We know from all studies that pedophilia, the abuse of pre-adolescent children is a miniscule problem in the priesthood as evil and pathological as it is. The few cases of actual pedophilia were exacerbated by bishops who transferred these priests from place to place after mental illness treatment. Thus some abusers could have had hundreds of victims.
The major problem which again is a small percentage of priests has to do with Ephebophilia which can manifest itself in three ways, heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. It isn't so much a true pathology that can't be overcome like pedophilia, but an issue of mental illness, immaturity or arrested sexual development. In the Catholic priesthood, the small percentage who are warped with this sexual desire for teenagers (but also like sex with adults) are homosexuals. It has little to do with heterosexual priests who like to have sex with teenage girls or adult women. They like sex with both, like the homosexual priests. The Catholic priesthood problem is overwhelming homosexually driven.
But even here, bishops transferred these homosexual priests from parish to parish after so-called treatment thus exacerbating the number of victims and/or potential victims.
Thus this leads us to the second problem and it really is the primary problem BISHOPS.
Bishops accepted homosexually inclined candidates as seminarians. Those not inclined to want sexual relationships with actual teenage boys or those men who look like teenagers, wanted consensual sex with other homosexual seminarians or those they may have thought were homosexual. Or simply they were overcome with heterosexual seminarians with whom they were attracted.
This is how the homosexual cabal in the priesthood developed with networking, not to seduce teenagers but to find consensual sex partners. And with the new social media and apps, this cabal can truly connect in unbelievable ways and worldwide.
Bishops have completely ignored this and called it something else. It is incredible to read some of Cardinal Cupich's remarks on this because he is an intelligent man who knows better.
One can also read commentaries from the National Catholic Reporter to find the same sort of politically correct garbage spewed out to obfuscate the actual problem.
The third problem is Vatican II. No progressives want to critique this Council with its savage results on the Church for the past 50 years or more. This is absolutely stunning and the worse kind of idolatry. This isn't to say there were some positive developments, but the poison of what has happened to the Church overwhelms any goodness. It's like drinking a perfectly good glass of fine wine which has a contaminant in it. I am afraid Vatican II is the contaminant of the fine glass of wine of the Church prior to Vatican II. And any problems in the Church prior to Vatican II could have easily been addressed without an ecumenical council the scope of Vatican II!
Every aspect of the Church was affected by this revolution of destruction of Catholicism and its culture. The major changes have to do with what the Ordained Priest's true mission and identity are. This is then related to the laity's true identity, corrupted by Vatican II which turned them into want-to-be "lay" clerics with the disease of clericalism too as it concerns authoritarianism.
Then the priest's identity at the celebration of the Mass is reduced to being a presider, not a priest as understood prior to Vatican II. And his identity outside of the celebration of the Sacraments is reduced to that of a social worker which truly is the ministry/apostolate of the laity or those laity, male or female in consecrated religious life.
As it concerns openness to the world, other religions and Protestantism, this has led to the loss of Catholic idenity, either to godless secularism or to the heresy of universalism.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE LOSS OF PRIESTLY IDENTITY AND LAY CATHOLIC IDENTITY CAUSED BY VATICAN II WHICH CAN ALSO BEEN UNDERSTOOD AS A FOUNDATIONAL CAUSE OF THE CURRENT APOCALYPSE ESEPCIALLY RELATED TO LOSS OF CATHOLIC MORALITY OF THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH!
But if one wants to speak of clericalism, the cult of the priesthood is relegated to the cult of the personality of the particular priest, bishop or pope. Clericalism, not so much in the exclusive cultic action of the priest, but in terms of his personality is major disorder today. And yes, the priest facing the congregations as a sort of cultic entertainer is the problem liturgically, not to mention the abuse of the liturgy through creativity and ad libbing.
Of course the abuse of the trust of the laity is a major betrayal which begins with bishops who did not warn the laity of the pathology in the priesthood in their various dioceses until it was too late and media pressure caused post-Vatican II bishops to change. Yes, media pressure, not the law of God! SCANDAL!
37 comments:
Fr Allan,
Beautifully put.
I will pray tonight for you and priests of your caliber and integrity.
