THE PIOUS SELF AND THE REAL SELF A LA PAPA FRANCESCO

At hour 2 and 33 minutes in the video of the Mass for Palm Sunday with Pope Francis that I post below again, please watch the Holy Father become his real self or another aspect of his real self. Please contrast that with his self during Mass. During Mass he is extremely introverted, serious,pious and detached from what is going on around him. He doesn't acknowledge the congregation at all. It is almost like the demeanor of priests in the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Is this what Pope Francis is modeling? All of us have our raucous, outgoing selves at pep rallies, ball games or festivals. But when it came to the 1962 missal and its predecessors, we were like Pope Francis as soon as we entered the Church. Our pious more contemplative side was to be exhibited not our raucous side.

But with the modern missal and Mass, how often do we drag our raucous style of personality into it and make little distinction between the sacred and profane? Please note too that about about how 2 and 33 minutes he gets on the popemobile and then as it is moving tries to get off before it stops!!!!!

Please compare style of personality with Pope Benedict's 2012 Palm Sunday Mass, his last:

Please note too that during the homily the Holy Father does not refer to the homily script before him, but entirely speaks off the cuff. I listened to EWTN which has a interpreter who knew Italian well enough to know that the Holy Father wasn't reading the script and had to do a spontaneous interpretation and did a good job at it.

But notice how different the Holy Father is at Mass. This is traditional Catholic piety, very individual, not communal and very introspective. THIS IS A GREAT REFORM OF THE REFORM IN CONTINUITY THAT THE HOLY FATHER IS PROMOTING. IT IS VERY EF!

FATHER JONATHAN MORRIS' LESBIAN SISTER "MARRIES" HER PARTNER IN A WASHINGTON, DC CEREMONY

Fr. Jonathan Morris of Catholic Radio and Fox News:

Yesterday as I drove from Macon to Augusta I listened to Catholic Radio's Fr. Jonathan Morris. His show was on how the Church deals with issues of same sex marriage and the children these couples have and then want to have them baptized.

How do you deal with Catholic homosexuals who want to participate in the Church but completely reject the Church's dogmas on sexual morality? And not only that, but on the natural ways to conceive children and who reject that their children should have one father and one mother?

Then Fr. Jonathan revealed that his sister, with whom he is very close, is a lesbian (although he doesn't like that term to describe a person since we are more than our sexual attractions) who has "married" in a civil ceremony her partner in Washington, DC.

When these couples have children through artificial insemination, with surrogate mothers or simply adopt, should these children be denied baptism?  Church canon law states that there must be a reasonalbe hope that the children will be reared as Catholics.

I have had a few of these circumstances. One was unknown to me, in that I didn't know that the baby being baptized was the child of a lesbian couple. This was when I was first ordained. But the child was brought up Catholic.

I've inherited some of these situations and often the grandparents who are practicing Catholics are doing everything in their power to make sure their grandchildren are brought up Catholic and are enrolled in CAtholic school.

Should children, no matter how they are conceived or who adopts them be punished for the sins of their parents and denied baptism and a Catholic education?

I tend to have hope for children in these situations and empathy for them and in no way want to become for them a stumbling block to Christ. I hope more in God's grace rather than despair about our sins and sacrileges.

But back to Fr. Jonathan. He is a conservative, orthodox Catholic priest. He has a "married" lesbian sister. They are still close. He says he disagrees with her lifestyle and her marriage but he still loves her and they still communicate despite their differences and her immorality

How many of us have good friends or siblings who are heterosexual, yet very promiscuous fornicators or adulterers and flaunt it, who aren't married in the Church but living with many significant others?. How many cut them off and how many stay close to them?.

UNDERSTANDING THE HERESY OF CALVINISM

Now I understand better where some of our converts (although not completely) from Calvinism are coming from. This is a good article from Catholic World Report:

Human Sacrifice Among the Ideologues

April 11, 2014

You can’t purge an outsider. Scapegoating fury is reserved for an insider.

Mark P. Shea

Long ago, I wrote a piece on Truth Cancer and the Redemption of Rebellion. Its point was that heresy tends to mutate into its opposite over time. So we find, for instance, a student writing for the Harvard Crimson who demands that free speech and academic liberty be ruthlessly crushed—in order to protect liberalism. 

Likewise, righties somehow manage to go from small government libertarianism to support for making the US an Orwellian national security torture state without noticing the contradiction. And nobody is more certain to become a bullying thug than some Professionally Aggrieved Grievance Professional whose life is built around Stopping Bullying. 

Now here in America, we live in the Land of Calvinist culture and Calvinism—being a particularly potent form of heresy—has mutated into its opposite with peculiarly potent force. It retains its joylessness and icy fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time as it turns everything fun into an exercise in moralism, even when it kills off God and replaces him with social do-goodism. So instead of preachments on observing the Sabbath, we get homilies on having a green vacation. My favorite of these was on NPR a decade or so ago, in which the canon law for obtaining carbon credit indulgences while vacationing was laid out in Talmudic granular detail along with this final buzz-killing caveat: “But can we ever really justify taking vacation at all so long as there is ecological damage happening anywhere in the world?” Love that. 

Likewise, the Calvinist missionary impulse and the Calvinist work ethic continue unabated in our culture long after the Calvinist belief in God is dead. Only now the mission is to export hedonistic democratic capitalism with an entirely different Madonna as our icon, preaching an unholy trinity of Mammon, Moloch, and Venus to the world. 

Chesterton once remarked that in America we have a feast to celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims and in England they should have a feast to celebrate their departure. As the English were to discover under Cromwell, Calvinism is famously on the lookout for impurity and tends to seize on those sacrificial victims (such as Charles I) upon whom scorn can be heaped as the group periodically purges itself of shame by means of a scapegoat. 

Calvinism did not, of course, invent this deeply human habit. In ancient Greece a cripple or beggar or criminal was cast out of the community in response to a natural disaster or other crisis. In Leviticus 16, a rite for literally laying the sins of the community on a scapegoat is prescribed. In Catholic Europe, Jews were themselves periodically scapegoated by the Gentile majority, as for instance, when the Jews of York were massacred in 1190 as the age-old pattern was played out. 

America’s Puritan heritage and its various mutated descendents have done a bang-up job of continuing the periodic human itch to isolate somebody in American culture and exile them, whether from the community or from the ranks of the living. Catholics have been on the receiving end of this as often as not, what with various Know Nothing, KKK, and Nativist movements. But such thinking did not die in the 19th century and remains with us today in various expressions. 

The habit of scapegoating is traditionally done by finding somebody within the group who is deemed insufficiently pure—and then suddenly transforming them into a foreign threat to be expelled or killed. Thereby the sins of the community are placed on their head and the community is protected by sacralized violence that purifies from sin. 

