Wednesday, June 18, 2014


This is scarey stuff! I pray that the arrogance and anti-Catholic rhetoric of Nancy Pelosi is a wake-up call for the Bishops and for our Holy Father. We're dealing with something quite ugly here in the USA and it sounds awfully like we are heading in a direction of government interference in the Church's affairs.

This is a eye-opening article from Crisis Magazine:

What’s Behind Pelosi’s Attack on Archbishop Cordileone?


Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the U. S. House of Representatives Minority Leader, and one of the most powerful Catholic politicians in the United States, has recently warned the Most Rev. Salvatore Cordileone, the Archbishop of San Francisco, to cancel his plans to speak at the June 19 National Organization for Marriage march on the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Calling the event “venom masquerading as virtue,” Pelosi urged Archbishop Cordileone to stay away from the event, and “join us in seeking to promote reconciliation rather than division and hatred.”

Pelosi has partnered with other self-described Catholics including California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, and progressive Catholic activists like Fr. Ray Bourgeois, Marianne Duddy Burk, Mary Hunt, and Jeannine Grammick in protesting in a letter the Archbishop’s appearance at the pro-marriage rally.

And, while the parade of progressive politicians and Catholic dissidents is not surprising, Catholics should be much more concerned about the real power behind Pelosi’s attacks on the Archbishop.
The real story here is the betrayal of the bishops by those like John Gehring, formerly the Assistant Director of Media Relations at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who now works at the George Soros-funded Faith in Public Life/Faithful America. It is activists like Gehring who are providing the real power behind Pelosi’s threats.

Faithful America is a 501c (3) organization that has been very involved in political activity during the past few years. Most recently, the group spearheaded a petition drive on Facebook and other social media decrying what they see as Archbishop Cordileone’s “lending the church’s authority to their [National Organization for Marriage] vitriol and hatred—and undermining Pope Francis’s call for a more compassionate church.”

While a tax-exempt organization, Faithful America sponsors political protests that the organization calls “campaigns.” One of their current campaigns is to mobilize citizen opposition to Michael Boggs, a Georgia state judge who is described on the Faithful America website as a “right wing judge who misuses our faith” when he supports the 2nd Amendment and opposes same-sex marriage. Through petition drives, the group seeks to derail his Republican-backed nomination for a seat on the U.S. District Court because “he built a political career by fear mongering about homosexual Boy Scout leaders.”

Most of Faithful America’s causes involve gay and lesbian issues including a campaign supporting the right of an 8-year-old girl to practice an alternative gender identity at her Christian school; attacking World Vision for refusing to hire openly gay employees; and protesting the new teacher contract issued by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati that explicitly bans teachers who are involved in same-sex marriages. Furthermore, Faithful America distorts the new contract language, claiming that the Cincinnati Archdiocese will fire a teacher if he or she “attends a family member’s gay wedding,” or “shares kind words with a bullied student.”

The Origins of Faithful America

Faithful America was originally founded in 2004 by then Catholic Democratic congressman Tom Perriello. It was always a political organization—described in their literature as a “communications and organizing resource center dedicated to helping faith leaders reclaim the values debate in America for justice, compassion and the common good.” The reality was that Faithful America was created to help Perriello convince voters—especially pro-life voters—to move beyond what he called “divisive abortion rhetoric.”

In addition to Faithful America, Perriello later joined with Alexia Kelly, a former leader of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, to help create Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good—a George Soros supported organization with similar goals as those of Faithful America. Both were designed to help Catholics see beyond a candidate’s stand on abortion, to other life issues. But, their rhetoric was misleading, and in a speech on October 17, 2008, Archbishop Charles Chaput warned that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good had “done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”

By 2009, drawing personnel and funders from the now-declining Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a re-organized Faithful America and Faith in Public Life teamed up with Sojourners, Jim Wallis’ social justice organization, and PICO National Network, the USCCB-funded community organizing initiative to help pass President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The groups created a “toolkit” designed to marginalize the Bishops on healthcare reform by reassuring Catholics that conscience protections would remain in place in the President’s health care reform. This toolkit was used in parishes throughout the country.

Faith in Public Life/Faithful American have implemented a strategy of attacking the teachings of the Catholic Church by directly attacking the authority of the bishops. Faith in Public Life has been flush with Soros money—although in 2010 Wallis refused to acknowledge the receipt of the funds.  Wallis finally admitted what he called “his error” when the funding was made public in an article called “Wallis vs The Truth” by World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky.