Teenagers were betrayed; rarely but still.....children were betrayed.
But also every good Catholic priest was betrayed.
I will turn my Catholic cop brother into a fictional character:
George Plod has after 6 beers been known to say:
The worst of them should be killed twice;
once for the damage they did to the child,
And again to the damage they the worst ones have done to my Church.
The older I've gotten, the more I've come to view VII as a complete mistake. Perhaps more in the unfolding/execution of it, but of that I'm no longer certain.
Will it be repudiated.... nah..."elightened" elite will just keep tweaking things and making it worse.
The Church in her hierarchy, her priests, and her laity - in her Mystical Body, is undergoing great trials, and we pray that she will sooner than rather than later emerge from all this to continue to fulfill that for which she was intended: which is to be the Divinely ordained Instrument of Salvation, the effective means of conversion for the world; a Light of Sanctity and means of grace; a Fountain of Holiness whose source is the Divine Trinity.
We read and learn about the Saints who, like gemstones of holiness, were cut and shaped by trials, adversities, sufferings and spiritual disciplines, and shone on earth with the splendor of their good works and fervent love of God and neighbor. We observe that the same light when shining through gems of different shape and kind displays itself in differing ways.
So it is that the Light of Christ shines differently in each of His holy ones according to the graces he has bestowed on each, and how they were disposed to receive them, so that the glory of the Lord is made manifest in all their good works,prayers,sacrifices, and sufferings.
The greatest of these is the Blessed Virgin who, if likened to a gem, would be one of inestimable worth and incomparable beauty and one that shines forth with more brilliance and multiplicity of color than all the others.
It is by God's grace, and the degree that we willingly submit to His Holy Will in what He requires of us, that we are formed,cut, and polished according to His Providential design.
The goal which should be ever present to us is to one day join the souls of those in the Heavenly realm, which are like a great multitude of precious and shaped stones, gleaming in the Divine light of their supernal setting, giving everlasting glory and homage to God. Let us one day, by doing what God desires of us, be a shining jewel residing in the Crown of the Divine realm, radiant with the splendor of the pure light of the Eternal Heaven.
Well written, Father. Reasonably speaking, the next question should be: Where does this leave us? It is easy to analyze and discuss these issues on a blog. At times, it even feels good to let out our collective frustrations. Unfortunately, however, I have to agree with Dan in that the golden calf of VII will continue to be modified to fit the current need. I just don't sense sufficient interest or, commitment within most of the hierarchy to act differently. There is too much emphasis on remedial action to the exclusion of the overarching problem as you described. Such action has the "feel" of proper remediation even though many, privately, would probably agree that any results are not likely to be comprehensive. Even among the laity, and as seen within some of the comments posted here, there is denial. That aside, perhaps, in time, the younger priests who tend to gravitate toward a more traditional approach will create a different roadmap when it is their turn to lead but, I'm afraid that won't be within most of our respective lifetimes.
Father McDonald said..."And any problems in the Church prior to Vatican II could have easily been addressed without an ecumenical council the scope of Vatican II!"
Father McDonald, that doesn't reflect the opinions of our Popes, from Saint John XXIII to date, as well as the vast majority of Conciliar Fathers.
If the Church's pre-Vatican II problems had been addressed successfully, then Vatican II, particularly in regard to liturgical matters, would not have been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm, as was the case within the Church.
At least in regard to liturgy, such leading Churchmen as Cardinal Ratzinger painted a bleak picture of pre-Vatican II, Roman liturgy.
"Traditional" Catholics have claimed that communists, homosexuals, and modernists had overrun pre-Vatican II seminaries.
Besides the above, our Popes have insisted that the Holy Ghost inspired the Council.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas -
If the popes insisted that the "stay puft marshmallow man" inspired the Council, would you have believed that too???
https://www.google.com/search?q=stay+puft+marshmallow+man&rlz=1C2PRFE_enUS786US786&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii1_LK4oPdAhUqqlkKHcetAMEQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=943#imgrc=R9EFN0z_-D33JM:
Fr McD:
Very good post.