We’d really like to believe that we left that sort of thing behind in the smoldering ashes of the Tower in York where 150 Jews were suddenly transformed by a mob from “fellow Englishmen” into foreign contagion that needed to be extirpated. But we still are quite capable of this stuff in all kinds of major and minor ways. The greatest major outbreak of this sort of thinking in the past century was, of course, the Holocaust, when the German Jewish community found, to their astonishment, that they were suddenly transformed from being seen as “fellow Germans” to being seen as a foreign bacteria infecting the Reich. The slaughter which followed astonished Jews no less than non-Germans—in no small part because German Jews saw themselves as Germans who shared 99 things out of 100 with their countrymen. Similarly, the European Jewry that followed German Jewry into the camps saw itself primarily as sharing in European civilization and could not comprehend its sudden transformation into a gigantic scapegoat for the ills of Germany. 

Of course, not all incidents of scapegoating involve mass murder, but they do generally involve some form of metaphorical death or exile (or attempt at it). So, for instance, we see the same pattern played out in an extremely minor key as Stephen Colbert, who obviously is no racist, does a sketch making fun of racism and is met with the ridiculous spectacle of people in dire need of Insensitivity Training striving to overcome the stereotype that Asians are all highly intelligent.  This obvious man of the Left who would not think of seriously engaging in racism is picked, out of a world of Internet and media examples of racism, for outraged opprobrium.  Not Pat Robertson (who recently bestowed upon the world the intelligence that Jews don’t fix their cars or mow their lawns because they are too busy polishing their diamonds). Nope. It’s gotta be Colbert, plucked from within the tribe of the Left, who is singled out for sudden declaration as an enemy—despite the bleedin’ obvious fact that he was, in fact, mocking racism.  Humor is not a strong suit among the New Puritans any more than among the old.  And like the old, they are far more obsessed with finding the Enemy Within than with opposing the obvious opponent without. In Colbert’s case, however, the scapegoating attempt appears to have backfired rather spectacularly. 

Another example of a similar dynamic: Alec Baldwin. 

Here is a guy who, again, is obviously a huge supporter of LGBT community—a clear insider on the Left. But unfortunately for him, he is a) personally dislikeable and abrasive; b) has made enemies and c) has not grasped a crucial double standard. 

The double standard is this: gay people can use the charge of homosexuality as an insult, but nobody else can.  Recall Dan Savage calling high schoolers “pansy asses.” Or recall Andrew Sullivan’s strange insistence the Pope Emeritus Benedict is gay as though that’s a bad thing. But let an obnoxious hetero male lefty like Baldwin toss around epithets like “toxic queen” and he runs the grave risk that the scapegoating mob will suddenly target him as foreign contagion when the fever is on. 

So to his everlasting confusion and astonishment, Baldwin suddenly found himself the object of a pogrom as the “liberal” LGBT community suddenly turned on him for doing, well, exactly what Dan Savage does when he calls somebody a pansy ass or Andrew Sullivan accuses Benedict of being gay. Baldwin is as hard left as they make ’em, including on all LGBT matters of piety—and yet none of that could save him. He was selected for the anti-sacrament of mercilessness and his sins shall not be forgiven, for he is the Scapegoat. And to drive home the fact that it is the Calvinist Purifying Impulse behind it all, the theological language from the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance helpfully casts Baldwin in the role of Satan himself. 

Note that. The devil is not, say, Pope Francis (who does, after all, actually teach that gay sex is sinful, despite what the NY Times deludes itself to believe). Nor is he any given GOP candidate, or Pat Buchanan, or even that beloved bogeywoman Sarah Palin, who seems to have finally relaxed her terrifying grip on the mind and viscera of the Left. 

Nope. Alec Baldwin of all people, is declared the devil because he hails from within the community and is therefore the ideal scapegoat upon which the community can heap its sins and purge itself in a violent orgy of Righteousness. 

Of course, it isn’t just LGBT Paladins of Tolerance who indulge in this sort of Puritan pogrom. Reactionaries on the right, both secular and religious, have more in common with progressive extremists than they care to realize, and also are on constant watch for signs of impurity. Here, for instance, is the Breitbart Inquisition ginning up the troops for a heresy verdict against pot-smoking hippie liberal Bill O’Reilly. His crime: not hating Barack Obama with sufficient intensity. 

It seems O’Reilly does not think that the president of the United States is part of a secret cabal that actively wants to destroy the Republic but instead, retaining some sanity, believes that Obama understands himself to be an American who imagines that “American” maps to his set of liberal values. Therefore O’Reilly regards Obama as a patriot—that is, as a lover of the US of A, and not its sworn enemy. He does not think that Obama is right in his judgments about what is good for America, but he does not doubt that Obama thinks he is trying to do good by America and does not subscribe to the fever swamp vision painting the president as a monstrous IslamoAtheistNaziCommunist hater of America willfully bent on its destruction. In short, he strongly disagrees with the president, but is not filled with unreasoning hatred of every atom of his being. 

For this act of impurity, O’Reilly might as well be a communist as far as Breitbart’s audience of inquisitors is concerned, and their responses in the comboxes generally run in the “He is dead to me!” vein from people who would agree with O’Reilly on 99 subjects out of 100. Again, it is precisely because he is not Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or Rahm Emmanuel or some other tribal outsider, but an insider, that the fury directed at him over such a triviality is so intense. Because you can’t purge an outsider. Scapegoating fury is reserved for an insider. 

Real Outsiders, looking in, often have difficulty even understanding the nitnoid and granular nature of the quarrel that consumes Insiders bent on a purge. And so outsiders look on in amazement as a man with whom the average Breitbart Combox Inquisitor shares 99 out of 100 things in common is declared a traitor and expelled.  Their mouths open and close and nothing comes out as a lefty like Alec Baldwin is suddenly stoned to death by the very people he once urged to stone Henry Hyde.

Catholics, and particularly Reactionary Catholics these days, are not immune from this either. Case in point: The Reactionaries vs. Michael Voris. Here again, on 99 subjects out of 100, Voris and the Reactionaries are on the same page—with one notable exception: Voris steadfastly refuses to indulge in criticism of Pope Francis. I regard this as a very hopeful sign and I sincerely commend him for publicly refusing to join the ranks of the self-appointed saviors of the Church who have fallen under the powerful delusion that God died and designated them to defend the Church against the pope.