In 2010, Faith in Public Life hired John Gehring as the senior writer and “Catholic Outreach Coordinator.” Gehring, who had just spent three years doing messaging work for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was an especially valuable hire for Faith in Public Life because he formerly worked in media affairs for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Gehring now spends his time attacking the same bishops he once worked for. In April, he published an article entitled “More Catholic Than the Pope?” attacking Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison for upholding traditional liturgical practices and for defending hometown son Congressman Paul Ryan. Until 2012, Gehring was joined in the attacks on the bishops by Nick Sementelli, another former employee of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good who became, until 2012, the group’s point man in attacking the bishops. Semintelli launched vicious personal attacks in 2012 on Archbishop Charles Chaput and Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria because of their concerns about conscience protections and funding for abortion in the Affordable Health Care Act. Since Sementelli’s departure, Gehring has taken up the role of episcopal critic.

One of Faith in Public Life/Faithful America’s major campaigns to marginalize the authority of the bishops involved a protest of the Bishops’ Fortnight for Freedom events in 2012. Claiming that the bishops’ support for the events showed “just how out of touch some bishops are with the real threats faced by working families,” Gehring wrote in a leaked email to reporters that the bishops were using “inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric that conflates working through complex policy issues with a fundamental attack on the Catholic Church.” Gehring’s leaked email suggested that reporters should reject as “fiction” any claim that there is a “war on religion” and a “war on the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Cordileone is just the most recent target of the ongoing, well-funded attack on the Catholic Church by Faith in Public Life/Faithful America. As more and more bishops focus their priorities on defending core Catholic moral teachings and less on the progressive policies favored by an earlier generation of American bishops, the Catholic Left finds itself increasingly attacking episcopal authority. These attacks on the bishops come from progressive Catholic leaders like Fred Rotondaro, once a leader at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, who is now on the board of Faith in Public Life. Another Faith in Public Life board member, Tom Chabolla, previously served as Associate Director of Programs for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Other progressive Catholics who serve as speakers and organizers for Faith in Public Life/Faithful America include Greg Galluzzo, national director of the Gamaliel Foundation, and Sister Simone Campbell, national coordinator of Network, the progressive organization of women religious.

It is likely that the attacks on the bishops will continue to escalate—especially now that courageous Church leaders like Archbishop Cordileone are becoming effective obstacles to the progressive political agenda that threatens directly the religious liberty of Catholics and others. Still, no one should imagine that these attacks, so heavily funded by non-Catholic sources, reflect the views of faithful Catholics. This is why even a well-funded dissident minority cannot ultimately weaken a church that is united and confident in its teachings and mission and, most importantly, enjoys divine protection.
(Photo Credit: Lea Suzuki / San Francisco Chronicle)


Anonymous said...

What's scary here is the deep involvement--in this "work of the devil"--of ostensibly Catholic organizations and individuals, some of them apparently close to the staff of the U.S. bishops conference. Which reminds me of the account of someone who visited the USCCB taj mahal in Washington during the last presidential campaign, and noted that its parking lot was wall to wall with bumper stickers supporting the "party of death".

Robert Kumpel said...

I really, really don't want to go negative here, but I think we have to face one very unpleasant fact: We (collectively as a church) let this happen.

When our instincts told us that voting for certain politicians probably violated the principles of our faith, we did it anyway. When we sought leadership from our bishops and priests, many of them told us that they couldn't make any political endorsements, but persuaded us to vote for the anti-life agenda by using code phrases like, "Which candidate supports a 'living wage'? (What they should have proposed was this question: Which candidate supports living?)

For four decades, we have had prominent "Catholic" politicians push the envelope little-by-little, checking as they go along to see how much their bishops would let them get away with in betraying their faith. By now, they know quite clearly THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. One of the most militant pro-abort politicians of our time, Edward Kennedy, who shamelessly railed at Clarence Thomas about women's "rights" to kill their children by abortion, enjoyed the scandal of a Catholic funeral Mass, yet Carmine Galante, a mafia boss, who was responsible for a fraction of the deaths that Mr. Kennedy helped enable, was refused a funeral Mass (and rightfully so). The problem is, there is a complete, transparent and, sadly, hypocritical double standard revealed in such ecclesiastical tolerance.