It is about time that Vatican II is criticised more severely and more widespreadedly. Bishop Schneider has already done so. The Party line has generally been to defend it at all costs. But one thing is obvious that the euphoria over it was misplaced, that it is a massive failure 50 years later.
Indeed, when reading its documents and commentaries by those involved with it, something struck me as bizarre. This was the very prominent idea that this Council was being guided by the Holy Spirit. For instance, in SC we find:
43. Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church. It is today a distinguishing mark of the Church's life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action."
Not only is it presumptuous to say that the Holy Spirit is involved in the Consilium 's restoration of the liturgy, but, rather, it is trying to force the hand of God to do so. It was clearly inserted by the Modernists to justify their wild reforms, not restorations.
Mark:
Popes can make mistakes.
Father McDonald:
YOU GET IT!
Bee here:
What I wonder is why so many priests are "in the closet." Well, actually, I don't wonder. They benefit greatly from posing as asexual men but leading double lives.
I my mind, the problem is not that clerics sin. The problem is that they are not acknowledging the acts and lives they are leading are sinful, and stop living that way. If they did it would not be a problem.
Why did God give the Commandments to Moses? Why did Jesus come to earth? Couldn't God have just "let it go" since the sin of Adam, and not hold anyone accountable? Isn't there a point to Revelation? What is that point?
I think clerics need to go back to this fundamental question. What's the point of God's revelation? Isn't it supposed to change the course of our lives, and make us abhor sin (as God defines it, not us), because it is against God's plan and His will for humankind? Aren't we supposed to move toward God in purity and holiness as we live our lives, and conquer the inner self that is one way or another in defiance of God? And aren't we wise enough to know we have a million ways of hiding the truth from ourselves and justifying our sinful desires and actions, and God's grace helps us to cut through that B.S., but it's up to us to admit the truth?
I know this is what we are supposed to be doing. And any cleric at any level who has talked themselves into a theology that contradicts this purpose is not following Catholicism.
Sorry, I want to be a Catholic. This other religion that has the same name but not the teachings is useless to me.
I am blessed. I was given the grace to hear and know the truth, and can choose it, in spite of the failures of the clerics both on and off the altar. But I feel sorry for anyone under 30, who are not even getting the correct information, and never have.
It is for those I will pray.
God bless.
Bee
I don’t think Vatican II was a response to a need as much as a summary of an agenda. If the old Liturgy was still valid why were people told that it was not? More pointedly, why would social justice warriors spend the money remodeling Churches that could have been used directly on their programs as well as the now non-existant schools and hospitals? And the millions (billions?) paid to sex abuse victims? If gay or pederasts are fine as priests and nuns, then why at least not fire the ones costing you so much money? If the janitor left the tap running every week and we couldn’t hold the fish fry after paying the water bill he would have been let go. So what is up? It was an ancient agenda to undermine the Church through the clergy by packing the bishops and Vatican staff with subversives. This was a long time in coming.
Fixing the Liturgy is a vital part, but even Satan learned Latin, so that is only one step. The other is faithfulness to Church teachings to the extent that we may lose many beautiful churches and the approval of society at large. But I am heartened by the #metoo movement. Certainly not on it simple merits but in its proclamation that even brainwashed people don’t like being treated like whores. Eventually we are forced back to earth and Natural Law.
Father, I've been following you since about 2011. This is one of the best posts I've seen from you.
Keep up the good work. Thank you for your faith.
MT,
Please provide the evidence that Pope Benedict XVI painted a bleak picture of the pre-Vatican II Roman liturgy. I do recall that Benedict referred to the Novus Ordo as a hodge podge created by a committee in breach with tradition. Furthermore, that really doesn't make sense because he issued Summorum Pontificum liberating the EF and encouraged its use. As a Cardinal he celebrated the EF publicly many times. I grew up with the pre-Vatican Roman Mass and it was far more spiritual and enriching than the brand X we have today.
No sarcasm here, Mark.
I think historically you are on to something here.
But whether the rot started in 1970, 1968, 1962, 1955 or after the death of Pius X, it did begin in our 20th century plus historical era.
You are worthy of respect the way you keep coming back with loyalty to the Pope, regardless of insults and mockery at times, even when it is Pope Francis; such loyalty is worthy of reward because behind and at base that loyalty and love indicates with many people a love of God, a great love of God.