But the Reactionaries who loathe and fear Francis with now nearly unbridled hysteria are increasingly bringing pressure against (and ginning up hostility toward) Voris, of all people, in the attempt to get him to fall in line and start ripping the pope as the evil monster they have convinced themselves he is. Whether it is just applying overbearing muscle in the effort to suggest Voris is a bad Catholic for his heretical submission to the pope, or flat out denouncing him for the grave sin of charity toward Francis, the Reactionaries are making it clearer and clearer that even the slightest variation from absolute purity of hatred toward Francis will not be tolerated. Once again it is the insider—the person perceived as hailing from within the tribe of Real Catholics[TM]—who is singled out as the scapegoat in need of punishment and (if no repentance from the grave sins of faith, hope, and charity toward Francis is shown) expulsion. “Neo-Catholics,” us ordinary slobs who actually like Vatican II and find the Paul VI rite of the Mass suits us just fine, don’t even merit consideration for such a bull of excommunication because, again, you can’t kick out an outsider. Novus Ordo riff-raff don’t even count as real Catholics for that subculture. 

All of this reminds me of the brilliance and insight of Rene Girard, whose thought about the strange human impulse to create scapegoats eventually wound up bringing him back to the Church when he realized that precisely what God did was enter the human race, not to join the mob of Inquisitors, but to take on the role of the scapegoat. And He did it, not merely for one tribe, but for the whole human race. In doing so non-violently—in letting the whole of human and demonic hatred, viciousness, spite, and sin wash over Him and, as it were, drown Him—Jesus undergoes the baptism in death that His baptism in the Jordan prefigures. He is “made sin for us” as Paul put it (2 Corinthians 5:21) and thereby opens the way for our baptism into His death and our participation in His resurrection.

Small wonder then that Jesus begins His ministry first with that baptism and then with a sojourn in the desert, which is exactly where the scapegoat was driven after the priest placed the sins of the people on it. Likewise, in the sacrificial rites of Moses, the cattle, sheep, and goat offered in the Tabernacle prefigured the sacrifice of Christ: 

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come. (Heb 13:11–14)

It is therefore properly the place of the Christian to find himself, from time to time, scapegoated, betrayed, exiled, and even killed. When Christians take the role of the persecutor they betray Christ. When they are persecuted, conversely, Christ reserves a blessing for them: 

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12) 

And that blessing need not be limited merely to those who are visible members of the Christian community. The prophets have, so far as we can tell, no conscious knowledge of Christ, yet share in his blessedness—and in his martyrdom. So might any other person.  Why? Because they did the right thing even when punished for it by the world. We are free to hope that any person who obeys his conscience is likewise liable to be rewarded for it through the Holy Spirit.  As the parable of the sheep and the goats makes clear, some of the saved are going to be surprised: “Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, in prison?” (cf. Matthew 25:31-46). 

This does not mean that anybody unjustly persecuted is therefore bound for heaven. Horst Wessel, the Nazi stormtrooper who became the basis of the Nazi anthem “The Horst Wessel Song” was unjustly murdered, but that doesn’t make him a hero. Just because you are a victim doesn’t mean you can’t be a jerk too. But still and all, in the ordinary run of things, a blessing is pronounced by Christ, not only on those who are persecuted for his sake, but on people who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.  As our culture continues to de-Christianize and turn an ever more hostile face, not only to followers of Jesus Christ, but to the weak, the marginalized, the innocent, the vulnerable, the poor, the reviled, and the despised, let us go to our despised Lord outside the camp and welcome in his train every loser, oddball, factory reject, sinner, screwup, failure, jack and jill who tries, however, feebly, to do what is right.  It will probably mean going, or even being driven, outside the camp.  But that’s where Jesus is.

PALM SUNDAY ANYONE?

A MOST BLESSED PALM SUNDAY!

The Holy Father sports a new, lovely, wooden ferula, (staff, crozier, crook)!

BOMBSHELL: WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY, POPE FRANCIS RENEWS MSGR. GUIDO MARINI AS THE SUPREME PONTIFF'S MASTER OF CEREMONIES FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS! PRAYTELL SPEECHLESS

I had never seen this video, but it shows you what a darn good Master of Ceremonies Msgr. Guido Marini is! What great news, and I think true liturgists around the world were praying for him wondering what Pope Francis would do to him, but Pope Francis loves this guy it turns out! I think the feeling is mutual! Msgr. Marini is a hard worker and dedicated to his ministry, his pope and holiness. He also exercises by swimming at a local Catholic University's pool. One of the priests with me on sabbatical ran or swam  into him almost every day.

Photos I took of Msgr. Marini while I was at papal Masses, prior and during! The first two are rehearsals before hand!

This is the Mass, and a glorious Roman Sunday it was, when Pope Francis consecrated the world to the Blessed Virgin Mary! I had the best seat in the whole wide world!

There is obvious warmth between Msgr. Guido Marini and Pope Francis and Msgr. Guido Marini I think has helped Pope Francis overcome some of his poor Jesuit tendencies regarding liturgy. There are no good Jesuit liturgists. To call a Jesuit a liturgist is an oxymoron!

But here is the bombshell good news from Pope Francis:

Pope Francis: Msgr. Guido Marini renewed as Master of Pontifical Ceremonies for a full new term

From Radio Vaticana:

The Pope has confirmed Monsignor Guido Marini as Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies. Born 49 years ago in Genoa, Monsignor Guido Marini had been called to this position by Benedict XVI in October 2007.

As all confirmations and nominations in the Curia or Papal Chapels, except when expressly mentioned otherwise for a different period or for life, the nomination is for a five-year term.

My Comments: Keep in mind back in February Pope Francis, echoing concerns of Pope Benedict, confirmed that the Congregation for Divine Worship should continue on the path it was on with Pope Benedict to properly implement the Second Vatican Council's Document, Sacrosanctum Concilium:

 Pope Francis has issued a message on the occasion of a symposium devoted to the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. 

Stating that the anniversary evokes “sentiments of gratitude for the profound and widespread renewal of liturgical life made possible by the conciliar Magisterium, to the glory of God and the edification of the Church,” the Pope called for a renewal in the “commitment to receive and implement” the document’s teaching in a fuller manner. 

Pope Francis said that the Constitution and the postconciliar Magisterium “have made us better understand the liturgy in light of divine revelation” and said that Christ is the protagonist of every liturgical celebration. Quoting the Constitution, Pope Francis said that “in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.” 

Citing St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Pontiff then spoke of the importance of “true spiritual worship” in which the faithful offer themselves as a living sacrifice. A liturgy “detached from spiritual worship,” he said, might seem “almost magical” and have “an empty aestheticism.” Citing Pope Benedict XVI, he added that the liturgy transforms Christians from within. 

At the conclusion of his message, which was addressed to the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Pope Francis called for “a renewed willingness to move forward on the path indicated by the conciliar fathers, because much still remains to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.”

WHILE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ISN'T AS "POWERFUL" AS IT WAS IN THE 1950'S IT IS STILL A POWER THAT THE MEDIA AND MANY POLITICAL IDEOLOGUES DESPISE AND FEAR AS IT IS A THREAT TO THEIR IDEOLOGIES

The media gushes over Pope Francis and the media makes it look like that Pope Francis will make the Catholic Church just like the Episcopal Church or the Worldwide Anglican Communion. They think this would be good for the Catholic Church.