When our children had their catechisms yanked and the Catholic schools replaced them with books about Ghandi with butterflies on the cover what did we do? Did we even bother to ask the schools or pastors about this "new religious education" they were pushing? Did we try to intervene ourselves and teach the true faith to our children, as we are responsible for doing? No. most of us just trusted the "professionals" unquestioningly because they must know what they are doing.

Well, now we can see what they are doing and what they have done. A woman who places political expediency ahead of faithfulness can publicly rebuke her bishop and then proclaim her "ardent" Catholic faith on the news talk shows. AND SHE IS GOING TO GET AWAY WITH THIS WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A SLAP ON THE WRIST.

We let this happen. We asked for it. We are all like the frogs put in the pot of cold water and some of us are finally starting to realize that it is now boiling. Don't look to the leadership in the Church to do anything about this, because they will not--not at least until we let them know in a serious way that we expect them to stand for something.

Ceile De said...

But isn't the true scandal of the church to be found in ohr chanceries. The same sex marriage campaign doesn't need to worry that half its team is secretly or not so secretly trying to undermine its work due to support for the other side.

Ceile De said...

Robert: if we are the frogs it is precisely our bishops - not all of them, thank God, but most of them as I was growing up - who lit the fire under the pot we are in. People act as if the content just fell out of our religious curricula of its own accord. It didn't. Someone in authority knew precisely what they were removing.

Anon friend said...

Yep, Robert, you hit that nail square on!

Bobby said...

I agree. We have found the enemy and it is us! Faithful Catholics can no longer afford to do nothing!

Robert Kumpel said...

I want to be careful here. I do not mean to demonize bishops and priests and I do not think that excommunication is the end-all solution for the scandals of publicly unfaithful Catholics. I just wish we would see a LITTLE action of some kind. ANYTHING! I am a huge fan of Archbishop Cordileone, but maybe he should have publicly invited Pelosi to go to Confession? We have "Catholic" senators and congressmen who vote and campaign so utterly far from the mind of the Church and their pastors and bishops do NOTHING. A public rebuke or public teaching moment--which I commend Archbishop Cordileone for exercising--would send a message not just to the politicians, but to the people in the pews who think everything is just fine and dandy. Right now, about the only Catholics who get rebuked by their bishops are those who petition for the Traditional Latin Mass--which they shouldn't have to beg for in the first place. This won't last forever, but it certainly tries one's patience to live in these times.

Pater Ignotus said...

"Right now, about the only Catholics who get rebuked by their bishops are those who petition for the Traditional Latin Mass" is a statement, the veracity of which, you have no way of knowing.

As you are not privy to the communications from, I suspect, a single bishop to his flock, there is no way on earth that such an absurd statement can be made with any degree of credibility.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it time to stop calling liberal and moderate Catholics "anti-Catholic"? Were conservatives who railed against Vatican II and attack American bishops also anti-Catholic? The church has factions, like any large group, and conservatives shouldn't pretend to own it.

WSquared said...

Calling the event “venom masquerading as virtue,”

But the same applies to you, Madam. Anything that claims to be love but divorces itself from the Truth of What Is is indeed venom masquerading as virtue.

For four decades, we have had prominent "Catholic" politicians push the envelope little-by-little, checking as they go along to see how much their bishops would let them get away with in betraying their faith. By now, they know quite clearly THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

Really? Jesus said something about millstones (a warning and challenge that applies to us, also).


And she will wither on the vine, with a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, if she doesn't cease and repent.

We are all like the frogs put in the pot of cold water and some of us are finally starting to realize that it is now boiling.

Better that we realize that the pot is boiling at all and jump out. We could not just as soon not, and one of the ways in which the lukewarm stop being lukewarm, after all, is when the heat gets turned up.

A woman who places political expediency ahead of faithfulness can publicly rebuke her bishop and then proclaim her "ardent" Catholic faith on the news talk shows.

This is good ol' "common sense" up to its tricks again-- tricks that are at least 200-300 years old, and stem in good part from a political culture formed immediately post-1688. I would also refer you to the Bangorian controversy of 1730 (and also Sophia Rosenfeld's book on the history of the notion of "common sense") ...except that moral relativism undermines any "common sense," no matter how loudly and how widely one may proclaim one's self its true advocate, as Ms. Pelosi is doing. She's not doing anything new. If something is self-contradictory and self-refuting, why should anyone hold it in common, and why should anyone not expect it to fall down? Wouldn't one lose the very things that one purports to stand for? Appeals to "common sense," explicit or implicit, also tend to arise at times of crisis (if something is "self-evident," after all, why refer to it to the obvious?). Catholics would do well to read those signs of the times.