But to be honest, Mark, I do pray that you and all people say under 30 live to see a better Pope leading a better Church with MUCH better bishops some time during, say the next c. 50 years.
Pax.
Gerard.
"[O]ur Popes have insisted that the Holy Ghost inspired the Council."
Francis insists gossip is the equivalent of terrorism and that man-made climate change is among the most important issues of our time.
This proves that popes can insist on all sorts of stupid things.
I still don't get it. What "crisis"? This stuff is old, and things have been cleaned up.
August 23, 2018: "Pittsburgh Diocese receives about 50 new abuse claims after grand jury report"
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2018/08/22/Pittsburgh-diocese-sexual-abuse-claims-David-Zubik-Zappala-josh-Shapiro/stories/201808210258
Mark Thomas
If we are to believe the Holy Ghost inspired the Council, what exactly do we mean? That John XXIII was inspired by the Holy Ghost when he summoned it? That those who drew up the schemata for the Council under John XXIII were inspired by the Holy Ghost? That those who effectively seized control of the Council in October 1962 and made sure those schemata were rejected were inspired by the Holy Ghost? That Paul VI, whose vision for the Council was very different from that of his predecessor, was inspired by the Holy Ghost? That Bugnini's removal by John XXIII and subsequent reinstatement by Paul VI were both inspired by the Holy Ghost? That the Council decrees were inspired by the Holy Ghost, in which case they are infallible? Of course not - all these propositions are absurd.
Should any pope claim that his actions were directly inspired by the Holy Ghost, he would be declared either insane or a heretic. Also, if you believe that 'Vatican II, particularly with regard to liturgical matters' was 'greeted with tremendous enthusiasm' you were obviously not around at the time. Some loved the changes, others loathed them, but most went along with them (at least for the time being) in a spirit of resigned bewilderment.
Ratzinger's perception of the pre-Vatican II liturgy was not as bleak as you insinuate, and cannot be used to excuse what the same Ratzinger called 'the disintegration of the liturgy' which followed the Council.
Gerard.... give it time...
I observe here lately a number of rats jumping Eastward or about to jump East off a still non-sinking ship. What heroes!
Noted.
CL.
DJR
The claims may be new, but the alleged offences occurred before 1990, and some date back to the 1940s.
What really needs explaining is why alleged offences rose steeply in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, started to fall in the 1980s, declined sharply in the 1990s and have flatlined at close to zero since 2000.
I thoroughly agree with you, George. You illustrate why it is important to pray for the Church from within, and not go running elsewhere to find God. We need to be polished, as painful as it is, and follow the example of the saints.
I would agree that the homosexual problem in the episcopacy and priesthood existed before Vatican II. In fact, it's been with the Church in just about every age, but I do not believe it has ever existed before on the scale that it exists today. In one generation, I watched a generation of manly priests retire only to be replaced by a slew of effeminate males who were more devoted to their ambiguous agenda of Vatican II than to God. And the atmosphere of laxity created by Vatican II has allowed the homosexual subculture to thrive. In short, it took a bad situation and gave the Church the means to make it much, much worse.
The gay subculture has created a priesthood that hates talking about sin--unless it's capitalism or American imperialism--but all else is not sin. They have created an atmosphere where the laity has the false illusion of "empowerment" to create parishes in their image and likeness or, more succinctly, to their likes and dislikes.
In South Georgia, we have had 1 solid priest who had the guts to speak up about the truths of human sexuality and the purpose of marriage and his "company man" pastor silenced him. The openly homosexual musicians publicly living their brazen lifestyle and "ministering" to us at Mass despise this priest because he will not permit them to receive Holy Communion. And many in the parish can't understand why this young priest is so "uptight". Many others, myself included pray every day for this young priest because he is what God wanted priests to be and we desperately need him. We have had enough of "company men" who stand for nothing and have delivered us an anemic, postconciliar Church. Weak bishops and weak priests, the homosexual underground and a slavish devotion to a highly flawed Council have put the Church in serious jeopardy.
