But...!

This weekend at class, our professor gave us a GREAT analogy, after he pointed out to us that something is happening today that has never happened in the HISTORY of the Church.

When there is something NEW after over 2,000 years, well, maybe we should take notice. After all, most heresies are not actually new and innovative; they're just rehashings of of the old tired stuff like gnosticism and pelagianism.

What am I talking about?

Is there anyone who HASN'T heard the following phrases or related variations?

"It's still the Mass."

"It's still valid".

"Jesus is still present."  

"No matter what happens, it's still the Lord."

 Can you BELIEVE the excuses given for what people CLEARLY know is wrong?

Our professor wasn't attacking liturgy. He wasn't attacking anyone. He was only pointing out a discrepancy that we've all been lulled to accept.  

I'm the one making it polemical. He didn't. But it's my blog, and I feel like being controversial, and I don't have to worry about accreditation, so here I go: The Rant is ON! 

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems that whenever someone politely and specifically points out issues that are contrary to the GIRM or, maybe to music being used in the Mass that is not liturgical or maybe is outright heretical, someone comes along and says, "But...it's still Jesus on the altar."  

(Note the prefacing and self-effacing term..."but".  "But" is ALWAYS  a term that denotes a change in direction.  And in this case, it's directing a change against faithfulness to Canon Law, which is what the GIRM IS!) 

Moving on...

Maybe you're having a polite (really!) discussion with someone about the fact that Haugen-Haas-S-guy is the dominating voice of God in the liturgy these days, even though their music, at best, only paraphrases the psalms and often contradicts Catholic theology outright.  And maybe you grumble a little that "Soon and Very Soon", which is a Protestant hymn which does not recognize the True Presence of Christ in the tabernacle at ALL TIMES is actually fully improper for a post-Communion "meditation", and that same dear misinformed soul (or one just like it in bad formation) pipes up, "But...the Mass is still valid", and too often that same dear person is still tapping their foot to the soulful bongos which continue to ring in an unbearable ear worm. 

[As an aside...some complain about "All Are Welcome".  At least they're not hearing "Soon and Very Soon" in their nightmares as I am.  When did I become a Southern Baptist?]

Or maybe you've just left the LA Religious Conference, replete with scantily-clad liturgical dancers that have no relevance to any part of American culture (which includes ALL cultures of the world), and you've listened to speakers of other races than yours complain that the Mass isn't relevant to their middle-eastern ancestry. And maybe you're Vietnamese and you're astounded because...the Roman liturgy ISN'T an American event, but AROSE out of the Middle East/Africa and if anyone has a right to complain about relevance, it's the Anglos who aren't included in its history. 

But we Anglos don't complain, do we?  

Because we're the only ones without a voice and we watch with irony while people of African and other descent who've been raised in a victim culture deconstruct the very liturgy that arose out of their own ancestral traditions but found a home in Rome, anyway. 

So much for oppression.  The Church loved the people to the south of Rome so much that she made their liturgical practices her standard.    (It's also very Franciscan, as it was the Franciscan form itself that was standardized while all other rites were suppressed in the interest of unification in liturgy in the Latin Rite.)  

Welcome to America. Land of the Historically-Idiotic, Home of the Free-to-Deconstruct what was never a problem in the first place. 

Let me offer you our professor's synopsis of the liturgical problem we face in this age, all across the world. For indeed, this is not an American problem, but one that infects and poisons us across the world.  Maybe you'll have to substitute the metaphor, but you'll see the point. 

*(Important Disclaimer:  I've embellished on the original analogy because it's more fun and it gives me the ability to reach a wider audience.)   

The Event at the Faithful and Joyful Ranch

Someone happens by your house, says "Peace be with you" and hands you a porterhouse steak.  Now, this is a PRIME piece of meat, perfectly marbled and aged. This thing could actually feed your entire family, and dang, you've been STARVING in the last week.  This is a GIFT!

So as you behold this wondrous, amazing cut from a very happy steer which gave its life to feed your starving family, you realize that what you have there in your hot callused hands is an EVENT. 

So you set out to make it happen.  You prep the grill with the right amount of charcoal, maybe even add hickory chips to make the smoke more aromatic and impart a certain importance to what is being offered.  

You choose the choicest vegetables from the field or the garden or the grocery store. Because only the right greens and corn is going to be proper for this feast.  And then you choose the most perfect wine, maybe a deep ruby Zinfandel or even a Shiraz or Sirah.  