Part of the problem isn't just our own complacency, but also because there's something about how we understand evangelization that we often don't put our finger on: when we speak of Christ, the elephant in the room is often the Incarnation. We can only show Christ to others to the best of our human abilities, whereby He takes it from there, and we are to get out of His way. We don't convert them any more than we could convert ourselves. We do not presume to "win souls for Christ," as if other people are notches we put on our belts. We can identify brashness when we see it, and how much of a turn-off it can be, but we can often mistake timidity for prudence.

Joe Potillor said...

Robert Kumpel has it exactly right

Vic W said...

For centuries upon centuries the Roman Canon was looked upon as the great bulwark against satan and his demons. How many times is satan mentioned in the Vatican II document on the liturgy, nay any Vatican II document? How often is the Roman Canon used anymore?

John Nolan said...

Things are no better this side of the pond. In March the Bishop of Portsmouth, Philip Egan, said that Catholic politicians who voted for policies that are in contradiction to Catholic moral teaching should be denied Communion as an 'act of mercy'. This prompted Conor Burns, an openly gay Catholic MP who chairs the Parliamentary all-party committee on relations with the Holy See, and who voted in favour of same-sex marriage, to say that he felt 'less welcome' in his home diocese, and would take up the matter with Cardinal Nichols.

The result was a letter sent to all Catholic MPs and peers stating that the Church had no intention of denying Communion to anyone in such circumstances. The letter was signed by Greg Pope, a senior apparatchik for the Bishops' Conference, and a former Labour MP who consistently voted in favour of abortion and adoption by homosexual couples. He is the Conference's liaison officer with Parliament and deputy chief of the Catholic Education Service (CESEW) which has done a lot over the years to destroy Catholic education, and is a good example of a centralized agency usurping responsibilities which properly belong to the diocesan bishop.

Despite a few recent orthodox appointments, the Conference is still dominated by liberals. Benedict XVI had the measure of them, but they see the Francis papacy as an opportunity to reassert themselves.

Robert Kumpel said...

"As you are not privy to the communications from, I suspect, a single bishop to his flock, there is no way on earth that such an absurd statement can be made with any degree of credibility."

With all due respect Father, I don't think you are aware just WHAT I have been privy to. I spent 7 years writing for three publications in California that covered issues in the diocese of San Diego as well as the Archdioceses of San Francisco and Los Angeles and many of the surrounding dioceses for those areas. I spent an additional four years writing stories for the National Catholic Register. I am not listing this to boost my credentials, because I almost wish I never had those writing jobs, as they challenged my faith in ways I never dreamed of. I have interviewed many different people from many different backgrounds about their experiences with their local bishops and they were only too willing to make me privy to such communications between them an their bishop. Many of these folks were parents and victims who were treated with contempt and dismissiveness when they confronted their bishops about the priests who molested them or their children. I spent three hours face to face with a married couple who finally had to hire a private investigator to convince their bishop to remove the faculties of a priest WHO WAS THEIR OWN COUSIN, because he was giving the scandal of living with his homosexual lover in a public way. Several people from one diocese corroborated about a meeting with their bishop in which he feigned interest in their concerns, contradicted himself and refused to answer their questions. I spoke with an unfortunate man who ended up as one of the "toys" used by Fr. Paul Shanley of Boston and a mother and daughter who were friends with him and were shocked later to find out just who he really was. An yes, Father, I have spoken to a number of people, some of them good friends, who have shared their communications with their bishop about their desire for the Mass of the Ages. If you think my claim that they are rebuked is "absurd", I'll take it down a notch. Maybe "rebuked" might be too strong, so I'll just say that many people who ask their bishop for this Mass are:

1) Denied in a dismissive manner

2) Told that there is no demand
(which is almost always a lie)

3) Labeled as "troublemakers"

4) Accused of causing division in their parish or in the Church

5) Treated like second-class Catholics

Yes, maybe "rebuke" is a bit too strong of a word. But faithful Catholics certainly deserve to be treated better than this by their bishops, especially when we see photos in the media of bishops shaking hands with, hugging and laughing out loud with pro-abort politicians.

William J said...

