deeper into the murky waters of dissent within the progressive wing of women religous. We will discuss the deep, pervasive progressivism and dissent within the Sisters of Providence, as well as within the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).
Friday, March 2, 2012
Myths abound about HHS contraceptive mandate; here are the facts
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Exaggerations and outright misrepresentations about the
Department of Health and Human Services' contraceptive mandate have been
appearing in White House "fact sheets" and mainstream media. Here are some of
the more frequently cited claims and the facts to counter them:
Myth:
Self-insurance is a seldom-used method of providing health insurance to
employers, used mainly by church organizations to avoid having to pay for
abortions or birth control.
Fact: A majority of Americans who have private health insurance are in self-insured plans, according to separate reports by the Congressional Research Service and the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. The percentage was 44 percent in 1999, 55 percent in 2008 and had increased to 60 percent by 2011. Employees in large
companies (those with 200 or more employees) were even more likely to be covered
by a self-insured plan. Eighty-two percent of workers at large firms -- and 96
percent of those who work for a company with 5,000 or more workers -- were in a
self-insured health plan. There is no precise count of how many of the employees
working for Catholic organizations or institutions are in self-insured plans,
but the number is believed to mirror that of the general population.
Myth:
Twenty-eight states already require employers to cover contraceptives for their
employees, so the situation in those states will not change.
Fact:
Self-insured plans are excluded from state contraceptive mandates, but not from federal
requirements. In addition, all but three states -- California, New York and
Oregon -- include a broader religious exemption than the HHS one, which sets
four criteria for an exemption: that an employer's purpose is to inculcate
religious values, that it primarily hires and serves people who share its
religious tenets, and that it is a nonprofit organization under certain sections
of the tax code.
Department of Health and Human Services' contraceptive mandate have been
appearing in White House "fact sheets" and mainstream media. Here are some of
the more frequently cited claims and the facts to counter them:
Myth:
Self-insurance is a seldom-used method of providing health insurance to
employers, used mainly by church organizations to avoid having to pay for
abortions or birth control.
Fact: A majority of Americans who have private health insurance are in self-insured plans, according to separate reports by the Congressional Research Service and the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. The percentage was 44 percent in 1999, 55 percent in 2008 and had increased to 60 percent by 2011. Employees in large
companies (those with 200 or more employees) were even more likely to be covered
by a self-insured plan. Eighty-two percent of workers at large firms -- and 96
percent of those who work for a company with 5,000 or more workers -- were in a
self-insured health plan. There is no precise count of how many of the employees
working for Catholic organizations or institutions are in self-insured plans,
but the number is believed to mirror that of the general population.
Myth:
Twenty-eight states already require employers to cover contraceptives for their
employees, so the situation in those states will not change.
Fact:
Self-insured plans are excluded from state contraceptive mandates, but not from federal
requirements. In addition, all but three states -- California, New York and
Oregon -- include a broader religious exemption than the HHS one, which sets
four criteria for an exemption: that an employer's purpose is to inculcate
religious values, that it primarily hires and serves people who share its
religious tenets, and that it is a nonprofit organization under certain sections
of the tax code.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Newborns no longer considered human??? My God...
This story just stuns me.
According to today's London Telegraph, medical ethicists from Oxford University - in an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics - have stated that "[p]arents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion."
I'm not making this up. Really. It goes on to say:
Did you get that? They consider newborn babies as "potential persons." Instead of calling it what it is - infanticide (murder) - they use the colloquial term, "after-birth abortion." Wow.
"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and
euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human
freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others
and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to
you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34)." - Evangelium Vitae, 20.
According to today's London Telegraph, medical ethicists from Oxford University - in an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics - have stated that "[p]arents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion."
I'm not making this up. Really. It goes on to say:
“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a
fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the
attribution of a right to life to an individual.
”Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”.
They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human
beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense
of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Did you get that? They consider newborn babies as "potential persons." Instead of calling it what it is - infanticide (murder) - they use the colloquial term, "after-birth abortion." Wow.
"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and
euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human
freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others
and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to
you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34)." - Evangelium Vitae, 20.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The War on Catholicism Continues...
In Sunday's edition of The Star Press, there was an article by George Wolfe regarding "violence", and how the definition should be expanded to include " organizations that restrict the rights of women", which include "religious institutions where women cannot attain the same economic, educational and leadership opportunities available to men." [emphasis added]
Mr. Wolfe's personal expanded definition of "violence" would cover just about every instance where a person gets his/her feelings hurt. By labeling everyone a "victim" it lessens the impact that true violence has on people.
Mr. Wolfe sees victimizers behind every door, especially if they are Christians, or more specifically, Catholics.
As shown in Wolfe's thesis above, women are being victimized daily by the reluctance of the Catholic Church to allow women to become priests and bishops, thus denying them their rightful positions of authority.
You see, it's a power thing for Mr. Wolfe - have's vs. have not's. As all well-informed Catholics know, women cannot be ordained to the priesthood anymore than men can bear children.
Wolfe's worldview explains why so many poor and hungry Americans are slaves to entitlement programs. This is the true violence.
True violence is when children can be aborted and treated as just a "choice". True violence is when Christians are forced to cover birth control costs, contrary to their moral convictions.
Mr. Wolfe should go back to playing his sax.
Mr. Wolfe's personal expanded definition of "violence" would cover just about every instance where a person gets his/her feelings hurt. By labeling everyone a "victim" it lessens the impact that true violence has on people.
Mr. Wolfe sees victimizers behind every door, especially if they are Christians, or more specifically, Catholics.
As shown in Wolfe's thesis above, women are being victimized daily by the reluctance of the Catholic Church to allow women to become priests and bishops, thus denying them their rightful positions of authority.
You see, it's a power thing for Mr. Wolfe - have's vs. have not's. As all well-informed Catholics know, women cannot be ordained to the priesthood anymore than men can bear children.
Wolfe's worldview explains why so many poor and hungry Americans are slaves to entitlement programs. This is the true violence.
True violence is when children can be aborted and treated as just a "choice". True violence is when Christians are forced to cover birth control costs, contrary to their moral convictions.
Mr. Wolfe should go back to playing his sax.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
SP happenings in Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana
A reader was asking about the demand for the TLM in the Lafayette-area. Although I cannot comment on the specific demand in Lafayette, I do know that we have a fair amount of people wanting it in the Muncie-area. We've started a petition drive a couple of weeks ago to be turned in to our local pastor, who is not supportive at all of our request.
More as it happens...
More as it happens...
Wonderful comments by Msgr. Schaedel re: TLM
Msgr. Joseph Schaedel, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, had some scathing things to say about Fr. Daly's recent CNS article on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. It can be found here, at the CRITERION's website.
Be Our Guest / Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel
Traditional Latin Mass has
a devoted following in Archdiocese of Indianapolis
Controversy has been
swirling like incense ever since Catholic News Service published a recent column
about the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass by Father Peter J. Daly. The
column also appeared in the Aug. 17 issue of The Criterion.
Internet weblogs
(“blogs”) are full of criticism. There are accusations that Father Daly’s
account of a neighboring pastor who offers the traditional Latin Mass are
inaccurate, and were mentioned without that pastor’s approval. Now the two
pastors are in a snit; one wants to drag an auxiliary bishop into the fray.
These blogs read like soap operas.
The Aug. 24 issue of The Criterion
featured letters from readers critical of Father Daly’s column. Two writers
mentioned the beautiful celebration of the traditional Latin Mass at Our Lady of
the Most Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis.
As pastor of Holy Rosary
Parish, along with our associate pastor, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Father Michael Magiera, I can say that we are grateful and proud.
As vicar
general of the archdiocese and as pastor of a parish that has offered the
traditional Latin Mass along with the Novus Ordo (post-Vatican II) Mass for
nearly 10 years, I can only say that my observations and experiences are not the
same as Father Daly’s.
We are one, unified parish. We are growing; we are
getting “younger.” I would have to say that his statements about the
“old Mass,” and how and why it is celebrated the way it is, are simply
misleading.
Yet, there are more important points to be made from this
controversy.
To begin with, Catholic News Service is operated by the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is certainly inappropriate for any
columnist—particularly a priest—to use CNS as a forum to vent about or to
second-guess a recent decision made by the Holy Father.