In reality, it would be good for the agenda of the post-modern, post-Christian ideologues. They know, simply by statistics, that the Worldwide Anglican Communion with its American counterpart, the Episcopal Church is in collapse as are all mainline liberal Protestant denominations. These churches are completely irrelevant and are no threat to anyone's ideologies, good or bad, but especially the ideologies of the Mass Media and ultra liberal politics.

For the media and liberal political ideologies it would be the most wonderful thing in the whole wide world for the Catholic Church to be like the Episcopal Church. What influence does the Episcopal Church or the Worldwide Anglican Communion have other than confirming and helping to promote post-modern, post-christian ideologies?

Don't be fooled. Politicians and the liberal media including news, know that they win if the Catholic Church becomes like the Episcopal Church. They know that the Catholic Church is their greatest obstacle in promoting a worldwide ideological post-Christian world. If they can get rank and file Catholics to think Pope Francis is endorsing the worldview and ideologies of the political left and its media minions, they have won part of the battle.

It is sad that so many who comment here and many comments that I delete are commenters who have drunk the cool aide of the mass media's manipulation of Pope Francis and his words. They have been duped.  

But of course in the long-run the post-Christian ideologues have already lost! Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever!

I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER MYSELF

A message from Bishop Gregory Hartmayer, Bishop of Savannah, and please note how nicely the video is sized by me for my blog! 

CHANGE NOTHING, BUT PRESENT THE TRUTH IN A SOFTER FRIENDLIER WAY--WILL THIS APPROACH CHANGE HEARTS?

My comments first: The article below that I copy from our Macon Telegraph's Religion Section this Saturday morning, is a paradox of truth and myth. It seems to me that the media is beginning to realize that this Pope isn't going to change any major teachings of the Church (of course they do not know that he can't do such a thing, he has no authority to do so). But they like how he is presenting traditional teachings by "applying those teachings in a loving and caring way."  "Francis still says "no" in a kinder and gentler way."

Some of the myths in the article that the media loves to perpetuate:

1. He drives around the Vatican in a used Renault--no he doesn't! A priest gave it to him like many gifts the pope receives. I suspect it is in a papal Vatican museum or being sold like the motorcycle given to him. But the Holy Father does get chauffeured in a Ford Focus. My mother had one too! A Focus, not a chauffeur. 

2. He lives on the second Floor of the Vatican Motel 6. This is true but his offices are still where the old papal apartment is and Pope Francis still spends a good part of the day in the Papal Palace working, but unlike Pope Benedict, he doesn't sleep there. Pope Francis stated the reason he lives at the Motel 6 is that he needs to be surrounded by people, regular people for psychiatric reasons, not to appear poorer than his predecessors.

3. "Who am I to judge" was said in the context of a priest who might have same sex attractions but was trying to follow the Lord and be faithful. That part is never included by the press. Neither do they include his reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church pertaining to homosexuality which the pope says he endorses, which means he sees homosexuality and its affections as disordered.

4. They don't speak of the many times Pope Francis has spoken of worldliness, the devil and corruption. Nor do they tell the complete truth about how many times he has spoken in defense of the innocent unborn children and their right to life which goes against the disposable society the media promotes. Nor do they say how many times he has spoken of the fact that children need a father and a mother and a traditional family home life.

5. Of course the Holy Father has been unambiguous about saying no to the ordination of women and even elevating women to be cardinals. Of course he has no authority, none whatsoever, to change the dogma that only men can be ordained and only a man and a woman can actually be married. The reason for this is the dogma that in both the Sacraments of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony, the spousal relationship of Christ the Bridegroom (bridegrooms are always male for anyone who thinks differently) to the Church as His bride (brides are always female, for anyone who thinks differently) is made sacramentally evident in both sacraments. Thus the basis of family life, both in the institutional Church and in the nuclear family are made clear.

CATHOLICS REFLECT ON THE FIRST YEAR OF PEOPLE'S POPE
By Lornet Turnbull of the Seattle Times, April 12, 2014:

SEATTLE -- In November, the priest at Assumption Catholic Church in North Seattle mailed a letter of welcome to parishioners, including members long dormant -- those divorced and remarried, gay, tired or simply disillusioned.

“We are living in exciting times,” Father Oliver Duggan told them. “Our church, which so many had written off as not relevant in this time and age, has suddenly come to life.”

For this he credited Pope Francis for not only inspiring his own pastoral work but for breathing new life into the Roman Catholic Church. While the new pontiff hasn’t changed church teachings, the father wrote, “he has been applying those teachings in a loving and caring way.”

A year after Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio stepped onto the balcony at St. Peter’s Basilica to present himself to the world as Pope Francis, Duggan’s words stand as testament for many -- Catholics and non-Catholics -- who believe this “people’s pope” has shifted the tone and softened the image of the 1.2 billion-member church.

To be sure, the pontiff’s actions and remarks in his inaugural year -- from challenging trickle-down economic theories, to reforming Vatican bureaucracy to urging church leaders to stop their obsessions over hot-button social issues -- have done nothing to change doctrine.

Francis still says “no,” but in a kinder, gentler way, to some of the church’s more complicated and thorny issues around reproductive rights, sexuality, married priests and women’s role in the church -- issues especially polarizing in the American Catholic church.

In March, while still maintaining the church’s firm position on marriage, he called on its leaders to explore how civil unions might provide health-care and economic benefits for same-sex couples.

“I don’t believe he will change doctrine; that won’t happen,” said Sharon Hanses, 79, a lifelong Catholic and member of St. Paul Cathedral in Yakima, Wash.

“But I do believe he’s changing hearts.”

Almost from the start, the Argentine and first Jesuit pope grabbed the world’s attention for being the most relatable in modern history: tooling about Vatican City in a 30-year-old Renault, washing the feet of female convicts, posing for selfies with visitors to the Vatican.

Francis eschewed the spacious apartments of his predecessors to live instead in a small suite in a Vatican guesthouse.

Named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 2013, as well as Man of the Year for the LGBT magazine The Advocate, he is hailed as the most influential world leader on Twitter with more than 3.7 million followers and is the most talked-about person on the Internet.

The first non-European pope in more than 1,200 years, Francis has made strong pronouncements about income inequality and treatment of the poor, and in his homily at a Mass on Ash Wednesday, said the best way to give was to not expect anything in return.

He has spoken out against careerism in the church and the Vatican, and called for a “synod on the family” this fall after ordering a survey of Catholics on a range of social issues -- from same-sex marriage and unwed cohabitation to contraception, and the place of divorced and remarried people in the church.

