I think the priest who disobeyed his archbishop in Chicago made terrible pastoral decisions in disobeying his archbishop and burning a "gay" banner that had long been removed from his church's sanctuary. He poked his archbishop and the LGBT community in his neighborhood in the eye provoking unnecessary controversies that went viral.
Do we need to poke people in the eye when they live lives contrary to Christ? What good does burning a "gay" symbol and including prayers or exorcism do in the pastoral realm.
The only way or the best way to teach what the Church teaches about human sexuality is to preach chastity. Married people are to be chaste in their marital love and those who are not married according to the teachings of the Church are to remain chaste. It is as simple as that.
To those who sin against chastity, repentance and confession, frequent confession, is the medicine that leads to chastity.
Do we have to grandstand? Do we have to poke people in the eye who disagree with us? Are we that insecure about our own Church's teachings?
Jesus lets these people go. He doesn't force or impose Himself or His teachings on anyone. Of course those who know the truth and reject Jesus and His Truth, bring condemnation upon themselves. But this is a personal matter between them and God at their personal judgement. We need not involve ourselves in that particular judgement. God is capable of handling it on His own.
52 comments:
It appears the good Father stole a page from the Liberal Playbook and Cupich doesn't like it!!If instead he had ostentatiously placed the Pervert Flag in the sanctuary, Cupich would have promoted him for this "pastoral" approach to "ministry."
TJM since you live in Chicago, please answer this question. When was the flag taken down? Why didn't the pastor simply throw it away rather than poking in the eye his archbishop and the LGBT community that are strong in that neighborhood evidently?
And it sounds to me that if you are suggesting that priests can break their promises/vows of respect and obedience to their bishop, you are quite open to the breaking of vows/promises of celibate chastity as well and with whomever we please since you have caved into non-Catholic relativism. I am shocked to say the least.
So let's look at the planks in our own eyes before we start sticking our finger in the eyes of others to pull their splinters out.
I might add, too, that all Catholics, lay and clergy alike, are called to obey and respect the Magisterium of the Church in the area of faith, morals and canon law. If you are a progressive Catholic who doesn't believe this and thinks anyone of any ideology can disrespect a particular bishop and the pope for their pastoral decisions. If this is the case, then I would suggest you are the flip side of those who have long disrespected bishops and the pope who consider themselves progressives.
In other words, disrespect, name calling and disparaging of people no matter how wrong they might be isn't Catholic and it is immoral just as same sex sexuality is immoral. Or are you suggester there are mortal sins that are less mortal than others?
The approach taken by the Second Vatican Council is the approach you are recommending.
Past Council poked people in the eye, thinking that that would changes their hearts and minds and behaviors with threats. Example, "CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema." Maybe that worked, but how many Protestant reformers recanted and returned?
Vat II invited people to see the beauty of the Catholic faith, to see what it offered in this life and in the next, and to respond to the call in their hearts to share in the beauty described in the documents. As I have previously mentioned, this is the "ars laudandi" or "panygeric" style.
If people do not see the beauty of the faith we cannot blame anyone but ourselves. If I fail to do the will of the Father, I am not brother or sister or mother to Jesus.
If a priest goes to a homosexual bar and burns their flag, then that would be provocative. But if a priest burns a symbol of immorality on parish property during a private ceremony, then so what? Why are we now so determined not to offend perverts? What homosexuals do to each other is far more offensive than what this priest did to that banner.
Father McDonald,
I did not dig into the story that deeply, but Cupich is a big left-winger and his sense of mercy and accompanying (silly buzzword), just like PFs, is a one way street. The priest was making a stand for Catholic, not lefty "truth." If people like Cupich persist in this type of behavior, he will find his Churches and coffers, even emptier than they are now.
With all due respect, tour comparison is apples and oranges. This particular priest was a victim of sexual abuse by a homosexual predator. So where is the understanding, the oozing compassion from Cupich? If the Archdiocese wants to die on this hill, it will.
TJM, you can make all the judgements you wish about Cupich, but your judgements do not cancel out the fact that he is your archbishop and to instigate 1960's revolutionary anti-authority measures like those you may have participated in in the 1960's isn't appropriate because you become like the protesters against Paul VI and his encyclical humanae vitae.