Accompanying the
pope’s moto proprio on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970
is a letter addressed to the bishops. The second paragraph of his letter
comments about the confusion created by “news reports and judgments made without
sufficient information.”
Later on, in the same letter, Pope Benedict XVI
comments on his personal experience with the hopes and confusion that often
followed the reform of the liturgy. It is also clear that the pope only issued
this directive after long, prayerful consideration and consultation. Before
ending his letter, the Holy Father asks that three years into the moto proprio
the bishops should “send to the Holy See an account of your experiences.”
The moto proprio takes effect on Sept. 14. No one is in a position to
second-guess the decision before it even takes effect, much less to
criticize it simply based on very limited (and evidently flawed) personal
experience or personal preference.
I believe that the pope is genuinely
interested in unity with those inside or outside the Church who have been
alienated over authorized or unauthorized changes in the liturgy. To ram one’s
opinions (liturgical or otherwise) down people’s throats as Father Daly did in
his column hardly seems “in the Spirit of Vatican II.”
More importantly,
take into account the Holy Father’s sense that people long for the “sacred” and
transcendent in the liturgy.
More than 12 years ago, the late Cardinal
Joseph Bernardin spoke at the annual meeting of the National Federation of
Priests’ Councils in San Diego. In soaring imagery, Cardinal Bernardin reminded
priests that they are to be “bearers of the mystery of God.”
As the late
prelate acknowledged a crisis of confidence and confusion among priests then
(and today), he exhorted priests to embrace the role as “bearers of Sacred
Symbols … who draw others to God’s love in Christ.”
Particularly in today’s
world, people long for that sense of mystery. The liturgy enables us to enter
through Jesus Christ into the Mystery Who is God. Pope Benedict XVI must be
keenly aware of this; he has a worldwide perspective on the life of the Church.
On the Feast of the Assumption, Aug. 15, Bishop Salvatore Matano of the
Diocese of Burlington, Vt., offered the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass (“The
Extraordinary Rite of the Eucharist”) in St. Joseph Co-Cathedral.
The
church was packed with people of all ages. Bishop Matano commented, “And if this
is what it takes to fill our churches, so be it!”
I am not yet convinced
that the recent moto proprio will be what it takes to fill our churches.
But
my own experience makes me certain that Father Daly was wrong when he wrote:
“But almost nobody will come.”
He and others who jump to the same
conclusions need to “wake up and smell the incense.”
(Msgr. Joseph F.
Schaedel is vicar general of the archdiocese and pastor of Our Lady of the Most
Holy Rosary Parish in Indianapolis.) †
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Another article on the Traditional Latin Mass
This article appeared in the July 28th edition of the Muncie Star Press. It is extremely well-written, and ignores the usual blathering of the progressive left.
Latin masses could make comeback
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
For hundreds of years, it was the way most Christians
worshipped. Then, in the early 1970s, it nearly disappeared.
It involves a
priest speaking a "dead" language and keeping his back turned to the audience
for most of the service.
And now, thanks to a directive this month from Pope Benedict
XVI, it could start making a comeback.
Mass in Latin, currently confined to
a few parishes in each diocese, was until the early 1960s the only Mass that
Roman Catholics knew. But the church, in an effort to make Mass more
approachable, decided that worship should be conducted in the language of the
people, whatever language that might be given the locale.
Currently about
150 parishes in the U.S. now offer the Latin Mass but the liturgical books are
scarce and only a few hundred priests know the Mass. The director of the Vatican
publishing house told Catholic News Service he doesn't even know who holds the
copyright to the text.
But the pope's statement opens the door for more
churches to adopt the ancient style of worship -- a style that can be seen in
Indianapolis only at Holy Rosary parish.
There, in what was once Indy's
Italian parish, the Rev. Michael Magiera, whose priestly order specializes in
the traditional rites, conducts nine Latin Masses each week. On most weeks,
there are just three services in English.
At 7 p.m. Tuesdays, he has Latin
Mass in St. Mary's Catholic Church, 2300 W. Jackson St., Muncie.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
You say 'tomato'....
If you want to know more about the diocesan office in charge of matters liturgical, look no further than their official website. Just don't ask for it by name.