Perhaps the most quoted words of his papacy, “Who am I to judge?”, have given hope to gay Catholics alienated by the church and have become the rallying cry for students at a Catholic school in Sammamish,Wash., who saw injustice in the December firing of their gay vice principal after he married his husband.

“Personally, I think he’s a saint,” said Stephen Dofelmier of the pope. Dofelmier grew up in the church, left after getting a divorce but returned to Assumption after receiving one of Father Duggan’s “welcome back” letters.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2014/04/12/3043008/catholics-reflect-on-first-year.html?sp=/99/139/147/#storylink=cpy

THE IMPLICIT HYPOCRACY OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICAL LEADERS WHEN IT COMES TO THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN

On the very day, Friday of Passiontide, that Pope Francis apologizes and takes responsibility for the sexual abuse of children by priests, he also speaks of another scourge that is far broader and even more endemic in society as a whole and that is the slaughter of the innocent unborn promoted by many in society especially political leaders pandering to voters.

Does the hypocritical media bother to see a connection between the abuse of children in whatever form and their slaughter as a right of the mother to deny their child an actual fundamental right, the right to life?

President Barack Obama and his administration have done more to promote the killing of innocent children and without apology but in fact calling God's blessings on Planned Parenthood, than any other administration in the history of the USA.

Hypocrisy is alive and well and so is Satan.

THE POPE ON A ROLL THIS PASSTIONTIDE FRIDAY! THIS TIME, AS HE HAS ALWAYS DONE, IN DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION!

The silly ultra-traditionalist post-Catholics continue to throw stones at Pope Francis for a variety of things and in the most calumnious of ways, which are lies that are of Satan.

Today, has he has done in the past and most forcefully in his Apostolic Exhortation, Pope Francis reiterated the teachings and dogma of the Church concerning the unborn child and her right to life!

Let there be no doubt about the Catholicity of this pope, but I am afraid that I doubt the true catholicity of those who consider themselves defenders of the faith who nonetheless in the most strident protestant way show him and his office contempt!

Pope Francis: Human life sacred and inviolable

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Friday reiterated human life is sacred and inviolable during a meeting with Italy’s Pro-Life Movement (Movimento per la Vita), adding every civil right is based on the “first and most fundamental right,” the right to life: which is not subordinate to any condition, neither qualitative, nor economic, much less ideological.

The Holy Father said one of the most serious risks of the present age is the divorce between economics and morality, so that as the market gives us every technical innovation, it neglects more and more elementary ethical standards.

“It is must be therefore reiterated the strongest opposition to any direct attack on life, especially innocent and defenseless life, and the unborn child in the womb is the most concrete example of innocence,” said Pope Francis. “Let us remember the words of the Second Vatican Council: From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” ( Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Pope Francis said for a Christian, it is a part of the witness of the Gospel to protect life with courage and love in all its stages.

“I encourage you to always act with a style of nearness, of closeness: that every woman feels regarded as a person who is heard, accepted, and accompanied,” he said.

Pope Francis also showed gratitude for two specific activities of the Pro-Life Movement: The “Gemma Project”, which works with woman facing crisis pregnancies; and the “One of Us” Campaign, which is a European Union Citizens’ Initiative requesting the prohibition of EU financing of activities which involve the destruction of human embryos, especially in the areas of research, development cooperation and public health.

AGAIN I ASK, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOUR CLERGY PREACHED ABOUT THE REAL REALITY OF SATAN?

And how many times has Pope Francis preached about him in a little over a year. Liberal post-Catholics seem to be in denial about this pope's orthodoxy, conservatism and the direction of his particular "reform of the reform in continuity with the pre-Vatican II Church."  This pope's "reform of the reform" is all about the recovery of popular pre-Vatican II devotions and devotional life, especially Marian devotions, but also a keen awareness of the influence of Satan in the world, the Church and our personal lives.

I remember many homilies on demons and angels in the pre-Vatican II times, but almost none afterward. I know of one now deceased priest of our diocese, God rest his soul, who did not believe in Satan or angels. At the Lord's prayer he would encourage others to pray the Lord's Prayer by saying "Our Father/Mother who art in heaven..."

But here is Pope Francis, just this morning, reiterating his theology and the dogma of the Church concerning Satan. Tell your priests and deacons to preach the same! Good luck!

Pope Francis: Satan exists in the 21st century and how we can fight him

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis said Satan exists in our present century and we must learn from the Gospel how to fight against his temptations. This was the core message of his homily at the Mass celebrated on Friday in the Santa Marta residence.

Pope Francis said the life of every Christian is a constant battle against evil just as Jesus during his life had to struggle against the devil and his many temptations. And he warned that whoever wants to follow Jesus must be aware of this reality.

“We too are tempted, we too are the target of attacks by the devil because the spirit of Evil does not want our holiness, he does not want our Christian witness, he does not want us to be disciples of Christ. And what does the Spirit of Evil do, through his temptations, to distance us from the path of Jesus? The temptation of the devil has three characteristics and we need to learn about them in order not to fall into the trap. What does Satan do to distance us from the path of Jesus? Firstly, his temptation begins gradually but grows and is always growing. Secondly, it grows and infects another person, it spreads to another and seeks to be part of the community. And in the end, in order to calm the soul, it justifies itself. It grows, it spreads and it justifies itself.”
Turning to the bible, the Pope recalled how Jesus’s first temptation by Satan was almost ‘like a seduction.’ Satan told Jesus to throw himself down from the Temple so that all the people will see that he is the Messiah! And warned the Pope, when the devil is rejected, he grows and comes back stronger than before. Jesus himself noted this in the gospel when the devil went around looking for companions and with them returned to Jesus. Satan got involved with Jesus’s enemies and what seemed at first like a calm trickle of water turned into a flood of water. In this way, the temptation grows, infects others and justifies itself. As an illustration, the Pope recalled how when Jesus preached in the synagogue, his enemies belittled him by saying “but isn’t this the son of Joseph, the carpenter, the son of Mary. He never studied so with what authority can he speak?

“We have a temptation that grows: it grows and infects others. For example, let’s look at gossip: I’m a bit envious of this or that person and at first I’m just envious inside and I need to share it and go to another person and say: “But have you seen that person?’.. and this gossip tries to grow and infects another and another… This is the way gossip works and all of us have been tempted to gossip! Maybe not one of you, if you’re a saint , but I too have been tempted to gossip! It’s a daily temptation. And it begins in this way, discreetly, like a trickle of water. It grows by infecting others and in the end it justifies itself.”
Pope Francis concluded by urging people to be vigilant and not to give in to that initial temptation and thus allow it to spread to others and justify itself.

“We are all tempted because the law of our spiritual life, our Christian life is a struggle: a struggle. That’s because the Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21^st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21^st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.”