Everything goes into this steak.  Because the accoutrement's that surround it point to its goodness and help you enjoy it more. Sure, it's a lot of work to put all of this together, and you need the help of your family to make sure the corn is soaked and then grilled or maybe boiled to perfection, and the greens are garlic-steamed just right, and maybe the potatoes are on the heat in the coals for just the right amount of time so that their skins are crispy but the inside is soft but not too much so. 

And all of this leads up to the main event, which is the porterhouse.  And you put that juicy perfectly-raised hunk of muscle on the iron and dang it if you don't fall to your knees in anticipation of what this is about to become!  

And then you take it off the grill and cut it and serve it to your family, and all of you rejoice in awe at this incredible event that is the Porterhouse steak. 

Or...Back at the Backwards Ranch where the Left Hand makes a Y

Someone happens by your house, says "Peace be with you" and hands you a Porterhouse steak. Now, this is a PRIME piece of meat, perfectly marbled and aged. This thing could actually feed your entire family, and dang, you've been STARVING in the last week. This is a GIFT!

And you take a look at your children and your family and decide you're all pretty hungry but you haven't seen a cow or a steer in a long time because you actually decided they weren't environmentally safe since they killed your grass in order to sustain themselves, and it meant you had to take time away from protesting Bush or or the war or free press in order to take care of them.  Some actually starved and died under your watch, but hey, they were just cattle that weren't being used, so what difference did it make? 

But then this porterhouse came your way and was given to you, and you looked at your progeny and realized maybe you were wrong about the importance of meat. And so you decided that it was really all about the stuff it contained in it that might make your family live a little longer. 

So you take that steak and because you can't serve it raw, you throw it into a pot of boiling water so as to kill the bacteria and inorganic materials that surely covered it. And you didn't want to grill it for fear of making chem trails in the sky above your ranch. Besides, you wouldn't have enough to feed Algore and his camera crew.   

So when it's done boiling and tough as the hide of the mummified bull you left to rot out in the home paddock, you decide it's safe to consume. But maybe it'll go down more quickly if it's blended and served in shot glasses and trendy finger bowls.  So you toss it into the mixer or the blender and you put it on "puree".

And maybe you toss in a few vegetables to blend with it, but when it's done, it's the same goop everyone eats, right? All you gotta do is garnish it with a few lentils and maybe some organic wheat grass. 

And you serve this mushy porterhouse steak in tumblers to your family explaining that it's all the same as the stuff that comes off your neighbor's grill.  And the mother, even though she secretly objects to how dinner is being prepared and served, says to her astonished children, "But it's still a steak, right?  The meat is still present, it just seems different because it's prepared differently. But it's all the same.  No matter what you do to it, it's still a porterhouse steak!  Slurp up!" 

And eventually the children, accustomed to eating in this manner, take on the same astonished litany, because they have to in order to convince themselves that the Left Hand Makes a Y Ranch is experiencing the same benefits as the Faithful and Joyful Ranch.  

And one day someone comes to town and visits the Y Ranch and experiences their idea of dinner. They partake because they, too recognize that what is served is in fact a steak because they saw it before it was transformed into goop. And even though they try to DESCRIBE what a Porterhouse is like, the family at Y decides that's too much work and no one would like it because boiling and blending is so much easier and understandable.  Who needs spices and rubs and flavorings and accoutrements like garlic steamed broccoli?  Or cheddar mashed potatoes? 

Does anyone see a problem with this? 

Anyone who knows what a Porterhouse is about can clearly see that the Y Ranch is actually not aware of the import of what the Porterhouse is really about.  It is an event. A major event. It feeds the starving children.  It isn't just about the substance, but the understanding of what it is. And understanding what it is about is made more clear by what leads up to it and surrounds it. 

Certainly, you can boil a steak and serve it with water and a thickening agent. But really...is that what a Porterhouse is about? 

Those who have ever worked in health care will understand this analogy most clearly.  I remember blending food for those who could not chew. I remember adding a thickening agent to gel water so that my patient wouldn't choke and drown.  I remember spooning a ham and cheese sandwich from a plastic bowl into the mouth of another dear person, wondering if they'd EVER have the pleasure of knowing what a ham sandwich was really about.  

