What is wrong with this excerpt and quote from a recent article?
Until parishioners are satisfied with the definition of chapel, their round-the-clock vigil will continue. “There hasn’t been a final resolution of all the issues yet, therefore the vigil is continuing,” Ryan said. “It will (continue) until there is final resolution to all of the issues.”
They’re talking about St. Anselm parish in Sudbury, Mass.,, one of the original sit-in parishes.
They were originally put on the list of parishes to close, and then four months ago were told that the church would stay open as a chapel of a nearby parish. Unfortunately, the protesters don’t seem to understand what a chapel is, and think they’re going to be re-opened as a parish.
The problem with the quote above is that it has the roles reversed. You don’t get to dictate terms of governance to the archbishop while retaining the right to call yourself a Catholic in good standing. Yes, there are times when legitimate dissent is possible, and even appropriate, but here they’re telling the archbishop that until he bends over all the way, they’re going to remain right where they are.
They’re also basing part of their appeal to Vatican on the Diocese of Spokane’s bankruptcy case that claims that parishes aren’t owned by the bishop under canon law, but are independent juridic persons. Yes, they are juridic persons, but it doesn’t put them outside the bishop’s authority to open or close them. After all, if the archbishop doesn’t have authority to close or otherwise modify a parish, then under what circumstances would any parish be closed or modified? Silly.
Idiots.
The problem with the quote above is that it has the roles reversed. You donks are a bit confused, given how the Saint Albert the Great situation panned out.
Parishioners have struggled to understand exactly what is meant by reopening as a chapel.
“Struggled?” In this case, it’s a matter of simply opening a dictionary and looking at the first definition:
chapwhich often means actually acceptable.
By the way, you might want to correct your comment. (I figure that you must have much on your mind.) You wrote: whereas pedophilia and heterosexuality are disordered through and through.
At least you have a couch somewhere. Some of us don’t have family in the area. (Long story there…)
Yes, I meant homosexuality.
For some reason, the picture of The Minister’s Happy Family puts me in mind of Mr. and Mrs. Blackitt in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life”:
MR. HARRY BLACKITT: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can’t afford to bloody feed.
MRS. BLACKITT: What are we dear?
MR. BLACKITT: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
MRS. BLACKITT: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
MR. BLACKITT: Because… every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
MRS. BLACKITT: But it’s the same with us, Harry.
MR. BLACKITT: What do you mean?
MRS. BLACKITT: Well, I mean, we’ve got two children, and we’ve had sexual intercourse twice.
(Those familiar with the movie will know that I’m omitting the rest of the scene, containing some funny, but unspeakably vulgar, discussion of the “benefits” of Mr. Blackitt’s triumphalist Protestantism.)
And a lovely song and dance number
< that minister doesnuntil the wedding day. Have to be out of the old apartment at the end of the month, but the wedding’s not until the middle of the month. Not great planning.
]]>
5615
2005-07-28 09:11:15
2005-07-28 13:11:15
open
open
moving_moving_moving
publish
0
0
post