A quick glance shows that there is a little discrepancy in the name(s) of the office. The "index" page lists three separate titles:
- Office of Liturgy & Worship
- Office of Worship & Liturgy
- Office for Worship and RCIA
Pick-n-choose mentality. Kinda like the rubrics for Mass.
A quick glance shows that there is a little discrepancy in the name(s) of the office. The "index" page lists three separate titles:
- Office of Liturgy & Worship
- Office of Worship & Liturgy
- Office for Worship and RCIA
Pick-n-choose mentality. Kinda like the rubrics for Mass.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Words to live by...
I would like to post a few articles written by Msgr. Schaedel, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, in the weekly bulletin of Holy Rosary Parish in Indy. Msgr. Schaedel is a very caring, orthodox, a pastoral priest who could very well be one of the upcoming movers and shakers in the Church in the United States.
His words of wisdom have always been enlightening, profound, and honest. So, let's dig in....
[July 1, 2007]
His words of wisdom have always been enlightening, profound, and honest. So, let's dig in....
[July 1, 2007]
Of course, all bishops are teachers and leaders. We look to them for
courageous leadership and correct moral teaching. But the Church is not
clergy. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, the People of God. It is up to the laity to be leaven in the
world; they are the voters and decision makers who can change
things. This is the role of the laity. Unfortunately, some goofs
continue to equate lay involvement in the Church with being able to prance
around the sanctuary.
Breaking it down...
Let's take another look at the recent comments of Bishop Higi re: Summorum Pontificum [my comments in red]:
Pope Benedict XVI’s relaxation of restrictions on the use of the Latin Mass leaves unanswered questions regarding the actual practice, says Bishop William L. Higi. [Right. Like "how did we stray so far from the true meaning of Vatican II's preeminent document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concillium?"]
The pope’s directive was issued July 7 to bishops worldwide. When interviewed by The Catholic Moment, Bishop Higi said he understands the Holy Father’s desire to retain the Tridentine Massas an extraordinary part of Catholic liturgy, and is fully supportive,[wait for it...] but he questions whether it will be possible to provide it in the Local Church .[Someone remind the good bishop about the regulary-scheduled Traditional Latin Mass currently celebrated at St. Mary's parish in Muncie. You know, the one that he approved in 2001 under pressure from the Holy See]
By letter, Bishop Higi asked priests across the diocese to wait to see how procedural details are addressed by the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The pope noted that use of the 1962 Missal “presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.” [especially in the local chancery]
Bishop Higi, who was ordained in 1959, agreed.
“Even though I celebrated the Tridentine Mass for several years, I would no longer be able to do so using the Roman Missal of 1962 (the required text) [or the current Missale Romanum] without significant study of the rubrics and a refresher course in Latin,” he said. “I suspect that is true of most of not all priests of the diocese.” [methinks the good bishop doesn't get out too often]
“In this Local Church , pastoral sensitivity suggests an in-depth study of Spanish rather than Latin,” he said. [since when has the good bishop shown pastoral sensitivity to anyone requesting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in this diocese? More Catholics attend the Tuesday-evening Latin Mass than do the local regularly-scheduled Sunday Novus Ordo Mass in Spanish]
The pope’s directive states that a priest must be qualified to celebrate Latin Masses before he can celebrate one. But it sheds no light on who decides whose qualifications. [Did I miss something, or are you not the Moderator of the liturgy in the Local Church? Step up to the plate, dear bishop, and offer some training to those who request it. Isn't that why you have a Director of Liturgy for the diocesan Office of Worship?]
The 1962 Missal also requires the use of altar boys – not girls [Hence the name: altar boys] – and they must be capable of responding to the celebrant in Latin. Choirs also probably would have to be trained in the Gregorian chant, Bishop Higi said. [I thought the Church has taught, quite frequently since Vatican II, that parish choirs should be trained in Gregorian chant for the Novus Ordo as well. Has somebody been asleep at the wheel since then?] The 1962 calendar would be followed, because no mixture of the 1962 missal and the current missal will be allowed. Only one form of Communion would be available. [Considering that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of D.N. Jesus Christ is present in either Species, I don't see the real issue here, unless, dear bishop, you are playing on the fears of the progressives who might read your missives]
Pope Benedict XVI said that any priest, without further permission, could celebrate the Latin Mass without the people at almost any time, and that laypeople could be admitted if they spontaneously requested to do so. It remains unclear whether such a Mass could be scheduled. [It also remains unclear whether or not such Masses could be celebrated on days ending in -y, or by priests with more than two vowels in their last name, or in gothic-style churches, or.......]