The Rights of the Faithful

The fact is that the Liturgy matters.  The entire Liturgy prepares us for what we are about to receive. And if the accoutrements make us say trite and improperly defensive things like: "But...Jesus is still present!", it is indicative that we are not being presented with the reality of what we are supposed to be receiving. It means we're spooning up mush when we should be gnawing from the bone. 

People, if you leave Mass commenting, "Jesus was still made manifest" or "It was still a  valid Mass" or "The people of the Congo would have died for what we just experienced"....

Well...

First of all, if you're making those comments, it is an act of trying to justify or rationalize something you recognized is very, very wrong.  If your latter comment about experiencing what people in the Congo or in India or the Sudan or Bosnia would die to experience...don't count on it. It's quite possible they'd rather die than see such a lack of reverence given to Our Lord.

   

If you're going to bring up the martyrdom of those who suffer for the Mass, I must ask you this:    are you suggesting they don't DESERVE a properly celebrated Mass with all the  accountrements that draws them in to Christ?  Are they not deserving of all the elements of the liturgy we are supposed to be celebrating in honor of Christ?  Would that not also edify their souls?  Or don't they deserve reverence?  

Secondly, if you're going to cite the poor Catholics of those awful war-torn parts of the world, are you suggesting they have no TASTE?   Just because certain American Catholics think that it's OK to wear blue pastel paint swipes on a scarf over a plastic summer tablecloth doesn't mean that those who have lost everything have also lost appreciation for true beauty.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd give up food for MONTHS in order to purchase proper liturgical vestments for their priests.  

Thirdly...are you suggesting that because we live in a country that has access to all those things that make the liturgy proper and beautiful, we SHOULD NOT utilize those things just because other people in other parts of the world cannot because of their persecution? 

Here's the reality:  

The liturgy here is present everywhere. We go to Mass not for ourselves, but ON BEHALF OF those who CANNOT!  We have the potential to experience the full effects of Grace, and that grace is brought to fulfillment by a liturgy properly celebrated and experienced, and we can offer that for those who are deprived of the ability to even seen a priest, much less attend a Mass offered by him.  

If you're making excuses saying that liturgical disharmony is OK because everyone doesn't get to experience what is written in the GIRM or other things that honor God in the liturgy, then what you are saying is that you don't understand what the liturgy is about, nor do you understand that the Mass isn't relevant only to the location where it's celebrated, but EVERYWHERE and in ALL TIMES.  

Period. 

So stop with the excuses.  If you're happy with mush, then go eat mush, but don't enforce it on the rest of us.  We who know what steak is about are happy to share it, but it means you need to leave the puree behind and never look back. Don't waste our time or our salvation suggesting that the unidentifiable dinner your having is anything like the great feast the rest of us are celebrating in everywhere else. 

I am so sad for those parishes that have a liturgy which is unrecognizable as being Catholic.  We have a few in my diocese, and there are many that have not obtained fame.  The fact is that those people are suffering because their Sacraments may be invalid, they are not experiencing the Word of God, they are not learning the Gospel message.  The Liturgy is the face of the Church, and it is what most people recognize about Catholics. 

When you walk into a Cathedral or a beautiful church, who do you see walking around in awe, taking photos, asking questions?

Protestants.  People of no faith.  People who are seeking. 

So many Catholics in the past (and sadly, today) have had this impression that if we look more Protestant, then we'll be more attractive. The opposite is the truth. 

The non-Catholic people who enter our churches take a look cringe, and comment, "What did you do THAT for?"  

They can no longer even find a representation of Christ in our parishes. They find blobs of stone or resin and wonder at the religion that would permit something so utterly blasphemous to be contained within the walls of what is supposed to be sacred space. 

And so often, people visiting Catholic Churches can't even find the glowing red candle that is supposed to mark the tabernacle.  How do we bring people into the Presence of Christ...but can't point to Him?  

So I say, save your useless platitudes. Don't make excuses for what is wrong. Admit that something isn't right and work to establish what should be present, and what elevates us to Christ.  

The Church does not exist to save the world. It exists to save our souls.  THAT'S what we need to understand and follow. And if we don't vibrantly live out what we believe, then  we'll be violently spit out in the very form of the lukewarm mush with which we liturgically choose to disregard the honor due to God.  

I guess we all have a choice.  I, for one, have no time for excuses. You?  