Yes, indeed, Pater. Robert's 5-point description pretty well mirrors what happened under your watch to the faithful in Augusta, GA coming on three years ago. I would be happy to supply written testimony.

Pater Ignotus said...

Robert - You asserted: "Right now, about the only Catholics who get rebuked by their bishops are those who petition for the Traditional Latin Mass..."

To know this to be factual, you would have to be privy to all of the communications of bishops. Only if you were privy to these communications could you know who is being rebuked and for what.

I worked as Bishop Lessard's administrative assistant for four years. I was aware of some of his "difficult" communications with his flock, laity and clergy on a variety of topics.

But, as was proper, he maintained confidentiality in such communications as was proper.

What you cannot know is that those who request the so-called Mass of the Ages are "about the only Catholics who get rebuked."

Pater Ignotus said...

William J - Sorry, I was never dismissive, I never said there was no demand, some few who requested the EF were trouble-makers while most were not, some few caused divisions in the parish while most did not, no one was treated like a second-class Catholic.

Write anything you like, sign it, and send it to the Bishop with a copy to me.

Robert Kumpel said...

OK Father Ignotus, you got me there. If you want to get that technical, you may be right. Thanks for the correction.

William J said...

Pater, different bishop now, as you well know.
No, I am not writing to the current bishop. What I meant was that I would be happy to supply wtitten testimony to YOU from all those faithful who were gravely offended by your and the then-bishop's dismissive attitude.

The "trouble-makers" and those hapless faithful who "caused divisions" were involved in a very different issue as you well know--completely different issues. The close timing of the two issues was unfortunate and regrettable; how you can make that accusation in good conscience I cannot conceive. No wonder people on this blog sometimes accuse you of diversionary tactics and obfuscating...

Pater Ignotus said...

William J - You are welcome to write anything you like, sign it, and send it to the Bishop with a copy to me.

Saying, "No," is not, as you seem to suggest, a "dismissive" response.

Joseph Johnson said...

Summorum Pontificum, as I recall, states that the pastor is to "willingly accede" to the requests of a stable group of faithful for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

How is telling such a group "no" (whether done in a dismissive manner or not) willingly acceding to their request(s)?

Anonymous said...

SP Art. 5, §1 In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

Joseph Johnson said...

Anonymous at 2:47:

Are you "backing me up" by quoting Summorum Pontificum or are you suggesting that requests by stable groups for Mass according to the 1962 Missal at certain parishes in the Diocese of Savannah should be refused by pastors because offering such Masses would cause disharmony or disunity?

If it would cause such disharmony or disunity what evidence supports taking such a position? Is there disharmony or disunity at St. Joseph in Macon or at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Savannah because the Extraordinary Form of Mass is regularly offered in those parishes?

Anonymous said...

Johnson: "Summorum Pontificum, as I recall, states that the pastor is to "willingly accede" to the requests..."


SP: "the parish priest should willingly accede..."


There's a significant difference between the two.

You misquote SP. And that does not help The Cause.

Joseph Johnson said...

Anonymous at 7:24,

You will notice that I did not put "is to" in quotes (I did not say "is to willingly accede"). I wrote that I simply recalled the words "willingly accede." You are correct that "should" precedes "willingly accede" in the actual document, though.

So pastors who say "no" to these EF Mass requests in the face of no evidence that the offering of the EF Mass in a parish would cause disunity or disharmony are not doing what they "should" be doing! That's too bad for all of us . . .

You see, I'm not really very interested in word games, clever arguments or matching wits or intelligence levels. I am, however, keenly interested in seeing the EF Mass become a part of everyday Catholic life, particularly in the Diocese of Savannah, Georgia. I should'nt, as a prerequisite, have to win any online argument with any priest (no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable) or anyone else to see this become a reality . . .

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that accurate quotations or representations of church documents amounts to words games.

SP did not say a priest "is to" willingly accede. It says he "should."

And there is a world of difference. Telling a priest that SP says he "is to" accede is not going to help The Cause. It will, I fear, have the opposite effect.

Anonymous said...

The Latin original says "libenter suscipiat" so arguing the correct English verb, "should" or "is to," is meaningless.

Joseph Johnson said...

Anonymous at 9:51 a.m.,

Thanks for that point about about the Latin original.

Anonymous at 9:12 (I don't assume you are the same as Anonymous at9:51),

"Telling a priest that SP says "is to" accede is not going to help The Cause. It will, I fear have the opposite effect."