And then tied into the influence of Satan in the Church and priests in particular, this is what Pope Francis just said about the sex abuse of children by priests later in the day this very day:

Pope Francis on clerical sexual abuse: Not one step back

(Vatican Radio) “I feel compelled to personally take on all the evil which some priests, quite a few in number, obviously not compared to the number of all the priests, to personally ask for forgiveness for the damage they have done for having sexually abused children.

The Church is aware of this damage, it is personal, moral damage carried out by men of the Church, and we will not take one step backward with regards to how we will deal with this problem, and the sanctions that must be imposed. On the contrary, we have to be even stronger. Because you cannot interfere with children”.This was Pope Francis' clear message to members of BICE [International Catholic Child Bureau] whom he received Friday in audience at the Vatican. Emer McCarthy reports Listen:

BICE is a Catholic NGO that works to protect the rights and dignity of the child worldwide. Speaking to them, Pope Francis also spoke about the need to reaffirm the rights of parents to decide “the moral and religious education of their children” and reject all forms of “educational experimentation with children and young people”.

He said that it is every child’s right to grow up in a family “with a father and a mother” capable of creating “a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity”. The Pope also called for an end to what he termed as “educational experiments” with children and young people, pushing a “dictatorship of one form of thinking” on them in the name of a pretended “modernity”.

The Pope noted that the “horrors of the manipulation of education that we experienced in the great genocidal dictatorships of the twentieth century have not disappeared; they have retained a current relevance under various guises and proposals”.

To counter this he urged the BICE members to foster a true anthropological formation of the child respectful of the reality of the person, to enable children and young people to respond to the problems and challenges posed by contemporary culture and widespread mentality propagated by the mass media.

BOMBSHELL AND TRUE CONFESSION: I HAD A MARRIED PRIEST AS MY PAROCHIAL VICAR FOR ALMOST 14 YEARS!

The first photo is the recent ordination of a married priest at our cathedral in Savannah. He is a former Anglican bishop. After his ordination he blesses his wife. They have 17 grandchildren. He is stationed at the diocese largest parish, St. Mary on the Hill in Augusta, Georgia:

This is Fr. Miguel Grave de Paralta, another married priest once in the Diocese of Savannah and now residing in the Archdiocese of Atlanta:

The late Fr. Daniel Munn, my married parochial vicar for 14 years in Augusta who was also bi-ritual in the Melkite (Greek Catholic) Eastern Rite of the Church:

There is a supposed bombshell that Pope Francis will allow bishops to decide if married men can become priests. Please note the distinction, he isn't saying priests will allow to marry, but that men already married may become priests.

Now before the Pope Francis haters (neo-Protestant Catholics/neo-christians) start their diatribes about our pope, it should be made known that all the way back in the 1950's Pope Pius XII allowed some married Lutheran ministers in Sweden to become Catholic priests when they desired full communion with the Catholic Church. Yes, Pope Pius XII authorized it.

Of course, soon to be Saint Pope John Paul II in his "Pastoral Provision" of 1981 allowed Episcopal/Anglican priests who were disaffected with the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women and heterodox beliefs to become priests. That's how I got my married priest at The Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta, Georgia. His name was Father Daniel Munn. He died around 2006 I believe.

The Church of the Most Holy Trinity is/was a conservative parish, but Fr. Munn was completely embraced. Often times his wife Jan would be a lector at the Mass he was celebrating and he would refer to her and his many children and grandchildren in his homilies. Sometimes I would have to assure perplexed visitors that the Mass they had just attended was indeed a Roman Catholic Mass, that they had not wandered by mistake into some schismatic Catholic parish or Anglican Catholic Church.

The Diocese of Savannah has two married priests to this day, both in Augusta, one at St. Ignatius of Antioch Greek Catholic Church and the other a former married Anglican bishop at St. Mary on the Hill Catholic Church. One other Augusta married priest, former Episcopal, is now living in Atlanta.

Of course, Pope Benedict took Blessed Pope John Paul II's Pastoral Provision to a new level with the unprecedented creation of the Anglican Ordinariate. In this canonical structure, married Anglican/Episcopal Bishops who become Catholic are allowed to be administrators of these Ordinariates. Married men cannot become bishops even in the Orthodox Church which has always allowed married men to be priests. Only celibate men, usually from monastic communities, are called to be bishops. But Pope Benedict allows these now married former bishops of the Anglican Communion to retain much of the authority of a bishop as an "Apostolic Administrator." They are made the highest form of monsignor, may use the pectoral cross, crozier and miter during liturgies.

And now there is a rumor, true or not, that Pope Francis may kick it up a notch again. To think, married Catholic men, already in full communion with the Church, with valid Confirmation and attending valid Masses all their lives and valid confessions, might be allowed to be ordained as married Catholic priests.

Yes, that is the difference! Under all the popes I mentioned, only married Protestant men, only validly baptized, but never validly confirmed, never celebrating a valid Holy Eucharist, never having been  validly ordained to anything, never having been to a valid Confession, but yes, validly married, could be ordained as married Catholic priests. How weird is that?????

But completely Roman Catholic married men, validly baptized, confirmed, receiving valid Holy Communion and the other valid sacraments of the Church could not/cannot be ordained as married Catholic priests. How weird is that????

Also, keep in mind that those Eastern Rite Catholic Church, such as Melkite, Maronite, etc, completely in union with Rome have always allowed for married men to become priests in the similar fashion of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Of course only celibate men in the eastern rites may become bishops, usually from monastic communities.

This is what is being reported by "The Tablet" which is the English counterpart to the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR):

From The Tablet in London: 

A bishop who met with Pope Francis in a rare private audience on 4 April has said in an interview that the two men discussed the issue of the ordination of “proven” married men – viri probati – in a serious and positive way.

Bishop Erwin Kräutler, Bishop of Xingu in the Brazilian rainforest, spoke to the Pope about Francis’ forthcoming encyclical on the environment, and the treatment of indigenous peoples but the desperate shortage of priests in the bishop’s huge diocese came up in the conversation. According to an interview the Austrian-born bishop gave to the daily Salzburger Nachrichten on 5 April, the Pope was open-minded about finding solutions to the problem, saying that bishops’ conferences could have a decisive role.

“I told him that as bishop of Brazil’s largest diocese with 800 church communities and 700,000 faithful I only had 27 priests, which means that our communities can only celebrate the Eucharist twice or three times a year at the most,” Bishop Kräutler said. “The Pope explained that he could not take everything in hand personally from Rome.

We local bishops, who are best acquainted with the needs of our faithful, should be corajudos, that is ‘courageous’ in Spanish, and make concrete suggestions,” he explained. A bishop should not act alone, the Pope told Kräutler. He indicated that “regional and national bishops’ conferences should seek and find consensus on reform and we should then bring up our suggestions for reform in Rome,” Kräutler said.