*This rant has been brought to you by Adoro and does not represent the opinion of her priests or her bishops in any official capacity, although she thinks it's possible she might be stating what they think but are far too polite, holy, and well-formed to state outside of private conversation with other of the ordained persuasion.  In other words...nothing contained above is Catholic Doctrine. Don't sue me if you're not practicing custody of the eyes.  I'll go to my judgment for writing this, and you can go to yours for reading it. Agreed?  Agreed. Thank you.  Expect time in purgatory just for reading this.  Sorry. I'll do your time for you. * 

Social Media, Canon Law, and Attacking Clergy

Charity is not a mere suggestion for Catholics (or anyone else for that matter), but for EVERYONE. And to be clear, in this context I'm not speaking in terms of giving stuff to the disenfranchised, but rather, the command to LOVE.  To be charitable towards others. To respect in them the dignity God gave them, and, in the case of the Ordained (Clergy), we are to hold a particular respect for the OFFICE they hold in obeisance to GOD. 

That is not to say we cannot be critical of certain actions, but we must ALWAYS remember in our criticisms to remember charity and to have respect for the office of those people we may be criticizing.  And we must take care in how we go about our criticisms;  perhaps it's best, maybe, to not shred a priest or bishop on a blog or in a newspaper article and instead go directly to the source?   After all...that IS our obligation and right under Canon Law.  

But we do NOT have the right to ridicule those who hold those offices. As an example, a few weeks ago I referred to a certain dissident Priest as "a Tool".  Meaning, "a tool of Satan".  I did it in conversation, and I hold that he's still a "tool" of the group that is using him and his office to advance a dissident agenda.  However, there is a HUGE difference between the latter and the former;  the first was a personal attack that was a judgment upon him. The second addresses an objective action.  I apologize, therefore for my slander, but I won't apologize for addressing the truth of how he and his office is being used for Satanic means. 

It's easy to spout off and we tend to do so in a knee-jerk manner.  It's harder, though, to look at the actual issue and realize that there is a person with real dignity who holds an office to which he was called by God, whether we understand why or not.  And sometimes the person holding that office is a puppet of some lay group. Sometimes maybe he's just not too bright, or maybe was badly formed. It doesn't matter what is the cause of his very public errors; what DOES matter is how we are called to handle those errors, and public slander and libel and the like is NEVER the proper way to go about it.  

A Bishop's Experience With Internet Criticism

Many have already read the interview with Archbishop Chaput who commented on the hate mail he's received ever since he's been connected online.  In his honesty, he ALSO stated that the mail from the left has contained the most profanity, the mail from the right, those people whom one would think would be most supportive of a Bishop of his intestinal fortitude and holiness, has instead been the most vitriolic.  

Here are His Excellency's exact words, (linked above): 

"Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write. Sometimes, I must admit, that when I write back, I’m not as friendly as I should be. But I try not to be mean."

And then, reflecting on the difference between e-mail from liberals and conservatives, he said:

"The left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul."

As a blogger, I've noticed the same things. There are certain blogs I won't read anymore because of the way they attack priests and bishops with impunity - or anyone else who happens to share a different view (which in many cases is a legitimate non-heretical opinion from a fellow Catholic in good standing). There are certain blogs I read, but at which I rarely or never comment;  not because of the author, but because of the commenters who claim to be solid Catholics in spite of the hatred and accusation they spew into every corner of cyberspace.

It is not that I haven't been guilty of doing the same thing. I have been, clearly, and for that, I sincerely apologize.

I'm glad Archbishop Chaput has spoken out on this issue, and I hope his words are taken to heart by the very people who most need to hear that message, but somehow, I doubt it. It seems like those who do the most damage to the Mystical Body of Christ don't take hints very well and apply the barb to everyone else but themselves.

Thus, I'm not expecting that those offensive bloggers, Catholic newspaper columnists from secular and Catholic newspapers alike will change their attitude any time soon.

Maybe it's time to recall, that, especially in the case of our clergy, we as Catholics are OBLIGATED to respect the office of the Priest or Bishop, and obviously, that of the Pope and every other ordained Ecclesial Office.  

Consider the words of Canon 1369: 

A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. 

