Hell freezes over

It’s a very rare day when I agree so wholeheartedly with an editorial in the National Catholic Reporter. This one deals with the Scandal revelations in Philadelphia via the district attorney and grand jury. They detail the apalling abuse of children and of power we became so familiar with in Boston, and then ask where do we go from here?

Of what use are we as a believing community if we canmment_author_url>
24.218.209.222
2005-10-07 16:49:24
2005-10-07 20:49:24
“What Law and other bishops have done is practice the very thor_IP>209.91.58.188 2005-10-07 17:54:14 2005-10-07 21:54:14 While the editors of NCR and I would likely differ on answers to the liturgical questions or the moral questions or the social justice questions they propose, I think we both agree that arguing over those questions should take a back seat to the very real problem of the scandal of priestly and episcopal malfeasance.

No, abortion (one of the “social issues”) the respect shown to the Blessed Sacrament (the One us “believing people”—sheesh, what a phrase—know to be God) and the mucking around with the Word of God to make sure Modern Mary and Adam and Steve aren’t feeling “left out” should certainly not take a back seat to the Scandal. I suggest, as I think others have, that these very things made the Scandal inevitable.

NCR:

Who cares what…we say about the unborn or the poor or anything else in our moralizing agenda if we canreator> https://www.bettnet.com/?p=5899 Once again, in another article, a “senior Vatican official” says the document on homosexual seminarians will not be a blanket ban

An upcoming church document does not decree a sweeping ban on gays in seminaries, allowing those who have lived chastely for at least three years to become priests, a senior Vatican official said Friday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Vatican document has not yet been released, confirmed a report in the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that men who publicly show their homosexuality and those who reveal an attraction to the gay lifestyle should be refused admission to the clergy.

It’s good to take such reports with a grain of salt. A couple years ago, when news of this document started circulating, we had the same reports that it would be a blanket ban, and then that it wouldn’t be. According to sources in Rome, the intent was to poison the well and create such controversy that the men at the top would be dissuaded from publishing it right away and return it for further review and discussion. That may be the intent of today’s leaks to John Allen and Victor Simpson. I’m not saying that these reports aren’t true, but that we shouldn’t go jumping off any bridges over it until we see what it actually says. Then you can jump all you want.

8 comments

Hildebrand says:

October 7, 2005 at 4:40 pm

What I find intriguing is the child bringing a consecrated host from his Church. At one time I spent many hours in the company of High Church Anglicans and I am aware of their belief in the Real Presence. I find it hard to believe that someone especially a priest believing in the Real Presence would simply give a child a consecrated host to carry with him to school. Equally it seems to me that this mother’s principal concern is the EXCLUSION of her son from the school mass rather than in any real concern about his Catholicity.
Carrie says:

October 7, 2005 at 5:01 pm

This looks to me like a good example of ecumenism trumping mission. I doubt seriously that it is possible to have both missionary zeal and ecumenical outreach. They are mutually exclusive IMHO, though our Pope doesn’t seem to think there is any conflict.
ttt says:

October 8, 2005 at 6:36 am

Someone should ask the Bishop to come up with 99 reasons why it can’t be done, and go post it on the door of the Episcopal church. It would be a lesson for both the church and the bishop, not to mention the child and mother who obviously are testing their own fallen Catholic linage. ?Tom
tony c says:

October 8, 2005 at 8:55 am

It’s a goofy solution.

I disagree w/ you Carrie. Eccumenism can be rightly understood and effected but ONLY from a point of missionary activity.

The problem today, in our society of I Want It Now, is that we’ve lost the idea of courtship, of process, of pilgrimage.

Brown-bagging a host is so wrong an idea. It’s a flawed quick-fix. It distorts the tradition of the Eucharist.

In the Divine Liturgy the priest says “The Doors! The Doors!”, reflecting the ancient practice of shuttling the Catechumens out. In the Roman Rite we used to call it the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful.

The bishop needs to go back to school.
Steve Cavanaugh says:

October 8, 2005 at 12:38 pm

In addition, this child is in no sense in the extreme circumstances that the exception to Catholics only receiving the Eucharist at Mass is provided for. These school Masses are not Sunday Masses. As commendable as daily communion is, it is only on Sundays (and Holydays of Obligation) that we must be present for divine service. While it is certainly better to receive, right disposition being supposed, at Mass than not, it is certainly not extreme to not receive at a daily Mass.

Extreme circumstances for an Episcopalian would mean nearness of death, or being in an area with no minister of the ECUSA or Anglican church within a reasonable distance to whom he could go for communion. Feeling bad because you’re not included is what a person should feel. As noted above, it is just such personal recognition of the lack of communion that is a spur to conversion and an impetus to real ecumenical activity and concern.
Tom says:

October 8, 2005 at 1:36 pm

An item on the October 7, 2005, LIfeSiteNews url>
70.19.159.231
2005-10-07 14:34:18
2005-10-07 18:34:18
“Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread?” Or a piece of bread when he asks for the body, blood, soul and divinity of his God? So many converts I know became Catholic because of a hunger for Christ in the Eucharist. Instead of receiving guidance in that direction this child has been led astray, denied the opportunity to become Catholic and really receive Christ in the Eucharist. How incredibly sad.
Carrie says:

October 8, 2005 at 11:13 pm

I disagree w/ you Carrie. Eccumenism can be rightly understood and effected but ONLY from a point of missionary activity.

How do you envision that playing out, tony?
tony c says:

October 10, 2005 at 8:58 am

To Carrie:

Here’s how it plays out in my world:

I worked w/ an RCIA program for 2 years. We never poo-pood peoples backgrounds. But we never watered down a thing. We started from where they were, and took them deeper.

I have a friend who reads the Bible w/ her Baptist neighbor. The neighbor is now interested in attending her first Catholic Mass.

When I talked to my Episcopalain friends, I always started from common ground. (the liturgy for example) But it was always an opportunity to highlight and explain differences in doctrine.

When I visited an Orthodox Church, the priest was interested in Catholic teaching about the filioque and the theology of the body and saints he knew nothing about. And he was surprised a Catholic was familiar w/ Orthodox saints and praxis. So he listened to me w/ respect.