Asked whether he had raised the question of ordaining married men at the audience, Bishop Kräutler replied: “The ordination of viri probati, that is of proven married men who could be ordained to the priesthood, came up when we were discussing the plight of our communities. The Pope himself told me about a diocese in Mexico in which each community had a deacon but many had no priest. There were 300 deacons there who naturally could not celebrate the Eucharist. The question was how things could continue in such a situation.
“It was up to the bishops to make suggestions, the Pope said again.”

Read more. 

THE NEW FASCISM AND DICTATORSHIP OF THE 21ST CENTURY

 The "thought police" are gaining momentum when it comes to human sexuality, to include abortion on demand and who can marry whom. There is also a movement away from gender identity to gender neutrality. If you disagree with this movement, you will be fired from your job. So don't promote marriage as something that God has designed from the beginning to be between one man and one woman and for a life time. If you do, watch your back, your front and your job!

I wonder who said this?

"There is no possibility of dialogue, there is no possibility to open up to new things which God brings with the prophets. They killed the prophets, these people; they close the door to the promise of God. When this phenomenon of narrow thinking enters human history, how many misfortunes. We all saw in the last century, the dictatorships of narrow thought , which ended up killing a lot of people, but when they believed they were the overlords, no other form of thought was allowed. This is the way they think”.
 
"Today we have to think in this way and if you do not think in this way, you are not modern, you're not open or worse. Often rulers say : 'I have asked for aid, financial support for this' , ' But if you want this help, you have to think in this way and you have to pass this law, and this other law and this other law…' Even today there is a dictatorship of a narrow line of thought and this dictatorship is the same as these people: it takes up stones to stone the freedom of the people, the freedom of the people, their freedom of conscience, the relationship of the people with God. Today Jesus is Crucified once again”.

POPE FRANCIS AND THE FRANCIS EFFECT ON THE LITURGY AND WHAT REALLY SHOULD BE CATHOLIC PRIORITY AS IT WAS PRIOR TO VATICAN II

For better or worse, people use Pope Francis and the Francis effect for their own purposes. There is no doubt that Pope Francis is trying to be the "people's pope" by not acting as a monarch and having the common touch. Soon to be Saint Pope John Paul II did the same. Pope Benedict brought more of an aloof regal approach to the papacy which seem to increase the more his woes did. Many, many in the Church (including myself) like the regal papacy. I often felt Pope John Paul II created too much of a celebrity cult around himself, the cult of the personality. I much more prefer the "cult of the papacy" over the "cult of the personality." When I use cult, I don't use it negatively but in the positive sense.

So what is the "Francis" effect on the Liturgy. At the Vatican Masses and the Masses the Vatican has some control over in terms of music and style, I have not seen any major change except in the celebrant pope. Pope Francis loves simplicity. His vestments indicate this. They are tasteful but certainly not splashy or ornate. They are modern Gothic.

To date the altar arrangement has remained the same. While I was in Rome for the entire Fall, Monsignor Marini had different angles for the candles. The last major Mass in St. Peter's the candles were more angled than before and a smaller crucifix in the center was used and the episcopal candle was to the side rather than the center. Will there be more adjustments or is this just one more of many arrangements. Time will tell.

The music has not changed from Benedict to Francis. Gregorian Chant is employed with much Latin used especially for the Propers, the Introit is always chanted, even is there is a hymn for the procession prior to it. The parts of the Mass are chanted in Latin using one of the traditional forms.

Pope Francis uses Latin but seems to prefer the vernacular, whereas Pope Benedict as it papacy proceeded would only use Latin for the preface and Eucharistic Prayer, although he used a variety of the Eucharistic prayers not just the Roman Canon.

Pope Francis does not distribute Holy Communion to laity, only the deacons of the Mass and now they stand rather than kneel.

I think Pope Francis has chosen not to distribute to the laity except at First Communions and the Easter Vigil's new Catholics because he does not want to promote kneeling. I think he prefers standing. But I could be wrong.

For Pope Francis, the translation wars of the Mass are off his radar screen. He prefers to focusing in on what happens outside of the sanctuary with rank and file clergy and laity.

To date he has not named a new Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and in a talk to them he seems to have asked them to continue on the path they are on to actually implement Sacrosanctum Concilium. Liturgy is not the focus of Pope Francis in terms of tinkering with it, Christian life is! We know that Pope Francis is the one who ultimately approved the Anglican Ordinariate's Mass with the options of the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" the EF's Order for the Introductory Rite of the Mass as well as the EF's Offertory Prayers and the Last Gospel and rubrics for the Roman Canon more similar to the EF's rubrics. This is rather interesting. And it is clear that people are allowed to kneel for Holy Communion and the Mass may be celebrated ad orientem as Pope Francis has done twice now publicly.

Prior the Vatican II there wasn't much rank and file discussion or obsession on the Liturgy. We can't say that after Vatican II where the focus of Christianity was misplaced, shifted from charity of Christian discipleship in life by knowing, loving and serving Jesus Christ to tinkering with the Mass, rearranging the furniture of the Church and becoming  a liturgical interior decorator not to mention the obsession with dumbed down vernacular translations of the glorious Latin. 

Now that we have a good and glorious English translation, someone needs to tell the one who still obsess on using pedestrian English that the Francis effect should move them from liturgy and the sanctuary to the real world of knowing, loving and serving Jesus Christ by one's manner of life outside the sanctuary. 

THE BISHOP SPEAKS

MY COMMENT FIRST: At the end of his letter Bishop Jugis writes: " Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love." While I delete many negative, hateful, uncharitable comments, others that are borderline, sophomoric or just plain juvenile get through. Remember what sister taught us about mortal sin and its consequences, especially those mortal sins against charity when commenting here!

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The past few weeks have been very difficult for Charlotte Catholic High School. We have all experienced a great deal of pain. During this difficult time I want to express my support and encouragement for all the parents, students, staff and faculty at the high school. We must move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.

Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues.

At the parent meeting on April 2, 2014, many expressed concern about the lack of advanced communication with parents regarding the subject matter of the assembly. Apologies were made at the meeting for that lack of advanced communication.

The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all.

During this difficult time I support the continued work of Fr. Matthew Kauth, the chaplain; Mrs. Angela Montague and Mr. Steve Carpenter, the assistant principals; and Mr. Randy Belk, the dean of students; and all they are doing for our Charlotte Catholic High School students. All of us are indebted to them.

I am shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting, and outside the meeting in conversations and in social media. There simply is no room in the Catholic Church for such displays of uncharitableness and disrespect. If we have failed in this regard let us make amends to God and neighbor. Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love.