No matter the ideological side of things, a protest against legitimate authority is a protest hearkening back to the coloring book days of Catholicism of your youth.
I was taught in the pre-Vatican II Church that God would provide for the Church even in corrupt times and with corrupt leaders and that the sacraments were valid if celebrated as the Church teaches.
"Why didn't the pastor simply throw it away rather than poking in the eye his archbishop and the LGBT community that are strong in that neighborhood evidently?"
Perhaps because of his own sexual abuse (twice, as a youth) at the hands of homosexual Chicago priests. And maybe he'd heard how Cupich is so big on mercy and understanding for victims like himself. As they say in these parts, "That'll learn him!"
I have always loved rainbows, but unfortunately the LGBTQ community has taken something good and made it a symbol of evil. I view the rainbow flag as a demonic scapular. The priest did the right thing, he removed the evil out of his parish, just as Jesus removed the money changers from the place in the temple where converts were allowed to pray.
I fully understand Cupich's wanting to avoid controversy, but he needs to remember that he serves God, not the LGBTQ community. The LGBTQ community does not want the Church to shove her morals down their throats, but they are shoving their wicked agenda down our throats.
All are welcome into the Church, to turn away from their sins, take up their crosses, and follow God. The LGBTQ community does not want to turn away from their sins, they want
them sacramentalised. Individuals with SSA are choosing chastity and the Church and rejecting the LGBTQ community. They choose to serve God. I pray that Cupich chooses to do the same.
I pray for this Priest as he suffers his white martyrdom. He obeyed his bishop by destroying the wicked object privately. A bishop cannot order anyone to do something unholy, such as to murder someone or to keep an evil object, it is against his profession to God. A priest is under no obligation to comply with such an order- he actually honors his bishop by doing the right thing.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. (May God rebuke him, we humbly pray). And do thou o Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
This priest was sexually abused by someone not a priest when he was a child and then taken advantage of when he was 19 by a priest.
That does not excuse him from disobeying his archbishop. I suspect there is a backstory that Archbishop Cupich is not free to discuss in terms of dialogue with this priest.
Father McDonald,
I have heard Cupich speak many, many times, and he is not a vir ecclesiae. What's the back door story for keeping race baiter and tax law violator Phleger at St. Sabina's who also held up traffic on the Dan Ryan expressway to protest black deaths? There is ZERO excuse for keeping him there, but politically, he and Cupich see eye to eye. I think one of the reasons we had the disaster following Vatican Disaster II is that the laity and lower clergy sat around like dumb, mute sheep and allowed the destruction of our Church to occur. I admire what you are doing, but you may fail to understand the depth of the anger, which borders on fury.
rage or anger, as you were taught prior to Vatican II, and this has not changed one bit, is a deadly sin, a mortal sin and equivalent to same sex acts, unless you believe there are more serious and less serious mortal sins.
Like the LGBT community which in many cases wants the Church accept the sin and the sinner, do you want the church accept you and your mortal sin of anger and fury?
What "ceremony" is there for burning an old banner, regardless of what the banner may symbolize?
It seems this was a scheme someone cobbled together to be provocative. If destroying the banner was the goal, it could simply have been thrown into the garbage or burned it privately - just the maintenance man with a match.
No, the priest wanted attention, to make a statement. And initially he wanted to do it in as public a way as he could, short of taking the whole sad episode down to Grant Park.
A priest is obliged to obey his bishop or religious superior in such matters.
Our Lord was angry at those who were desecrating the Temple. Surely you wouldn't accuse Our Lord of any sin.
Fr., I know that you are probably being pulled from both sides, but isn't it a righteous anger when we see bishops allowing the body of Christ's bride, the Church, to be smeared with one of the sins that make the Spirit of God cry out for vengeance?
Why do you assume that everyone who experiences same sex attraction disorder identifies with the "gay" ideology or rainbow flag or "LGBT" community?
Father McDonald:
If the Archbishop directs a pastor not to do what he has the full authority to do, is the pastor morally obliged to obey in that case?
I ask, because I am assuming -- as would be the case in my diocese -- that the pastor had the authority to dispose of the banner in question. Of course I may be wrong on the facts; I don't know what the norms are in the Archdiocese of Chicago. I'm going by our norms here.
Had I found such a banner squirreled away in my parish, I would certainly have destroyed it, either by fire or by burial. I wouldn't have thrown it away, because perhaps it had been imprudently blessed, and in any case, that risks someone discovering it. Quiet burial or burning seems the most prudent way to get rid of it. But I would have done it without any fanfare, precisely because it would be so -- forgive the pun -- incendiary. And why get into a confrontation with the bishop?
But my question remains: if the pastor had the authority to dispose of the item, can he not continue to do what he lawfully can do, even if the archbishop disapproves? And if not, how does this work? Could the ordinary -- let's not make this about Cupich -- tell a priest he can't give a particular homily on a sensitive topic, which perhaps the priest advertised as part of a sermon series? Could an ordinary forbid a priest to preach on a particular subject, say, the immorality of homosexual behavior? Other examples could be cited; you get the drift of my question. What do you think?
Marc, no one is God especially those who comment here. Thus for us mere mortals, anger and fury are a mortal sin unless full consent of the will is lacking, or ignorance of the deadly sins is present, then it is a genial sin.
I don’t know about the specific issues this priest has in his file and maybe going back years. But if a priest preaches the truth and a bishop complains, I would like to know what the priest said. Did he name names or speak about someone in his parish although generically. I think if a priest speaks about masturbation, using that term, or oral sex or anal sex using those terms and children or other sensitive people are offended by those terms used in a homily, I think the bishop might be concerned and rightfully so.
No one is questioning the disposal, even the burning, of the banner.
The method the priest chose is what is in question and, it seems, the reason he has been disciplined.
Please, let us be honest. The priest took a stand against homosexual politics, and so he is being punished by a wayward prelate. If the cardinal in question believed homosexual activists were offending God and facing damnation, then he, too, would take a clear stand against them. But he doesn't. and so he takes a clear stand against a Godly prophet.
By the way, Charles G. makes a good point about maintaining careful distinctions.
Carole, I’m glad you mentioned “white martyrdom” here. For many days I have been struck with this as I pray for all the victims of this horror we are living through. It keeps smacking (haunting?) me that we have seen and are truly going to see more white martyrs in this war.
Father, you said: “I was taught in the pre-Vatican II Church that God would provide for the Church even in corrupt times and with corrupt leaders...”. Of course I agree—no Catholic I know would argue that “God will provide” for His beloved children. But, quite honestly I’m not sure I see what that has to do with exposing evil for what it is. Are we to sit mute while evil trashes everything we have been taught and believe?
Carole also said: “All are welcome into the Church, to turn away from their sins, take up their crosses, and follow God. The LGBTQ community does not want to turn away from their sins, they want them sacramentalised.”. I would add that Church leaders who allow this to happen are inviting trouble and resistance. I cannot begin to imagine what Cdl. Cupich thought would be accomplished by his actions.
I predict there will be many more white martyrs; they will have my fervent prayers.
We are not privileged to have the whole story about all of this. However, if I advertised that I was going to burn in effigy every abortionist in town as well as an effigy of women who have had abortions and their enabling "significant others" and that i would accompany this act by an exorcism, I think I might hear from my bishop on that one. And yes, he would ask that I not do it. If i did it anyway, would that be white martyrdom or idiocy?
St. John Chrysostom: “He that is angry without cause, shall be in danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in danger: for without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable, crimes unchecked.”
Of course anger is not sinful in all circumstances.
(Thomas Aquinas says the same. So does the Roman Catechism.)
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."Vat II invited people to see the beauty of the Catholic faith..."
And we all know how well that worked out.
Father McDonald,
Had this priest burned homosexuals in effigy, then he would be very rightly condemned, and I would join in that condemnation. But he did no such thing.
Father McDonald,
We have touched a nerve I fear. Because I live in the Archdiocese of Chicago, I have lots and lots of exposure to Cupich and his less than orthodox positions, so I amdmit I have a short fuse when it come to him. We went from a sterling Archbishop, Cardinal George, to this man. You realize that Cupich is a supporter of Homosexualist Father Martin who to say is heterodox is putting it gently? Out of respect for you, I will not comment on this subject again.
ps: Actually your suggestion is not a bad one, compared to the absolute cowardice the heirarchy has handled abortion in the public square over the past decades, giving Senator "Oldsmobile" Kennedy at HUGE pass. No wonder the Church has very little credibility on that issue either. There's an old saying, words without action are meaningless.The bishops are masters of spouting meaningless statements.
A priest must obey the local ordinary he functions under (bishop or archbishop) unless he is ordered to do something immoral and gravely sinful.
The flag should have been disposed of privately or in a small ceremony without notifying the archbishop.
I don't see a problem with the priest giving talks or homilies a la St Paul on the evils of living an active homosexual lifestyle. Can the local ordinary prevent him from preaching what is in Scripture?
DJR,
LOL - you get Father Z's Gold Star of the Day!!!
DJR, and "If people do not see the beauty of the faith we cannot blame anyone but ourselves. If I fail to do the will of the Father, I am not brother or sister or mother to Jesus."
If it has not worked out, we are to blame.
I tried my best to respond respectfully to your 6:39 comment to me, Father, but you didn’t post the response. I apologize if I said something offensive, but I truly don’t know what it was. I would never disrespect you
"Homosexualist" Really?
Father McDonald,
This is for your eyes only.
http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/14/roman-catholic-cardinal-cupich-says-sin-convert-jews-christianity/
See what I mean? Edith Stein is not available for comment.
Pulpit and Pen says, "Paraphrasing Pope Francis to undergird his remarks, Cupich explained his dislike for Catholic policy not allowing the marriage between Roman Catholics and Jews or other faiths, calling it, “ridiculous.”
There is no such policy. Catholics may marry Jews and people of other non-Christian religions.
Cupich, in the partial quote cited, does NOT say that it is a sin to convert Jews to Christianity. Cupich says that the Church has been wrong to use sinful means (coercion) in the past to convert Jews.
Pastor JD Hall, owner of Pulpit and Pen, is a Biblical literalist, he rejects the full canonicity of the Old Testament, and is a you earth creationist.
Anonymous
A homosexualist is someone who pushes the homosexual agenda. He is not necessarily homosexual himself. I first came across the term back in the 1980s when it was used by Auberon Waugh in the Spectator magazine.
It accurately describes James Martin SJ.
Kavanaugh,
Since the Council, other than maybe once or two, I can't recall many priests preaching or teaching about the beauty of the Catholic Faith. Mostly I hear glittering generalities and tiresome feel good slogans which in my opinion really don't amount to teaching the beauty of the Catholic Faith.
Sad
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/09/read-and-weep-soviet-style-psych-tactics-used-against-priests-by-bishops/
"Since the Council, other than maybe once or two, I can't recall many priests preaching or teaching about the beauty of the Catholic Faith."
Your memory is, of course, infallible....
Fr K:
"Vat II invited people to see the beauty of the Catholic faith..."
When you muddle the truth, you muddle the beauty, because Truth and Beauty are the same but differ only in emphasis. V2 inadvertently allowed the truth to be muddled, that is to say, the teachings of Christ to be muddled, and it was done to accommodate untruth, the heretics, using the prose style of fleecy documents.
By the way, what Protestant "denominations" have joined the Church since V2? The main ones I have heard about are those now in the Ordinariate, and they sure do not use the Mass that V2 supposedly wanted, but a vernacular variant of the good old TLM.
Standard seminary-level moral theology, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"ANGER The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive. The sin is then in a general sense mortal as being opposed to justice and charity. It may, however, be venial because the punishment aimed at is but a trifling one or because of lack of full deliberation. Likewise, anger is sinful when there is an undue vehemence in the passion itself, whether inwardly or outwardly. Ordinarily it is then accounted a venial sin unless the excess be so great as to go counter seriously to the love of God or of one's neighbour."
Since a desire for vengeance is likely not present--or even possible--in the case of a Chicago Catholic's anger at the appointment of so apparently unworthy ordinary as their current archbishop, such anger seems unlikely to be sinful. More likely, it is "in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason", and hence "a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal".
Anonymous Kavanaugh,
Well you are as fallible as they come. Why not share with us a list of YOUR sermons where you mention the beauties of the Catholic Faith, you know your homily on transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, the Primacy of Peter.
TJM - Anonymous' comments notwithstanding, I mention the beauties of the Catholic faith in every sermon I preach.
These are primarily Grace and Forgiveness. Grace, the foundation of a life lived in accordance with the Gospel and the Church's teaching; and Forgiveness, the greatest gift we have received and the greatest we can give.
I would not preach about "transubstantiation" per se, but I often refer to the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus as the most effective source of the grace we need to live lives of virtue. In fact, one of my "Preaching Principles" is to include a reference to communion as the opportunity to share in the grace we need to live lives at answer the call to holiness we received at Baptism.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."If it has not worked out, we are to blame."
Well, the "panegyric style" of Vatican II has obviously not worked, has it?
The overwhelming majority of Catholics, let alone others, does not even bother coming to church to hear sermons explaining the beauties of the Catholic Faith.
If a person sees that something does not work, yet continues to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, that person has a mental problem of some sort.
Time to move on. The younger generation will accomplish that.
DJR - You're blaming the panygeric style.
I said, "If people do not see the beauty of the faith we cannot blame anyone but ourselves."
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."DJR - You're blaming the panygeric style. I said, 'If people do not see the beauty of the faith we cannot blame anyone but ourselves.'"
Okay. But if there is evidence that "the panygeric style" does not work, because the blameworthy people who use it are unable to make it work, then the "style" itself needs to be abandoned.
As I stated prior, persons who insist on using the same old method, knowing that they cannot make it work, are either incompetent or malevolent.
The "panygeric style" has worked so well in places like Holland that the Catholic Church is approaching near extinction in that venue.
It has also been so successful in Ireland that Ireland now has "gay marriage" and legal abortion.
It's ridiculous to blame oneself for the horrible effects of a certain policy and yet continue to promote that policy.
Are priests so blind that they cannot see that?
The word is 'panegyric'. In the Greek Church a 'panegyricon' is a collection of sermons to be used on festivals.
I fear that a panegyric (or encomium, or eulogy) preached in praise of Vatican II would fall rather flat.
DJR - We, you and I, are the ones who have failed to live in a way that attracts people to the beauty of the Catholic faith.
We ARE able to make it work. God's grace is enough for us to do so. Yet, it is because of our sin and our failure to be the light of Christ we were called to be at Baptism that people cannot see the power of God's grace and want to share in it through being members of His Church.
Would you prefer we use coercion? Do you think we can draw people nowadays into the Church by condemning "sinners" at every street corner and in every sermon? I don't. Maybe, just maybe, there was a time when that would have been successful, when you could scare someone into being a Catholic by threatening them with eternal damnation. But I think, and I hope you do, that those days are long gone.
Thanks, John, for the correction. I should have stuck with ars laudandi!
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."Do you think we can draw people nowadays into the Church by condemning 'sinners' at every street corner and in every sermon? I don't. Maybe, just maybe, there was a time when that would have been successful, when you could scare someone into being a Catholic by threatening them with eternal damnation."
It seems to have worked on Pentecost.
If the "panegyric style" has not worked because we, as Catholics, are not living correctly, what are the clergy, who are the only ones with authority in the Church, doing about that?
Do they preach on the value of frequent confession and offer confessions to their congregations for more than half hour a week so that the people can amend their lives, receive grace, and thus allow the "panegyric style" to start working?
Do the clergy themselves frequently confess?
__
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."Maybe, just maybe, there was a time when that would have been successful, when you could scare someone into being a Catholic by threatening them with eternal damnation. But I think, and I hope you do, that those days are long gone."
No, I do not believe those days are "long gone." When the Vatican II generation is gone, there is every indication that those days will re-emerge. Huge numbers of saints and mystics have said so; I see no reason to disbelieve them.
DJR - I don't know that, at Pentecost, there was much condemning on street corners or threatening people with eternal damnation, so I'm not sure why you referenced it.