This is any person. Let's focus on bloggers since this is the proper venue.  Let's also look at other social media such as Twitter or Plurk or other similar venues;  the reality is that what we say and how we say it affects others.  If I am critical of the actions of a Bishop and sarcastically call him to account in a public internet venue, what I'm doing is exciting hatred or contempt in others, whether they are Catholic or not.  And in exciting that hatred or contempt, that would also mean that this would spread to the same effect against religion and the Church. 

I could come up with a LOT of examples of this:  An Actor portraying a role in an anti-Catholic play would fall under this canon. So would a newspaper columnist who spouts off the old-hat inaccuracies and lies about the Crusades and Galileo and the Inquisition. An average Catholic who publicly slanders the Pope in a Letter to the Editor in a local newspaper or diocesan paper.  An average Catholic who twists Church teaching on faith and morals to try to justify their own behavior and writes about it in a publication or calls a conference for that very purpose.  Need I go on?  I could....

What we do and what we say MATTERS to others, whether they are currently Catholic or not. When they look at us, how do we reflect the Church?  If we're running around spewing a bunch of vile insults against certain Priests or Bishops, others look at that and are put off, perhaps affecting their ability to trust in the holiness and the authority of the Church established by Christ. 

We WILL answer for those souls at our Particular Judgment!  If we are the ones who chased someone away from Holy Mother Church, we are placing our very souls in jeopardy.  It is we who have been given so much that have the greater duty to spread the Gospel message with charity and truth.  And it IS possible to be truthful without being vitriolic and rude. Remember what Isaiah said about the Messiah to come:  He would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoking wick.  

THAT'S our example to follow. 

Personally...I'm cringing. I KNOW I've acted contrary to this Canon.  How 'bout YOU? 

But wait!  There's MORE! 

According to Can. 1371:  

The following are to be punished with a just penalty: 

section 1:  in addition to the case mentioned in can 1364.1* a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in can. 750.2** or in can. 752*** and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary; 

section 2: a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning. 

(See below for Canons marked with *, **, or ***) 

We've had a recent example of this in the news out of the Diocese of Madison; a woman was dismissed by the Bishop because of her refusal to recant her thesis.  As you can read for yourself, the above Canon gives the Bishop (i.e. the Ordinary) the right to ask her to recant, and because she remained obstinate, he was correct in his action to fire her.  Basically, if it ain't Catholic and if you persist in holding to views that aren't Catholic and you happen to work in a church that requires your obedience, you can be dismissed.  Period.  The Church is not about YOU.  It's about God. And if there is a cancer present in the Body, it must be removed. If a warning (i.e. an antibiotic or chemo treatment) is sufficient, well, then all is well. Otherwise, the Bishop gets to apply the scalpel.  Deal with it.  

Unfortunately that's not the only example, but I'll go no further and I won't link to the situation as it really isn't necessary. 

There's another Canon, however we also must consider, because it's ANOTHER thing we see a lot of at least in our local diocese.  

Canon 1373:

A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties. 

Yup.  Have seen a few such examples.  I've seen such disobedience provoked by both lay people and clergy, here and abroad, and recently.  And they tend to do this in the public press, via blogging and personal websites, published literature for various dissident organizations, etc,  as well as in the secular media.  Anything that incites hatred against the Church seems to make it into print and visual media. 

We ALL need to be on notice, and especially those to whom this canon applies! Thus, they who offend against the Church have no right to whine and complain when they're busted and are given said penalties, which can be a range of things.  

People, especially fellow bloggers, we need to take care with our words and positions. It is not that we cannot comment on current events, or share our opinions. But we need to remember that even if we don't personally like a Priest or a Bishop, we DO need to respect the office and tender our words according to what is owed for that reason.  Yes, we all know that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops (according to St. John Chrysostom), but do we really want our own skulls parked right there next to them on that roadway to eternal condemnation? 

Something to consider the next time we put our fingers to the keyboard. 

I have ONE other thing to say: 

The reality is that we are used to American Civil Law in our "democratic" society. Under Civil Law, the State considers that we have rights because the law gives them to us.  We can summarize the basic premise by saying that I have a right, which means YOU have a duty.  

In Canon Law, it is just the opposite; I have a right BECAUSE I have a duty. 

Canon law is an ordering of society in order that holiness and salvation can be achieved.  That order is imperative. The law isn't there just to be there; it's there to help us reach to God. It's there because we are fallen creatures and were structures not in place, there would be the same chaos American society is headed for  in our socialist/communist regime.  