We ask the Lord Jesus Christ for His mercy and His healing as we approach the celebrations of Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Sunday of the Lord’s Resurrection. Please be assured of our continued dedication to the mission to teach and live the truth of the Catholic faith at our Charlotte Catholic High School.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis
Bishop of Charlotte

WILL CATHOLICS DEMAND THAT I MOVE OUT OF OUR RECTORY WITH A $30 MILLION (OR MORE) VIEW?

Bishops and priests, thanks to Pope Francis, are now under serious scrutiny for how they spend their money an the money given to the Church, where they live and the amount of money that it takes to build their digs.

The media and very rich Catholics and not so rich ones too, don't want priests living with $100 Million views or extravagant furniture or steak to eat. They want their priests to suffer in dark dingy cavern like rectories, driving Yugos and eating at Krystal's. (Don't get me wrong, I love Krystal's!)

So here is my confession in pictures. Where shall I go, this Son of Man's priest has a place to lay his head, but for how long when this goes viral?

This is my bathroom (I only have one personal one and yes the toilet is flushed!)

This is my bedroom, nothing exciting happens in here except sleep and insomnia.

This is my sitting room, next to my bedroom (I only have two rooms) and the furniture in both rooms is not mine but belongs to the parish, except for the buffet that belonged to my mother and was in our dining room at home. It was purchased from Sears around 1962 for about $75 and to think that the gift to my mother could have been money given to the poor. Oh, wait, we were poor then by today's standards!

 This is my office. It is on the main floor and all of the parish offices are there, two others for the two other priests, one for Administrator, whose office is nicer than mine, by the way, but I digress and two other offices for the secretary and bookkeeper along with a parlor and waiting room.

And now for the true scandal and why I will be forced to move out of the rectory, sell  it and move into something without a $30 Million view! Yes, this is the view from my bedroom and sitting room! Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea MAXIMA CULPA!

And finally, this is where I live, on the right of this ornate Church, which the money could have been spent on the poor, not this building, after all Mass could be in a warehouse and the money saved for the poor and next to it my rectory which also houses the parish's offices. It is three floors and each of the three priests have a bedroom, a bathroom and a sitting room on the third floor which is exclusively residential and with offices on the second floor with lay staff and dining room and kitchen on the below ground level. What a scandal to say the least!

WHEN PRIESTS BECOME THE CENTER OF HORIZONTAL sPIRIT OF VATICAN II WORSHIP

Okay, I'm a bit apoplectic after having watched the video below. In the name of all that is Catholic worship and holy, how can this be happening in the Church of the Now in 2014?

Wedding liturgies as well as funeral liturgies in the post-Vatican II era are in need of desperate reform and the mentality of a priest who thinks this is appropriate Catholic liturgy, piety and spirituality is truly amazing. And guess what folks, he's my age I think, the age of clergy trained in the 1970's and still functioning today as if it is the 1970's. I suspect if he got polled on the glorious new English translation of the Mass that he was negative about it! O me, o my!

And guess what, there is a unity candle on the altar. Who in 2014 still uses this silly non-sacramental created by marketers to make money.

However, the only bright spot is the church itself. It still has the altar railing and the high altar is still in tact but with the table portion pulled away from the reredos to allow for Mass facing the people, which has created priest-entertainers like the one in the video!

When will the bishops of the Church stop condemning priests for encouraging kneeling for Holy Communion and ad orientem and deal with the real liturgical problems like this one? I report; you decide!


Please note, thanks to a commenter, that I now know how to size these videos to fit properly on my blog. And certainly we don't want to give this entertainer priest more space than is needed! God is Great!

WHEN IS TOO MUCH MONEY SPENT ON CHURCH PROJECTS TOO MUCH MONEY?

Should our $205,000 altar railing fund been better used by giving it to the poor? I report you decide! And should we sell this ornate church building and move into a warehouse and give what is left over to the poor? I report; you decide!

I know that the Catholic Church's consultative processes have not always been that great around the world when it comes to income and expenditures of money given to the Church by the faithful and other sources.

In our parish we have tried best as we can, to be very transparent. Everyone knows what our weekly income is and every six months there is a detailed report of that income and the expenditures. We try to be good stewards of the financial gifts given to the parish.

But when is too much too much to spend? For example, what about salaries? What is too much for a church employee and will we get good employees if we can't offer a good living wage?

What about dedicated or restricted funds given by individuals or bequests for specific projects, like building projects? Recently I had a parishioner who said we shouldn't spend anymore money on our historic church building. He doesn't like that we are restoring the altar railing. He says the money should be given to the poor and that I should have put the entire project up to a vote parish wide, like some (not all) Protestant denominations do. Of course I could have told him to go and sell all he has and give it to the poor and then come and be a parishioner, but I didn't think of that at the time!

So, should a pastor, like me, throw out canon law when it comes to the way the Church promotes consultation and seeks advice for pastors? Our pastoral council approved of the project unanimously based upon monies coming in from donors who specifically give to it. The Finance Council subsequently approved that the project could only be funded by a special fund raiser specifically for it, that it had to be funded in full and no normal Sunday offertory monies or other monies used.

Ultimately the  conclusion of this consultative process was the bishop's approval with some caveats. All of these were met. He signed the contract to begin the work, not me.

About 75 parishioners donated specifically to the altar railing fund. We collected about $50,000 from these parishioners with one giving $10,000! At the time I was under the impression the project would cost about $100,000. But after we had a contractor study the project and propose a cost, we discovered it would be about $205,000!

Thinking that I would never be able to raise that amount of money in the fashion in which we were requesting it, I wrote all the donors who had given thus far that we had miscalculated the cost and that it would take much longer to raise the money, perhaps years. I stated that we could put their restricted funds into a long term altar railing fund or I would return their gift if they so requested. I think only one person asked that the gift be returned.

But then one of our elderly parishioner died. About two months afterwards a representative of her lawyer came to see me. She had left a restricted bequest of a sizable about to be used only for sanctuary improvements.  In addition to that, about 30 percent of that bequest was to be give specifically to our Catholic Charities program for poor families, "Family Advancement Ministries."

And then I was given two checks, one for the altar railing and the other for our Family Advancement Ministries. That gave us exactly what we need and even a little more to repair a leak high up in the church building by one of our rose windows which will require scaffolding to repair.

It would not be legal (canonically or civilly) for the parish to use restricted funds and give it to the poor. Should we not have projects like these and let parishioiners keep their money and spend it on their own material fluff?

Also, how much of a parish's yearly income should be dedicated to the poor? All of it; a part of it?

Here at St. Joseph, we give about 20% of our total offertory to collections that go elsewhere. Is that too much or is that too little? On top of that I subscribe to the truth that all the monies that our parishioners have belong to the Church. Individual Catholics may give to charities of their choice without going through the institutional parish. So I am sure that of all the money of our parishioners that we are giving far more than 20% percent to the poor!