My sincere recommendation to all the "company men" running our parishes. RETIRE. GO AWAY. If you won't help us clean up the problem, then get out of the way so we can have priests with the gonads to do the job. Please, just go. Find a nice commune and listen to your Peter Paul and Mary records. Your failed experiment isn't even on life-support anymore. IT'S OVER.
DO YOURSELF AND THE REST OF US A FAVOR. QUIT. AND TAKE YOUR MILKTOAST BISHOPS WITH YOU.
Perhaps the communist infiltration was inspired too?
Ok, this is just my opinion--in fact, it's really more of a theory.
I believe the 3rd Secret of Fatima--the part that has been withheld--is all about the current condition of the Church and it likely foretold the changes that the Council would bring, if not the Council itself. We know that John XXIII opened the secret around 1960 and dismissed it as not concerning his papacy. I do not wish to detract form the personal holiness of John XXIII, but I suspect he believed that if he was careful enough, he could circumvent the disaster foretold in the secret (if he had any flaw, it was his excessively positive outlook). Since that time, the rest of the popes and high ranking cardinals have had to fall into line and dismiss the secret and tow the party line on Vatican II because to do otherwise would be to admit that they disobeyed the warning not to tamper with the Church's way of worshipping. Fortunately, we are finally getting more priests and even bishops who are not caught up in the cult of Vatican II.
Just a theory.
John Nolan said..."Ratzinger's perception of the pre-Vatican II liturgy was not as bleak as you insinuate, and cannot be used to excuse what the same Ratzinger called 'the disintegration of the liturgy' which followed the Council."
Sorry, but Father Ratzinger painted a bleak picture of pre-Vatican II Roman liturgy.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/ratzinger-vatican-ii
From Father Ratzinger's "Theological Highlights of Vatican II":
During the late Middle Ages, “awareness of the real essence of Christian worship increasingly vanished.”
The Council of Trent centralized all liturgical authority in the “purely bureaucratic” Congregation of Rites. Lacking “historical perspective,” the congregation “viewed the liturgy solely in terms of ceremonial rubrics.”
The Roman Liturgy had been reduced to a “court etiquette for sacred matters.”
The Roman Liturgy had been reduced to “a rigid, fixed, and firmly encrusted system.”
=====================================================================================
Cardinal Ratzinger, 1988 A.D:
In regard to the TLM and Low Mass:
"Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow."
"One was never in contact with the liturgy itself."
Bleak.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anon 9:42, I don’t know you but I do know the young priest of whom you speak. A very courageous man. He is beginning his martyrdom, and it may get much worse for him. May the holy angels protect him and may God deal strongly with the “company man”.
MT,
You realize of course, that most liturgists, view the Low Mass as not the optimal way to celebate the Roman Mass - they believe the sung Mass is the fullest expression of the Roman Mass. You realize of course, too, that the typical Sunday, Novus Ordo Mass, is basically a Low Mass, with 4 hymns.
But now for the clincher:
"The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.” (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
This remark explains why Summorum Pontificum. Try to use your cognitive skills for once instead of cutting and pasting remarks which taken out of context do not convey reality
Mr. Nolan said..."Also, if you believe that 'Vatican II, particularly with regard to liturgical matters' was 'greeted with tremendous enthusiasm' you were obviously not around at the time."
Mr. Nolan, I said that within the Church, Vatican II, "particularly in regard to liturgical matters," was "greeted with tremendous enthusiasm."
I did not address the post-Vatican situation within the Church.
Tremendous enthusiasm, particularly in regard to liturgical reform, engulfed the Church when Pope Saint John XXIII's announced his plan to convoke Vatican II.
Pope Venerable Pius XII had opened the door to radical liturgical reforms that laity welcomed in overwhelming fashion.
Even Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that the time had arrived to introduce vernaculars into the Mass of the Catechumens.
One Council Father after another, as well as such men as Father Ratzinger, insisted that Latin Church liturgy had stagnated.
As Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger noted, the authentic Vatican II, which he insisted had renewed the Church, has differed greatly from the "Council of the media."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
With Mark Thomas being the only one who is ever right, I don't even need to read, or consider, any other comment.
Of course, given how bleak his view was of the Latin mass, he must have felt pretty silly promoting it.