The pope’s directive states that where any group of parishioners attached to the Latin Mass “exists stably” it may request a pastor to offer one. Apparently, when only one Sunday Mass is offered, Latin may not be used. [When in doubt, make it up. That's the new episcopal motto for Lafayette]
No definition of “group” or “exists stably” was offered. [Again, who is the Moderator of the Liturgy in this diocese???? What is the definition of "is"?]
Pope Benedict XVI’s relaxation of restrictions on the use of the Latin Mass leaves unanswered questions regarding the actual practice, says Bishop William L. Higi. [Right. Like "how did we stray so far from the true meaning of Vatican II's preeminent document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concillium?"]
The pope’s directive was issued July 7 to bishops worldwide. When interviewed by The Catholic Moment, Bishop Higi said he understands the Holy Father’s desire to retain the Tridentine Massas an extraordinary part of Catholic liturgy, and is fully supportive,[wait for it...] but he questions whether it will be possible to provide it in the Local Church .[Someone remind the good bishop about the regulary-scheduled Traditional Latin Mass currently celebrated at St. Mary's parish in Muncie. You know, the one that he approved in 2001 under pressure from the Holy See]
By letter, Bishop Higi asked priests across the diocese to wait to see how procedural details are addressed by the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The pope noted that use of the 1962 Missal “presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.” [especially in the local chancery]
Bishop Higi, who was ordained in 1959, agreed.
“Even though I celebrated the Tridentine Mass for several years, I would no longer be able to do so using the Roman Missal of 1962 (the required text) [or the current Missale Romanum] without significant study of the rubrics and a refresher course in Latin,” he said. “I suspect that is true of most of not all priests of the diocese.” [methinks the good bishop doesn't get out too often]
“In this Local Church , pastoral sensitivity suggests an in-depth study of Spanish rather than Latin,” he said. [since when has the good bishop shown pastoral sensitivity to anyone requesting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in this diocese? More Catholics attend the Tuesday-evening Latin Mass than do the local regularly-scheduled Sunday Novus Ordo Mass in Spanish]
The pope’s directive states that a priest must be qualified to celebrate Latin Masses before he can celebrate one. But it sheds no light on who decides whose qualifications. [Did I miss something, or are you not the Moderator of the liturgy in the Local Church? Step up to the plate, dear bishop, and offer some training to those who request it. Isn't that why you have a Director of Liturgy for the diocesan Office of Worship?]
The 1962 Missal also requires the use of altar boys – not girls [Hence the name: altar boys] – and they must be capable of responding to the celebrant in Latin. Choirs also probably would have to be trained in the Gregorian chant, Bishop Higi said. [I thought the Church has taught, quite frequently since Vatican II, that parish choirs should be trained in Gregorian chant for the Novus Ordo as well. Has somebody been asleep at the wheel since then?] The 1962 calendar would be followed, because no mixture of the 1962 missal and the current missal will be allowed. Only one form of Communion would be available. [Considering that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of D.N. Jesus Christ is present in either Species, I don't see the real issue here, unless, dear bishop, you are playing on the fears of the progressives who might read your missives]
Pope Benedict XVI said that any priest, without further permission, could celebrate the Latin Mass without the people at almost any time, and that laypeople could be admitted if they spontaneously requested to do so. It remains unclear whether such a Mass could be scheduled. [It also remains unclear whether or not such Masses could be celebrated on days ending in -y, or by priests with more than two vowels in their last name, or in gothic-style churches, or.......]
The pope’s directive states that where any group of parishioners attached to the Latin Mass “exists stably” it may request a pastor to offer one. Apparently, when only one Sunday Mass is offered, Latin may not be used. [When in doubt, make it up. That's the new episcopal motto for Lafayette]
No definition of “group” or “exists stably” was offered. [Again, who is the Moderator of the Liturgy in this diocese???? What is the definition of "is"?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)