Sunday, June 29, 2014

Holy Innocents Church Partners With The Devil's Bible

In their ongoing attempt to save Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan from being closed, some of those who attend there have given interviews to and cooperated with Hell's Bible, which is the name given to the New York Times by Father John Zuhlsdorf.  However, as Father Z wrote on his blog, The New York Times has ceased being "Hell's Bible" for at least one day.  How did this miraculous transformation come about?  On Friday, June 27, the Times published an article [HERE] which takes the side of supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass at Holy Innocents against the Archdiocese of New York.  

The question is, why would the most liberal newspaper in the nation, which is unceasing in pushing the liberal, secular agenda of gay rights, abortion and all things anti-Catholic, want to throw its support to a couple hundred ultra-orthodox, ultra-conservative Catholics in a small commuter church in the heart of Manhattan?  What would the Times have to gain in this?  

It is no accident that on the day the Holy Innocents article first appeared on the Times website, it was right next to another article concerning an archbishop accused of sexual abuse [HERE].  Per the article, "The Vatican has defrocked its former ambassador to the Dominican Republic, an archbishop from Poland who was accused of sexually abusing boys while he served as the pope’s representative in the Caribbean nation."

So here are two articles concerning the big bad Catholic Church whose priests and bishops not only sexually abuse children, but the evil hierarchy of this Church also seems intent on trying to silence and disabuse the most faithful in her midst who wish nothing more than to worship as they have always done. Father Justin Wylie is prominently mentioned and portrayed as a martyr to the cause, as follows:
Father Wylie, a visiting priest, urged parishioners to be obedient but also to speak up, as traditionalist Catholics, for a place in the church, saying they should not be “turned out like squatters.”

It was an unusual moment of open criticism by a Roman Catholic priest of church policy in New York. And the reaction was swift. Within two weeks, Father Wylie was reprimanded by the New York Archdiocese, and in short order he was dismissed from his job at the Mission of the Holy See at the United Nations.
It is unclear how the New York Times came to write this story. We don't know if someone actually contacted them and asked them to do it, or if the paper picked up on it from the Internet, where so many, many Traditional Catholics have discussed this situation and come to the conclusion that Cardinal Dolan is evil, hates Traditionalists and wants to stamp them out. The article is written from the parishioners' point of view and is completely sympathetic to them.

As we saw with Father Z and as is true in all other cases, Traditionalists are joyful that the New York Times has come to their aid, and as a result have suspended their usual condemnation of this paper. I truly do hope that no one from Holy Innocents purposely contacted the Times to write this story.

Picture of Holy Innocents Church
from the New York Times taken from the balcony
But the fact that the picture used in an accompanying article from the Times City Blog [HERE] was taken from the balcony is a sign of clear cooperation with the Times because no one is allowed in the balcony without specific permission. Further, this article specifically states that parishioners cooperated with the newspaper:
Paul McGregor [the same Paul McGregor who has given interviews to both Christine Niles and Michael Voris], a parishioner at the church, provided The New York Times with a transcript of Father Wylie’s remarks, which he said were based on a recording by another parishioner. Several other parishioners who heard the remarks confirmed the transcript’s validity.
As mentioned, the Catholic blogosphere, including the aforementioned Father Z, immediately picked up on the Times article. Father Z had not commented on the subject of Holy Innocents since Father Wylie had his priestly faculties revoked by the New York Archdiocese. However, the Times article seems to have helped Father Z find his voice again, but within limits as he wrote, "I would post many comments, but I fear retribution for my friends." With this simple statement, Father Z is setting up the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as the enemy of the laity, just as Father Wylie did in his sermon.

All of these elements, I fear, may be building up to schism.

In my previous post on this subject, I urged those at Holy Innocents not to allow themselves to become bitter and angry about this situation, but to follow the example of so many others, both saints and biblical figures, who suffered unjustly but allowed Our Lord to work out the situation.  I was blasted for this and told I don't know what I'm talking about, and accused of being both heretical and demonic.

But what are the people of Holy Innocents thinking when they go to the New York Times in order to find justice?  This reminds me very much of the passage in I Corinthians 6:6-7:
"But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers! Now therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one against another. Why do ye not rather accept wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?"
The New York Times is the paper of record for the entire United States and is the court of public opinion. By cooperating with this newspaper, the people of Holy Innocents have turned their backs on our Lord and instead enlisted the devil in their cause.

Ad from the New York Times
The Times could not care less about the people at Holy Innocents or the Traditional Latin Mass. The Times has an agenda, and that is to see the entire Catholic Church destroyed. This is the Church that stands in the way of everything they care about - abortion, gay rights, contraception, etc. Every other religion will eventually give way to the agenda of the liberals at the New York Times, and they know it. In contrast, they know that the Catholic Church will never change her position on these issues, so the Catholic Church is their eternal enemy.

