Fitting the pattern

3 comments

• The archdiocese did designate “welcoming” parishes in each cluster where there was a closing of a terroritorial parish, although not when an ethnic parish closed (since there would already be a terroritorial parish that encompasses those people). Of course, people are free to go where they want.

• Altar servers handed out sunflower seeds to churchgoers after Mass last Sunday, as signs of hope.

  Ah yes, the 1960s live onThe people of closed parishes who stage sit-ins are not showing faithfulness in the Church Christ established. Some of them even talk openly of schism, of setting up “independent” parishes, as if such a thing is possible.

  But Globe likes that idea because the newspaper’s liberal bias puts it at odds with the Church in so many areas, especially concerning homosexuality, that they’re happy whenever they can convince Catholicsfalse”>https://www.bettnet.com/?p=4133
  
  (… Some early morning blogging too, apparently.)

  A few days ago, the Boston Globe reported that a priest and a nun representing Archbishop Sean O’Malley visited the renegade Catholics protesting with a sit-in at the former St. Albert parish in Weymouth, Mass. But like petulant children, these protesters who had been demanding the archdiocese respond to them stamped their feet and essentially said, “No, go back outside, and use the special knock before you come in.”

  But parishioners expressed anger and frustration at the surprise visit of a priest and a nun, which came as the evening prayer service concluded. ‘‘They just came unannounced,” said Mary Akoury, co-chairman of the church’s pastoral council. ‘‘You don’t do that. It was flawed, just as the reconfiguration process was flawed.”

  Because the priest and nun didn’t show proper respect or jump through hoops or something the protesters wouldn’t meet with them. Their attitude does not inspire confidence that they will be reasonable in other matters as well.

  Meanwhile, Globe “reporter” Bella English continues to include editorializing in her “news” stories:

  St. Albert’s meets none of the stated criteria for closing: its pews and coffers were full, its buildings in good shape. But the archdiocese has said that Weymouth can no longer support five Catholic churches.

  Actually it did meet some of the criteria, since at least one element included small parishes in clusters with a surplus of parishes, and another included suburban parishes that could be closed so that inner-city, mainly poor parishes could remain open. But in typical liberal fashion, concern for the poor only goes so deep, because what really motivates them is concern for other middle-class liberals.

  ]]>
  
  4133
  2004-09-23 05:50:26
  2004-09-23 09:50:26
  open
  open
  no_surprise_visits
  publish
  0
  0
  post
  

  
  18394
  
  carrie1104@sbcglobal.net
  http://www.carrietomko.blogspot.com
  152.163.100.202
  2004-09-23 07:43:53
  2004-09-23 11:43:53
  Is the parish expected to move enmasse to a different church, or does each parishioner “fend for himself,” so to speak?

  I wonder if some of this controversy could be avoided if arrangements could be made at a new parish to accommodate a smoother transition? 

  Perhaps some of the rancor occurs because subconsciously parishioners feel as though they have been locked out or “dropped” by God?  Somehow, in our minds, the parish comes to represent our religion, and thus our God.  It shouldn’t be that way, of course, but I do think it is. 

  Part of that may be due to the fact that there has been a great deal of emphasis on God’s immanence.  He has become present in the midst of a specific group.  Break up the group, and God gets lost.

  If we find God only in our pew partner, and then our pew partner joins a different church, how are we going to find God next Sunday?

  The antidote, of course, is putting the emphasis back on praise and worship of the transcendent God Who is the same in each and every parish church.

• .bettnet.com/blog/images/smileys/wink.gif” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />