DO CATHOLICS HAVE TO, MEANING THEY ARE COMMANDED TO DO SO AND HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO UNDER THE PENALTY OF MORTAL SIN, TO SING AT COMMUNION TIME TO EMPHASIZE THE COMMUNAL NATURE OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION?

 I recently saw a brief video of a Franciscan priest, and a young one at that, saying that Catholics must sing at Holy Communion time from the moment the priest receives until the last person has received.

He was rather dogmatic about that and based his dogmatism on the fact that receiving Holy Communion is not a private act between the person and God whom they receive. No-it is communal and singing at Holy Communion time by everyone emphasizes the communal nature of Holy Communion. 

He then shows what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says about the communal nature of receiving Holy Communion during Mass but he omits what I highlight in large letters in red!

The Modern Mass allows for just about anything you want to do as the options are numerous. You can sing or say the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons, or omit them and sing something else, or don’t sing any of them at all. 

At any rate, this is what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says and reading the entire thing, tells me and should tell that Franciscan priest there is nothing dogmatic about this nor is it required under the penalty of venial or mortal sin:

86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the “communitarian” nature of the procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful.[74] If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner. 

Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.

87. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from The Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.

If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal may be recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.

88. When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances suggest, the priest and faithful spend some time praying privately. If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

I don’t know what is in the heart of anyone who receives Holy Communion. The most pious person, kneeling reverently and solemnly to receive Holy Communion could be the most corrupt person ever to have lived.

The same is true for a person who on the run, receives Holy Communion in the hand and is laughing as she departs and prior to placing the Sacred Host in her mouth. She might be the most faithful, saintly Catholic ever to have walked the face of the earth. 

But, but, but…

Isn’t the law of prayer, the law of belief?

A corrupt, non believing person, who nonetheless receives Holy Communion in a pious, reverent, solemn way, while kneeling, at least is doing something good—modeling for others the outward reverence due Christ the King—even if the person receiving Christ the King is a whited sepulcher! 

Casual, irreverent ways of receiving Holy Communion undermines the faith of others who see it and wonder, is Christ the King being received or not, even if the one receiving is the holiest person in the Church receiving Christ the King—the image or outward manner in which Christ the King is received tears down belief in the real presence of others who witness it and may be wondering if Christ the King is truly present in Holy Communnion. 

Without making any judgements on this person, what does it say about the liturgical renewal of the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed and has been distributed going on more than 50 years now? 

What does it say about reverence? And might this be a poster for the young who want a return to traditional practices during Mass, like ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion and only priests, deacons and officially installed acolytes distributing Holy Communion.

AI Overview

The phrase "the law of prayer; the law of belief" translates the ancient Latin maxim lex orandi, lex credendi. It means that how people worship and pray shapes and reflects what they believe, establishing a deep link between liturgy (practice) and theology (doctrine). [1, 2, 3]

Core Meaning

Lex Orandi: The law of prayer or worship (the way we pray, sing, and act in liturgy).
Lex Credendi: The law of belief (the core doctrines and faith of the church).
The Connection: Actions in worship come first to express faith, meaning our rituals teach and form our internal beliefs over time rather than just dry rules. [1, 2, 3]

WELL, FINALLY, GREGORIAN CHANT WILL CERTAINLY RETURN TO THE CHURCH—NOT!?!

All those who have used Vatican II’s document on the liturgy for the most bizarre forms of inculturation and music, please take note of what Pope Leo says about that!

But I fear, short of excommunication, those who promote the most bizarre forms of inculturation and music in the Mass will continue to promote the most bizarre forms of inculturation and music in the Mass. 

And most, now, will also use the synodal way to justify the most bizarre forms of inculturation and music in the Catholic Mass.

Here’s Pope Leo’s antidote:

LEO XIV

GENERAL AUDIENCE

St Peter's Basilica
Wednesday, 19 August 2026

[Multimedia]

________________

Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. 7. Sacred Music

 

Dear brothers and sisters,

The sixth chapter of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) of the Second Vatican Council is dedicated to sacred music. The document states that “The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.” (SC, 112). It specifies that “Sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.” (ibid.).

Here we find the core of the Council’s teaching, which confirms and deepens the ministerial function of music in the liturgy, which had already been highlighted by Saint Pius X in the Motu Proprio Inter sollicitudines (22 November 1903). Music, indeed, is part of the liturgical action and is not merely a decorative part of the celebration. In the liturgy, to sing and to play music means to pray, attuning one’s heart to that of our sisters and brothers and to God, through active participation in the mystery that is being celebrated. In particular, music expresses the affective dimension of prayer, as Saint Augustine says: “Cantare amantis est”, that is, “singing belongs to those who love” (Sermo 336, 1). This is very important, because it helps us to open our hearts to God’s action in grace and to allow ourselves to be moulded by it.

Singing also fosters communion. It contributes to the unity of hearts, overcoming differences between people and bringing everyone together in praise of God through the symphony of voices. Thus, it becomes an epiphany of the Church, a tangible manifestation of the communion that belongs to her very nature.

Certain requirements arise from the profound theological significance of sacred song as an integral part of the liturgical action. The first is that it must respond at every level to what is most appropriate for the liturgical moment, beyond fashions or the particular sensitivities of composers. Its form, especially in its melodic aspect, must be at once noble and simple, of high musical quality and easily performable, particularly when it is intended to be sung by the whole assembly (cf. SC, 121).

For the same reason, the Council recommends that the texts too should be suitable, profound and at the same time readily understandable, inspired mainly by Sacred Scripture, the liturgical books and the spiritual Tradition of the Church. Attention must be paid to this, so that the dynamic expressed in the ancient principle lex orandi, lex credendi, that is, the law of prayer is also the law of faith, may remain alive and continue to grow.

Sacrosanctum Concilium devotes considerable attention to the theme of the active participation of the faithful (cf. no. 114). This “must be understood […] on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relationship to daily life” (Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, 52), in a “spirit of constant conversion which must mark the lives of all the faithful” (ibid., 55). As for the concrete way in which this can be achieved through the specific role of sacred music, the Constitution offers a clear answer: “the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs” and “reverent silence” should be fostered (SC, 30). It urges each person, minister or member of the faithful, to perform “all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy” (SC, 28), in the harmonious balance between the different ministries, the various interventions and moments of silence.

The Council then attributes great value to Gregorian chant, without excluding other genres of sacred music from the celebration. Particular attention is also given to the organ (cf. SC, 120), while the use of other instruments is permitted “on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful” (SC, 120).

A theme close to the Council’s reform is that of inculturation, including in the field of sacred music. In particular, with regard to the musical traditions of different cultures, the Council emphasizes the importance of taking them seriously into consideration, as they form part of people’s religious and social life. Therefore, on the one hand, an “attitude toward religion” should be promoted in everyone (SC, 119). On the other hand, as far as may be practicable […] every effort should be made to see that the traditional music of these peoples, both in schools and in sacred services may be promoted (cf. ibid.).

A particular role in the liturgical context is given to the schola cantorum. The Council recommends the promotion of this pastoral instrument, to ensure the “proper performance of the parts which belong to it, according to the different kinds of music sung, and to encourage the active participation of the faithful in the singing” (Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Musicam sacram, 19).

For this reason, the composer of sacred music is called to know and preserve the musical heritage of the Church, allowing it to inspire new compositions at the service of the liturgy, while respecting contemporary sensibilities and the different cultural traditions, so as “‘purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated’, to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions” (Saint John Paul II, Chirograph on Sacred Music, 22 November 2003, 3).

For all these reasons, the Council Fathers recommend promoting the formation and practice of sacred music “in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools” (SC, 115), and ensuring that musicians and singers receive sound liturgical formation (cf. ibid.).

Dear brothers and sisters, the Fathers of the Church held liturgical singing in great esteem as a symbol of ecclesial communion. We can therefore conclude with these beautiful words of Saint Ignatius of Antioch: “Let each of you unite to become a choir, so that, harmonious in love and taking up the song of God in unison, you may sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, so that he may hear you and recognize, from the good works you perform, that you are members of his Son” (cf. Letter to the Ephesians, 4, 2).

I TOOK THESE PHOTOS BEGINNING AT 6:50 AM TUESDAY MORNING—UNFORTUNATELY BLOGGER PUT THEM OUT OF ORDER

 SPECTACULAR SUNRISE ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND!

DIVIDING CATHOLICS ACCORDING TO POLITICAL CATEGORIES

 As I mentioned before, the book on the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s implementation of Vatican II between 1966 and 1974 is a must read to see how quickly the wrong implementation of Vatican II caused a massive exodus of once practicing Catholics from the Church, in particular, from attending Mass. 

Confusion reigned because of how Vatican II was implemented. Even Cardinal Shehan who had spearheaded a radical, authoritarian pre-Vatican II implementation of Vatican II came to recognize his debacle. But by then it was too late, he had retired and a new and even more liberal, but likable, Archbishop was in place.

Prior to Vatican II’s horrible implementation, and not just in Baltimore, but around the world, Catholics were described as practicing or not practicing; good Catholics or bad Catholics; devout Catholics or tepid, lukewarm Catholics. 

I don’t believe that prior to Vatican II the more religious terms of orthodox or heterodox were applied to Catholics. Rather, more saintly Catholics and sinful Catholics would be used. Also, devout and not so devout. At any rate, the term orthodox would refer to saintliness and heterodox would be sinfulness. 

Political categories were not used, such as liberal Catholics and Conservative Catholics. Often the descriptive “conservative” Catholics were also described as “traditional” Catholics which meant they preferred how the Church was prior to Vatican II or wanted pre-Vatican II elements brought to the Modern new Mass. 

The liberal label meant Catholics who were also described as “progressive” wanting to purge the Church of anything that smacked of the pre-Vatican II Church and many wanted to use Vatican II’s documents as a springboard to even more radical reforms, what was called the “spirit” of Vatican II. 

Thus, two political camps developed in the Church and almost overnight. And the two, like in democratic political processes, would duke it out and see who would win. And yes, there were and still are winners and  losers.

The neo-synodal processes that Pope Francis initiated mirrored in many ways the debacles in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, where seemingly democratic processes were implemented to change the Church and her teachings, moral or doctrinal. 

The use of surveys was highlighted in Baltimore, giving the impression that the “sensus fidelium” could be ascertained by listening to people’s opinions about Church teachings and practices by surveying their feelings, often disconnected from Divine Revelation, Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

It should be noted that even up to the time of Pope Francis and even today, many Catholics do not like the term “Deposit of Faith” because it is too rigid and becomes a stumbling block against changing it based upon what a certain type of Catholic wants the Church to do. 

Recently there has been a spate of pre-Vatican II reprisals against certain Catholics who are disobeying the pope and recently a priest was excommunicated in San Antonio for declaring that neither Popes Francis or Leo XIV are valid popes. 

Also in the Roman Diocese the pope’s vicar ordered that two Catholics who were in leadership in the Masons not be given Catholic Funerals.

I applaud these moves and such moves should be extended towards those who not only deny the authority or validity of the Holy Roman Pontiff, but to others who pay lip-service to the Holy Roman Pontiff, but deny in public ways the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisteriums of the Church especially by advocating for women’s ordination or even advocate for certain categories of the ideologies of the LGBTQ+++ political camp who want same sex liturgical blessing and even marriage and declare that gender categories are more fluid than the Biblical, male and female that God created. 

As well, Catholics in governmental roles, such as the governor of Massachusetts who recently signed into law abortion on demand and even in the final months of pregnancy, should be publicly excommunicated and not reinstated until they publicly repent. There is a precedent for this in New Orleans during the time the Archbishop there was trying to integrate Catholic schools. 

I would hope and pray too, that Pope Leo will recognize that it has been popes since Vatican II who have caused an erosion of respect for the papacy and papal magisteriums by implementing Vatican II in a form of rupture with the past rather than in continuity. Pope Francis who reversed Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict and also some aspects of the two papal magisteriums of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI certainly called into question the faith and moral teachings of those two popes, the validity of those two popes’ magisteriums. Is it any wonder that others are questioning Popes Francis and Leo?

This creates political groups in the Church who say we can undo what tradition has wrought as well as what popes have done in the areas of faith and morals.

Pope Leo must know that what was once held as holy and orthodox, such as the Mass prior to Paul VI’s revised Mass, are now considered heterodox and wrong and suppressed, that opens the door to suspecting every pope as being wrong if every Magisterial Council and pope prior to Vatican II can be described as being wrong. 

Administrative decisions of the Church and of popes, though, are a different matter and of course these can be and in many cases should be revised, changed or dropped. 

HOLY FATHER, POPE LEO XIV, PLEASE FIX THE RUBRICS OF THE ROMAN MISSAL PROMULGATED BY SAINTS AND POPES PAUL VI AND JOHN PAUL II

 In the post below this one, I post Pope Leo’s brief letter about liturgical formation.

Here is one pertinent part of that brief letter:

Moreover, in order to promote the dignified celebration of the sacred mysteries, we must emphasize the need for fidelity to the approved texts and instructions. In my recent catecheseson the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, I have called attention to the respect that all those called to prepare the celebration of the divine mysteries, and priests in particular, must show toward the rites promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II. It is vital that this respect “springs from an inner attitude of openness and trust in God, manifesting humility before his greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion” (Catechesis, 27 May 2026).

My common sense comments:

A major part of the problem with the modern Roman Missal is ad libbing by the priest or bishop, and in some cases the deacon. Eliminate from the rubrics, “in these or similar words!”

Eliminate all the options, especially ad libbing the troped Penitential Act—just allow the Confiteor, absolution and Kyrie and the stand alone Kyrie never omitted!

Clean up the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which says it is permissible to omit the Introit, offertory and Communion antiphons by substituting something similar, whatever that means. 

Eliminate some of the too many approved Eucharistic Prayers. Just have the first three and recommend the Roman Canon for Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

Leave it to local pastors to decide when and at which Mass ad orientem is celebrated along with kneeling for Holy Communion—do not micro manage these options!

And please, please, please forbid bishops and priests from turning the Introductory Rite into a blab session of welcomes and chatting and mini-homilies or announcements and no secular greetings please, please, please!!!!!

PROPER LITURGICAL FORMATION OF PRIESTS, AND I WOULD ADD, BISHOPS TOO!

 This will definitely prevent liturgical abuse by bishops, priests, deacons and laity—where every Mass depends on who is celebrating it!

As I am retired and celebrate Holy Mass in a variety of places, the sacristans always ask me, “Father, how do you celebrate Mass?” And I say, “by the book!” And they say, “every priest celebrates Holy Mass their own way!”

So I am glad these strong words will put an end to all of this:

LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER LEO XIV

TO H.E. CARD. ARTHUR ROCHE 
ON THE OCCASION OF THE LITURGICAL CONFERENCE
AT MOUNT ANGEL ABBEY

[Mount Angel Abbey (Oregon, USA)]

[Multimedia]

___________________________________

To His Eminence
Cardinal Arthur Roche
Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments

I send cordial greetings to you and to all those gathered at Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon as you discuss the important topic of the liturgical formation of God’s people.

In his Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, which described the beauty of the liturgy’s theological and spiritual depth, Pope Francis emphasized the need for an attentive and ongoing formation of clergy and laity alike in revitalizing the liturgical life of the universal Church (cf. no. 38). He later reminded us that this kind of formation “is not a specialization for a few experts, but rather an inner disposition of all the People of God” (Address to the Participants in the Plenary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 8 February 2024). I would therefore encourage you to explore concrete paths for liturgical formation at every level in the Body of Christ. At the same time, we must “not exclude a priority in the formation of those, who, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, are called to be mystagogues, that is, to take the faithful by the hand and accompany them in their knowledge of the holy mysteries” (ibid.).

The first practical opportunities for liturgical formation occur in our regular practice of gathering every Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. These celebrations are anchored in the annual rhythm of the liturgical year, with the Paschal Mystery at its center. For this reason, it is essential that they also be profoundly formative, promoting an ever deeper understanding of the ars celebrandi, expressed not only by the celebrant of the liturgy, but also by the entire assembly (cf. Desiderio Desideravi, n. 54). In this way, through proper education and reverent worship, Catholics will be formed both for the liturgy and by the liturgy (cf. ibid., n. 34).

Moreover, in order to promote the dignified celebration of the sacred mysteries, we must emphasize the need for fidelity to the approved texts and instructions. In my recent catecheseson the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, I have called attention to the respect that all those called to prepare the celebration of the divine mysteries, and priests in particular, must show toward the rites promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II. It is vital that this respect “springs from an inner attitude of openness and trust in God, manifesting humility before his greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion” (Catechesis, 27 May 2026).

With these sentiments, I entrust your deliberations to Mary, Seat of Wisdom, and I willingly impart my Apostolic Blessing to you and all present at this gathering as a pledge of wisdom and peace in the Lord.

From the Vatican, 29 June 2026

LEO PP. XIV

If you wish to read an editorial commentary on this brief letter by Pope Leo XIV, you can do so at Sileri non possum HERE. 

WHERE-IN I DISAGREE WITH FR. Z…BUT NOT ENTIRELY…

 As everyone knows, I love both forms of the Latin Rite Mass as long as both are celebrated well, reverently and with actual participation of the priest and laity present. 

I believe the two forms can coexist and enrich the Church in their diversity, even their ecclesiological diversity. 

In red are some comments Fr. Z made about another article which you can read HERE. . However, I want to focus just on what Fr. Z is writing and not to what he is reacting. My comments are in black embedded in his reaction:

 [This is exactly the position of many diocesan bishops and others who think that people only want more “cow bell”, i.e., incense, ad orientem, lace, Latin, servers in cassocks, bells, a certain style of vestment, etc.  Hence, they should be perfectly content with the Novus Ordo dressed up in all those things.  This is wrong of course, but they are too ignorant of the differences in the rites to know that.] It is a grostesque mistake not to be in favor of the reform of the reformed Mass bringing back to it what was purged by Bishop Bugnini and his committee, ultimately approved by Pope Paul VI. If the Vetus Ordo can be reformed into something not resembling it, so too can the Novus Ordo be reformed into something not resembling its original. 

Most Catholics, who still practice their faith by Sunday Mass attendance, would have a problem with an all Latin Mass in the Vetus Ordo, but not a Modern Mass in the vernacular but looking like the Vetus Ordo—it would help to bring liturgical peace to the Church and avoid elitism of those who only want the Vetus Ordo and look down their noses at those who don’t want it and are as good of Catholics as any Vetus Ordo Catholic might or might not be!  

And most Catholics would not have a problem with an all vernacular TLM!

 [Liturgy is doctrine.  But if you oppose the Vetus and Novus you have to hold that the goal of the reform was blatant discontinuity.]  Yes, Fr. Z, we know both rites are different. The vernacular facilitates an inculturation that is good, using one’s language rather than a dead language, facilitates not only inculturation, but actual participation in the Mass, both contemplative and vocal of the laity. The NO Mass also illustrates not only that all must actually participate in the Mass, but that the laity also have role in the Church, particularly bringing our Faith and Good Works to the secular world of home, work and play as well as the public  political square. Thus laity taking on  liturgical ministries of acoyltle ( to include Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) and reader makes visible the refined reality of the ecclesiology of the post-Vatican II Church. The TLM and other liturgies associated with it aren’t  wrong and also can include a more modern expression of ecclesiology by allowing lay lectors and active singing and speaking of the parts of the Mass by the laity. 

But the liturgy, Fr. Z, although doctrinal is more than a teaching tool! It is about worshipping Jesus Christ truly present in a sacrament way at the altar and in Holy Communion. While instruction is important, liturgy is spirituality, worship and experiencing in the present the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and His Glorified Risen Presence in the Liturgy and the Church. It is about the Risen Lord’s personal relationship with each Catholic individually and collectively! It is private and communal at the same time. It is about salvation! An atheist can know everything the Catholic Church teaches and remain an atheist, even if he loves the older Mass over the newer Mass. Knowledge of doctrine does not necessarily lead to conversion and a personal relationship with Christ Who transforms our life! 

METAPHORICALLY YOU CAN CALL THIS A CLOWN ORDINATION

 For the life of me, I do not know how the Novus Ordo lost the reverence and dignity of the Mass that it changed. I don’t think the intention was to turn any Mass, in particular an ordination Mass, into a kind entertainment with hooping and hollering. 

But this is what has happened. Pope Francis tried hard to suppress to the older Mass that Pope Benedict heroically liberated. 

But nonsense at Novus Ordo Masses like this one, a priestly ordination, go unchecked and is encouraged. Look at the priests applauding over and over again, and the people hooping and hollering. 

Is this dignity, devotion and awe and wonder? 

Watch the Facebook Video HERE.

THE CHURCH OF AMAZON, AND NOT THE ONE IN SOUTH AMERICA! GIVE THE CONSUMERS WHAT THEY WANT AND CALL IT LOVE DOING SO—THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSUMERISM AND IT HAS CORRUPTED MANY CATHOLICS AND IN VERY HIGH PLACES…

 The National catholic Reporter , to their credit, stop publishing unfiltered comments on their on-line platform years ago. Why? Because this liberal rag of a newspaper had readers and commenters who were the most vile, unhinged and post-Catholics to be found on earth.

Now the NcR simply publishes two or three “letters to the editor” on their on-line publication but very rarely. 

The one I publish in full below captures the post-Catholic Vatican II Church. It is a Church that fears giving moral certitude to her members, refuses to offend the customer and wants to give the consumer what she/he/they/ them/ it wants. It, like the hippie rebels of the 1960’s, wants flower power, no rules, no laws, no regulations, no moralisms, just love, love, love.

This mentality is in politics today and is being captured by the young socialist democrats who want communism in this country, want to defund the police, get rid of prisons and open the borders like Spain recently did, which was eye-opening, to say the least. 

In this alternative post-Catholic Vatican II Church, without borders or punishments, anything goes, not just for funerals, but for any liturgy of the Church, for any lifestyle, for anything, EXCEPT, rigidity, clarity and the right direction to the narrow road of salvation. 

This post-Catholic Vatican II Church refashions herself based upon what the customer/consumer wants. And it embraces every want and desire out of a post-Catholic Vatican II understanding of that vague term which has a variety of definition. 

This is the kumbaya Church that many have derided ever since that song began to be the most popular Catholic hymn of the 1960’s. There are many my age and older and a few younger who are still banging that drum of Kumbaya! 

The Kumbaya Church, though, isn’t the true Church; it is an inversion of the true Church and it does not proclaim Christ Who is Divine Truth.

A letter to the Editor from the National catholic Reporter:

Illinois funeral restrictions

Reading the article about refusing same-day vigils and barring family eulogies, I ask one question: Where is the compassion for the family(NCR, July 30, 2026)? This is the kind of rigidity that sends families out the door. This attitude, by a handful of bishops, is an exercise of power and patriarchy. "Father knows best," even if technically correct, is an exercise of misplaced authority and in some cases, a mean-spirited attempt at dominance. 

As a professional Lay Minister who served as a Parish Director, I have been to hundreds of funerals. Every eulogy, good or less so, has one thing at its core: Love. Love is what our faith is all about. It is no sin to express it inelegantly. It is always of God, for God is love. Adhering to the letter of the law without compassion, mercy and understanding that love is what drives the eulogy, is a failure of the cleric to understand the true meaning of love.

Pope Francis spoke many times of mercy and welcoming. How sad that families, in their grief, will feel unwanted and unwelcome. Some people will not take kindly to these actions. More and more families are having funerals out of the church for a variety of reasons. Decisions such as these will only increase that trend.

JAN RUIDL
Oak Creek, Wisconsin