You don’t have to read more than the first paragraph of this story to see the problem here:
Sandi Esterbrook says she hadn’t been to Mass in years. But that didn’t stop her from joining a vigil to save the church where she was baptized and married and where she celebrated a funeral Mass for her late husband.
That’s precisely the problem and they don’t even see the irony. They don’t attend the church for years, but they can’t stand to see it closed. It’s not that they want to worship there; they want it to remain open as some sort of museum or some kind of connection to their past. It’s not a living, breathing community they want, but a museum piece.
There’s an article in USA Today that you may find interesting, http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm It’s not a great piece, it quotes some “authorities” including one from Voice of the Faithful, but it at least raises some interesting questions.
As usual in this type of reporting, there is no explanation of the writer’s definition of Catholic. Are we talking “John Kerry” Catholics or are we talking real Catholics who actually believe everything the Church teaches?
I have to think the definition is more like the former, rather than the latter, if only because one of the things that the Church teaches is that we must attend Mass every Sunday. But, semantics aside, there is obviously a big problem of people who should be going to Mass every Sunday, but have stopped.
I think this is a critical topic for our Church. Now that the elections are over, the Church must make this a priority issue. Even if thousands of high school seniors would suddenly start banging on the doors of the seminaries demanding to be admitted, it would be nearly a decade before they could be ordained.
Wonder if all the participants in the sit-ins actually belong to the churches? Actually attended regularly? Would be interesting.