Skip to comments.taking sides (Full coverage of ongoing Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence situation)
Posted on 10/18/2007 10:13:48 AM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
After reading the Abp’s “apology,” I have a difficult time not concluding he is a liar. If he didn’t recognize them, why did he presume that they wouldn’t want communion?
>> Everytime I see this I keep looking for serious frowns and keep hoping I’ll hear someone stand up and shout, “No! You will not do this!” <<
1. Any Catholic with any shred of Orthodoxy would have left that parish long ago. The frog in the pot has been boiled tender. This is not base presumption: one of the blogs noted the democgraphics of the mass attendees, and one can safely infer that this has become (perhaps more damning than your question) essentially a gay parish, with but a small handful of even “gay-allied” heterosexuals.
2. Standing up and shouting, “No! You will not do this!” just simply isn’t something one does during mass, especially when the appellate authority (the archbishop) is the one permitting it. Apparently, the few non-perverts in the congregation resorted to videotaping the archbishop precisely as their way of documenting the abuse for appeal beyond him, and it has proven much more effective than causing a ruckus. I’d suspect the approach of shouting “no!” has been exhausted previously.
>> Do you think it’s because this took place in San Francisco that no one seemed to object? <<
So, yes, my answer is that because this took place in the center of the gay zone of Frisco, few seemed to object
There is MUCH MORE to this event than you and I are seeing. It's possible the queen went to Confession - we can't be judges. But I sense this event was a way for the gay community to test the Abp.
What’s even more irritating is that “Body of Christ” song. Yes, we ARE the Body of Christ, but deprived of any other teachings on submission, obedience, etc., the song just amounts to self-justification of any liturgical abuses. It seems like the abusers use the song persistently, precisely to declare their own authority to re-create Catholicism in the image of their most basest presumptions.
We are the Body of Christ
(no, the CHURCH is; we constitute the Church, but to use that fact to justify this statement is like saying water is human flesh, because human flesh is mostly water. We are only the body of Christ when Christ is acting through us.)
God is revealed when we love one another
(if our love is God’s love)
We are the body of Christ
Bringing the light of God’s mercy to others
We are the body of Christ
(OK, I get that)
Putting a stop to all discrimination
(Huh? Discrimination is literally telling right from wrong. Do the authors mean “racial prejudice,” instead, or have they actually accurately stated their doctrine?)
We are the body of Christ
All are invited to feast at the banquet
(Absent any discussion of repentance, this seems like universalism. I guess we know which side of the Homo-nun scandal these people stand on!)
We are the body of Christ
(You keep telling yourselves that, folks.)
(Of course, Spanglish irritates me. If I wanted to sing in foreign languages at mass, I’d go to a Latin mass.)
What’s inherently wrong with AA and Al-Anon meetings in the parish hall? You got something against the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius?
BARLEY? I think BULGAR is the more likely grain. (The word “bugger” is thought to derive from “Bulgar,” a reference to the deliberately non-procreative sex favored by the Cathar sect.)
And continuing to publicly mock nuns while cross-dressing would indicate a manifest lack of repentance. Ergo, they still should not have received Communion.
Nothing is inherently wrong with AA meetings......well....I shouldn't say that. My point, by mentioning it, was that while these other problems are recognized, the elephant in the room, the gay lifestyle, seems to be ignored.
But, as a practical matter, it should be noted that all of this is hypothetical. There is very little practical likelihood that either of these individuals went to confession beforehand, especially dealing with the matter of their sinful membership in this "organization."
I remember that song. LOL Did you memorize the lyrics?
Hmmm... that one does have that sixties Native American spirituality pagan vibe AND a labor-union concept of communism... I mean communalism...
But nothing irritates me more than a bunch of English-speaking songwriters trying to convince Americans that there’s something more authentic about Latin-American worship, and, therefore, we all need to sing musical selections from “Dora the Explorer.”
(Try teaching kids that “Dora” doesn’t rhyme with “explorer!”)
Don’t Spanish people get offended by their culture and worship being substituted by songs for those with room-temperature IQs (And I mean Celsius, thank you)? I know the Spanish people I’m friends with do, but I’ll acknowledge that they may not be exactly representative.
I understand that, and it's a serious thing to interrupt mass. But I keep wondering what it would take for someone to break with decorum, tradition, etc. and take a stand, because this was sacrilege. What's worse, to interrupt mass by saying "No!" or to sit there and let this horror take place?
2) On precisely ONE occasion, I have simply left the "service" (the priest was butchering the order of the Liturgy so badly as to render it "invalid").
3) I've never personally witnessed this sort of horror ... and it seems to occur in places that are already so corrupt as to more or less preclude anyone interrupting it. These creeps tend to be cowards. IMO.
I agree... But what is a congregant going to do? Tackle the queens and wrestle the bread from them? I’m not sure I agree with mob rule as a means of enforcing liturgical reverence. Don’t forget: it looked until the last moment like the bishop WAS going to merely give a blessing instead of the Eucharist. And this certainly is a parish where most of orthodox worshippers certainly fled eons ago.
Don’t give up e-mailing! I’ve e-mailed several things to the Apostolic Nuncio with a CC to the Holy Father. Every once in a while, I get an Outlook message that the e-mail has at least been opened and read. I seem to have better luck when e-mailing in the evening, around 9 or 10 p.m. They are usually read in the morning around 8 or 8:30 Maybe it goes to the top of the stack? I will say that it seems that stories from a newspaper have a higher likelihood of getting read than from a blog. I usually type the headline of the story in the “Re:” line, then link to the story first, without comment. I put comment under the story link.
We need to keep up the pressure! It doesn’t really matter too much whether they actually read the e-mails - just knowing that we are outraged enough to send them should send a pretty strong message.
I would suggest that we all send e-mails. We need to bombard them with evidence that we know what is going on and that we aren’t going to stand for it anymore.
As a reminder to all:
Holy Father: email@example.com
Apostolic Nuncio: firstname.lastname@example.org
However, that an interdict of the parish (maybe even the archdiocese itself) and a suppression of the parish should take place cannot be denied. If Rome gets wind of this, maybe something concrete will happen, though I doubt an interdict will result (maybe Niederauer will be called to Rome and ordered to grow a set immediately for future contingencies). Nevertheless, Benedict is clearly less tolerant of the abuses that his predecessor put up with, and I think he is slowly buiilding his foundational strength to take up with the heretics and apostates head-on.