Anonymous:
With regard to that young priest we are talking about, his problem is the fault of the last generation of priests and HE suffers for it, as do many like him.
IT IS DEPLORABLE, DESPICABLE AND INEXCUSABLE that we have had so many priests look the other way for the last four decades. It is DEPLORABLE, DESPICABLE and INEXCUSABLE that our parishes have been catechized and preached to so poorly that they do not even know what the Church's position is on so many issues. It is DEPLORABLE, DESPICABLE and INEXCUSABLE that so many pastors took the comfortable route of "not giving offense" (read: I won't upset anyone because he/she might write the bishop or stop tithing) that they allowed the amoral and the immoral to take leadership positions in our parish.
Yet for the same four decades, we have heard about how badly we need priests. We read the same vacuous "prayer for vocations" at every Mass. Then when these priests come, Fr. Company Man makes their lives a living hell or destroys their vocation altogether (that has happened at least TWICE at the very same parish, under the "leadership" of a grouchy Irishman whose biggest concern was attending high school football on Friday nights and showing everyone the Obama poster in his office).
Gee, how could we possibly get cynical?
I BLAME YOU "COMPANY MEN". YOU DID IT! AND YOU WILL ANSWER FOR IT! May God have mercy on your souls.
MT,
You are dead wrong, as usual. Pope John XXIII had no major plans for the liturgy. He wrote Veterum Sapientia on the eve of the Council (1962) and stated that Latin is the language which joins the Church of today. You seem to conveniently forget, John XXIII fired Bugnini, the architect of the failed Novus Ordo.
The Novus Ordo has been such a massive success that maybe at best, 20% of American Catholics attend Sunday Mass, whereas prior to the Council, it was around 80%.
People like John Nolan and myself were around when the disastrous changes occurred. Based on your writing, I assume you were born in the 1990s or the early party of this century.
There was NO overwhelming support for any of the changes you cite. It was a top-down movement by an arrogant, elitist group of loonies. I lived through this, you didn't. So you don't know what you are talking about.
Anonymous said..."You are worthy of respect the way you keep coming back with loyalty to the Pope, regardless of insults and mockery at times, even when it is Pope Francis; such loyalty is worthy of reward because behind and at base that loyalty and love indicates with many people a love of God, a great love of God."
Thank you for your kind words. In regard to respect: I know truly that I'm a nobody. As for my love of God: I am ashamed that I don't render sufficient love to God as I commit too many sins.
========================================================================================
Anonymous said: "But to be honest, Mark, I do pray that you and all people say under 30 live to see a better Pope leading a better Church with MUCH better bishops some time during, say the next c. 50 years."
Well...please keep in mind that we've had difficulties with bishops — Judas...Saint Peter denying Jesus three times — from the dawn of the Church.
But then, I am certain that my sins and actions in public have spurred people to contemplate..."Mark Thomas claims to be a Christian, but acts in contrary fashion."
Anonymous, let us pray for our Holy Father and bishops. Let us grant unto them the same amount of love and forgiveness — actually, a greater amount — as we desire to receive from God and each other. After all, Satan works overtime to attack Popes, Cardinals, bishops, and priests.
Anonymous, I wish you and your family peace and good health. Please pray for me.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM:
Dead right. You nailed it. And the disaster continues.
Amen, Mark.
MT,
Running away from my arguments again, I see.
Mark Thomas said:
"But then, I am certain that my sins and actions in public have spurred people to contemplate..."Mark Thomas claims to be a Christian, but acts in contrary fashion."
MT - I have never thought anything of the sort. Clearly, you are a Christian but, you often seem unwilling to reasonably consider the viewpoints of others - including our priest host and his brother priest contributors! Short of outright asking your age, I too am left conclude that your experiences with regard to much of the subject matter discussed here are more limited than the rest of us (e.g. we're both older and have experienced more of the post conciliar Church than you).
My prayer for you is that you open your mind so that wherever and whenever truth is revealed, it becomes part of your spiritual arsenal. That way, you will be able to fight the good fight much more successfully.
I really loved this post, Fr. McDonald. There was a lot here that needed to be said.
Post a Comment