Peter's Pentecost sermon speaks of prophecy and other wonders and the coming splendid day of the Lord. He says that those who call upon the Lord will be saved. He talks of the hope in Christ that we can rejoice in the presence of the Lord. (Acts 2:14-41)
I think you ascribe to priests far more influence than we actually have. You ask, "If the "panegyric style" has not worked because we, as Catholics, are not living correctly, what are the clergy, who are the only ones with authority in the Church, doing about that?"
I can't MAKE people live holy lives. I can invite them to do so, encourage them to do so, challenge them to do so, wax eloquent about why it is a blessing to them and the larger community to do so, all of that being the panegyric style, but the choice is ultimately theirs.
I have found that preaching that impacts peoples' lives is based on the Scripture readings of the day. For me that is very freeing - I don't have to rely on anything I have in terms of talent or ability to touch peoples' hearts. If that happens, it is because God is using me to be a conduit for the power that is found in the Scriptures.
I do think the days of threatening people into the Church - a form of coercion which we ought to reject - are gone. And I don't think coercion in any age is an appropriate way to call people to conversion.
Bee here:
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh at September 27, 2018 at 6:41 AM
"I do think the days of threatening people into the Church - a form of coercion which we ought to reject - are gone. And I don't think coercion in any age is an appropriate way to call people to conversion."
If you are referring, Father, to telling people that will certainly go to hell if they do not repent of their sins and if you are claiming this message is a threatening form of coercion and is no longer appropriate, then I believe you fail to preach the whole Gospel. And I believe the falling away from the Catholic Church we have seen in the last 50 or so years is to a great extent due to this lack of warning of what will befall those who do not follow the Commandments of God and who do not repent. We do not act in charity when we fail to warn of the consequences of sin and God's justice. This information is not coercion. It is truth.
To preach only the pleasant side of the Gospel, telling people God loves them, without telling them the consequences of not returning His love, and God's criteria for determining whether they love Him or not, is contributing to their damnation. It will be on the heads of any cleric who failed to give people enough information to be saved.
If you're not preaching as the disciples did in the Acts of the Apostles, you're doing it wrong.
God bless.
Bee
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."DJR - I don't know that, at Pentecost, there was much condemning on street corners or threatening people with eternal damnation, so I'm not sure why you referenced it."
In the second chapter of Acts, Saint Peter accuses his listeners of having crucified Christ. He does this, not once, but twice.
If that isn't condemnation, I don't know what would be.
The people he was speaking to were not the ones who actually carried out the crucifixion, as he states.
Then in that same discourse he tells the crowd to "save themselves from this perverse generation."
Mentioning the need for salvation implies the risk of eternal damnation.
____
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."I can't MAKE people live holy lives. I can invite them to do so, encourage them to do so, challenge them to do so, wax eloquent about why it is a blessing to them and the larger community to do so, all of that being the panegyric style, but the choice is ultimately theirs."
But what you stated here is also true of the Council of Trent, which "poked people in the eye," as you allege.
The Council of Trent could not MAKE the reformers convert, but it certainly challenged them to do so, albeit in a different manner from the panegyric style. And the Council of Trent was successful by way of reforming the Church.
The difference between Trent and Vatican II is that, after Trent, there was a counter Reformation and a renewal, whereas, after Vatican II, there has been an accelerating decay, to the point that a substantial number of Catholics have left the Church and continue to do so, and many of the Catholics who remain don't know even the rudimentary elements of the faith and even reject such elements.
How many Catholics, immediately after Trent, were publicly in favor of things such as abortion (think Pelosi, et al.) or advocated "gay marriage" (ditto), with absolutely no "poke in the eye" from anyone in the clergy?
If the sinfulness of a priest's congregation is obstructing the beauties of the faith, it is that priest's duty to try to change that, and the method given to us by Christ is the sacrament of confession.
There are some rather large parishes of the Roman Rite that offer confessions for only half an hour on Saturdays. Such a parish really is not at all concerned with the sinfulness of its parishioners, and therefore in reality it doesn't really care whether the panegyric style works.
If the panegyric style cannot work because of our sinfulness, and apparently we're unable to change our sinfulness, then we need to change styles.
It has not been successful, and it continues to be unsuccessful.
If we're just going to shrug and say that we can't do anything about it, we might as well just fold up shop, as that indicates we couldn't care less about the Great Commission.
Post a Comment