So as you read these canons, don't complain that it's complicated. READ them.  It's common sense, really. And if you love God, if you TRULY love God, then you'll love His representatives on earth, and you will treat them with the same proper regard owed to anyone in the dignity of such an office.  It doesn't mean you have to like them or agree with them personally. It means you respect the Office, the Title, because you respect God. And it is that very duty by virtue of your baptism that gives you any other Ecclesial right within the Catholic Church.  

See you in the Confession line.  

--------------------------------  

NOTATIONS:  

* Canon 1364.1 cites apostate from the faith, heretic, schismatic incurs latae sententiae excommunication

** Canon 750 

§1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

*** Canon 752 

Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

ENTIRE CODE OF CANON LAW AT VATICAN WEBSITE

Defending the Truth

I know a few posts ago I was upset by all the snark in the blogosphere, but I still admit that at times it's necessary to step up and defend the Truth, even if doing so seems snarky. So beware...this is going to be a snarky post, and one that I'm certain will land me a greater sentence in Purgatory. Please pray for my soul.

Here's the deal; I read today the content of a homily posted by a local priest. I will not name him or his parish, but will only provide the link to the source and you can follow the links from there.

Apparently this homily came from an audio file, and this is a snippet of the information for your reading displeasure:

Version 3:

Two people came into Church to pray, one was a Catholic Archbishop who refuses communion to Rainbow Sash people at the Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday who prayed ” I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others – greedy, dishonest or like others who need to make their dissent from official Church teaching so public and divisive.”

The other were Rainbow parents of GLBT people at the Cathedral on Pentecost who stood off on the side and prayed, “Oh God be merciful to us for failing to attend our own Churches more often; they say they love God then turn there backs on us in hate directly contrary to 1:John,4 – whoever loves God must also love the neighbor.” Jesus concluded the last ones went home more worthy in God’s sight than the first.

By way of explanation, the gospel being used was obviously the pharisee and the publican. The "version" is one of several "versions" this priest chose to write for his homily, all of which miss the point of the gospel message.

I find it necessary, therefore, to defend our coadjutor bishop, Archbishop Nienstedt, which is pretty sad considering I'm defending him from one of his own local priests.

Firstly, the good Bishop simply stated Church teaching, in this article. His teaching was in response to an attack by local homosexual activists whose desire is that the teachings of the Catholic Church change to meet their basest desires of the flesh. You know the story because it plays out daily somewhere.

For those who don't care to click on the link, the information in the article by the Archbishop simply provided an explanation as to why a local father and daughter were not allowed to use a local parish as a venue to promote the gay lifestyle via a talk on a book she (a lesbian) wrote. Archbishop Niensteadt did not condemn anyone, but stated very coherently what the Church's stand is with regard to these types of behaviors, as well as the need for those in mortal sin to receive absolution before approaching the Sacraments. There is nothing new in what he stated, and in fact, he provided information for Courage and Encourage, an apostolate to those suffering from Same Sex Attraction and seeking to live lives of chastity and obedience to God.

He did not state in any way in his article that he was not a sinner. The Archbishop did not uphold himself as some sort of perfect being. Rather, he did his job in that he, speaking as our Shepherd, guides us all to a full understanding with regard to Catholic teaching in the Divine order of morality. Job well done!

And so I offer that the priest's homily was not only morally dishonest, but was directly miseading with regard to Jesus' own words and intention, was intellectually dishonest as it misrepresents the words of scripture, and so the priests' own words actually reveal the depth of his own ignorance of God.

Do not condemn the priest; although he has chosen to be a tool, God has intended him for something much greater, and at his hands, the bread and wine are indeed changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. For that reason, we must remember that God has set him apart for such an awesome task. So we must remember this and PRAY for this priest; that he work according to God's will and not his own, that he remember the vows from his ordination, and that he remember that as a servant of God he is obliged to preach the Truth according to God...not according to the beliefs of popular culture. And we must pray that God have mercy upon him for he has clearly been conversing with the Serpent and has been swayed to act against God's love for him.

One day, we will all face judgment for what we have done or said, and those of us in teaching positions will be held far more responsible than others, for those who teach and speak have the ability to do far more damage to vulnerable souls.

May God bless Archbishop Niensteadt, and the priest who has thumbed his nose at God. Both are in need of God's grace.