I know that priests take a vow of obedience to their respective bishops. Are you saying that many priests do not also desire to be obedient to the Supreme Pastor, the Bishop of Rome, as well?

Should priests only do what their bishop directs and blow the Pope off unless the local bishop incorporates the Pope's policies or directives as his own local diocesan policies?

Willfully refusing to celebrate the EF when requested to do so by a stable group (a refusal based only on an individual priest's attitudes and will alone) shows an attitude of dissent to the Pope Emeritus and actually creates feelings of resentment and estrangement from the stable group parishioners to a pastor. In other words, a simple refusal (without a meritorious explanation for doing so--not a negative attitude by an individual priest towards the EF) can cause more ill feelings and parish disunity than simply acceding and offering the EF Mass on some kind of regular basis in a parish.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Johnson - The OF Mass is the Mass. It is not less the Mass than the EF - it is simply the same Mass in a different form. The OF Mass lacks absolutely nothing.

Those who are not able to worship in the Extraordinary Form have lost nothing that matters and are deprived of nothing that matters, are they?

It is the pastor's responsibility to determine if he can accede to the request of some "stable group" for the Holy Sacrifice in the Extraordinary Form. The ordinary pastoral care of the parish is his responsibility.

Many priests in the Diocese of Savannah have, I am sure, multiple celebrations of Mass each weekend, not a few in two or even three locations. To add another Mass to an already crowded schedule is really not necessary nor truly for the benefit of those who simply prefer to EF to the OF.

Gene said...

Anonymous, Just keep telling yourself that…LOL!

Among the things lacking in the OF Masses I have attended: dignity, reverence, solemnity, attention to detail, proper rubrics, a sense of the Holy, and self-deprecating Priests…for starters.

Joseph Johnson said...

Yes, of course, sacramentally, the OF Form of the Mass is just as much the Mass as the EF Form. No argument there . .

Also, in a single-priest parish with multiple weekend celebrations of Mass, the work-load can be a meritorious reason for a pastor to decline to celebrate the EF Mass. I can see that, too.

It is, however, hard to understand (in circumstances where the time-constraint thing is not so much an issue) why any Catholic priest would refuse to celebrate the EF primarily on the grounds that he personally does not have a favorable inclination toward that form of Mass. He is, after all, there to serve God by serving his people and this may (and does) involve doing and getting involved in things that he, as an individual, might not be otherwise disposed to do.

Now, back to the smaller parishes (like mine) with only one priest:

Given the fact that we are minimally obligated to attend Mass only on Sunday (or Saturday vigil), why would it be a problem to make ONE of the non-obligatory weekday Masses an EF low Mass? Maybe even one weekday Mass in the EF once a month? Perhaps, if we're lucky and have a really understanding and generous priest--once a month on an early Sunday afternoon?

These are all possibilities, even in smaller parishes. Surely the presence of the EF Mass shouldn't only be in metropolitan parishes!

I guess I'm quite stubborn in my belief that small-town or rural life is superior to urban life (cities are nice to visit but, having lived in larger places in my young adult life, I still prefer working in a small town and living in the country). I'm also quite wedded to the belief that small-town folks are as consequential as big-city folks--we all have equal souls before God and equal rights as people.

It really "gets my goat" when someone tells me, "location, location, location" in response to one of my stubborn queries as to why we can't still have some of the amenities in our smaller towns that they once commonly enjoyed but which are now limited to more populated areas (for example, I now have to drive an hour to Brunswick every so often to get my shoes half-soled and we used to have three shoe repair shops in Waycross well into my adulthood--passenger rail service is another example).

Yes, I do prefer the EF Mass because it is easier for me to connect with the Mystery that is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in that form. Maybe a lot of it has to do with the ethos, if you will--the lack of "modern" casualness and folksiness. It just seems to promote a whole different attitude, generally speaking, which strikes me as more reverent and focused on God (I know the OF can be done this way as well but usually it is not).

I love the EF Mass for what it is, historical cultural accretions and all. However, just as dropping a little white paint into a gallon of black paint "tints" it and changes it forevermore, I see the presence (even on a limited part-time basis) of the EF Mass in a parish as an element which will, ultimately, improve the OF liturgical (and, hopefully, spiritual) culture in a parish.

Call me a stubborn and hidebound "true believer" on this issue if you must but this form of the Mass matters!