No good deed goes unpunished. In an effort to head off a de facto schismatic Mass on Easter Sunday, Archbishop Sean O’Malley told a group of recusant Catholics that he would send a priest to celebrate Mass for them at an elementary school so they wouldn’t go ahead with a Mass at a Protestant church. He also allowed Easter Masses at two other closed parishes, St. Albert’s in Weymouth and St. Anselm’s in Sudbury. Everybody’s happy, right? Wrong.
Like siblings complaining that “Mom loves you best!” other protesters say it isn’t fair:
“He’s playing Catholic against Catholic,” said Gina Scalcione, one of scores of parishioners who have staged a 5-month sit-in at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in East Boston. “What are they saying - that the people of St. Albert’s are better than us? You can’t pick and choose.”
(Scores? I don’t think so.) Doesn’t it sound so petty? Although I do agree in one way, but not the way they think. None of them should be granted these concessions because by their disobedience they have broken communion with the Church. There needs to be some serious fixing first before a shared Communion can take place. (Illicit use and abuse of the Eucharist is the top of my list.)
But I guess the archbishop is trying to be pastoral. Guess it didn’t work out the way he planned.
Of course not. It appears, once again, that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Problem is that this gives people the idea that it’s perfectly okay to flaunt authority and cause trouble. Maybe it is. I’ve seen this so many times, that I even wonder sometimes.
Here’s a press release here:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44890
http://www.councilofparishes.org/
So they are called now the Council of Parishes? Hmm?!