But now the liberal, anti-Catholic New York Times has found a group of Catholics who agree that the hierarchy of the church is evil. The people at Holy Innocents, in their desire to keep their church, have unwittingly allowed themselves to be used in the cause of those whose main desire is to destroy the Church.

How can anyone at Holy Innocents honestly believe this is going to help them in any way?  Do they think that getting the most liberal paper in the nation to portray them as the poor abused victims of the evil New York Archdiocese is going to somehow soften Cardinal Dolan's heart and make him realize that closing Holy Innocents is a huge mistake?  Or are they figuring that Cardinal Dolan will now have no other choice but to keep Holy Innocents open because not to do so will make everyone realize what a "horrible ogre" he really is?  Do we ever see these kind of tactics used by any biblical figures or any saints down through Church history?

From Mystics of the Church [HERE]:
On one occasion, the Sacred Heart of Jesus made a request to St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, but when she told her Superior this request, her Superior did not approve. Soon afterwards, when Jesus came to her again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: "…not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I request of you without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please Me" [Autobiography of St Margaret Mary].
Elsewhere in her Autobiography, we read that St Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: "Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient" [cf. -Autobiography] 
As we see in this example, St. Margaret Mary Alocoque's superior forbade her to follow the request of Our Lord Himself. Yet, she was told by Our Lord that she should obey her superior and do nothing without his consent, even when it goes against what she was specifically told by Jesus Christ Himself.

Further examples from the saints:
In the Diary of St Faustina Kowalska we read: "...Jesus says; 'Obedience. I have come to do My Father’s will. I obeyed my Parents, I obeyed My tormentors and now I obey the Priests' ...I understood that our efforts, no matter how great, are not pleasing to God if they do not bear the seal of obedience.... I understand, O Jesus, the spirit of obedience and in what it consists. It includes not only external actions, but also one’s reason, will and judgment. In obeying our superiors, we obey God.." -Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska

And elsewhere in her diary she writes: "Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience." (Diary, par. 939).

And St Catherine of Siena states- “Oh! How sweet and glorious is this virtue of obedience, which contains all the other virtues! Because it is born of charity, and on it the rock of the holy Faith is founded; it is a queen, and he who espouses it knows no evil, but only peace and rest.”
And for those who feel that it is okay to speak out against a prelate if he is "evil" as many try to portray Cardinal Dolan, they need to look at the example of King David, whom the Bible says was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). David had been anointed King of Israel in place of King Saul, but Saul still sat on the throne. When Saul realized that David was a threat to him, Saul tried very hard to kill David. But David refused to fight against Saul or harm him in any way, even to protect himself. As he said, "Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, 'I will not lay my hand on my lord, because he is the LORD's anointed." (I Sam. 24:10).

If the people at Holy Innocents were fighting an unjust landlord or even fighting someone in the government, I would applaud them for what they are doing. I would say they need to stand up against those who are trying to destroy them. But Cardinal Dolan is not just another man. He is the Lord's anointed, like it or not. He is a prince of the Church and his power and authority are given to him directly from the Holy Spirit.

That doesn't mean that every decision he makes is correct.  As shown in the example of St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, those in authority can sometimes make decisions that are actually against the will of God.  But unless we are told something that is inherently sinful, we do not have a right to disobey those in authority over us.

Some have made the argument that the laity are not under the same code of obedience that priests and religious are.  That is true, but that still does not give us the right to try to destroy the reputation of Church authorities.  This can never be the work of the Holy Spirit.  And sadly, attempting to destroy the reputation of Cardinal Dolan and other hierarchy of the New York Archdiocese is the main objective of the article in the New York Times.

Also, those who are supporting the parishioners of Holy Innocents in these tactics should also realize that they are not doing Father Justin Wylie any favors. Father Wylie was completely out of line in his harsh criticism of the New York Archdiocese from the pulpit. He is a priest and has taken vows of obedience. 

Father Wylie is walking on very dangerous ground when he publicly criticizes his superiors, especially from the pulpit. He has lost his position at the UN over this and is no longer allowed to make public appearances in New York City. And there can be no doubt that he will face punishment from his own bishop when he returns to South Africa.

It seems that Father Wylie is not backing down from his statements either. According to the Times article:
Father Wylie, reached by email, said, “I am confident of having tried faithfully at all times to serve the best interests of the Archdiocese of New York.”
Father Wylie obviously feels he has done nothing wrong.  All of the cheering from people like Father Z and this article in the Times seems to have only encouraged that sentiment and hardened his attitude against his superiors even more.   I sincerely pray for him.

One person we have not heard from in all of this is Father George Rutler. Father Rutler is the pastor of St. Michael's Church, which is also on the potential hit list, and the administrator of Holy Innocents. He is very affected by all of this, and yet we have not heard one public word from him on the subject. It could very well be that he feels exactly the same as Father Wylie. But he is a good, obedient priest who takes his vows very seriously. I know this from personal experience because Father Rutler heard my confession and convalidated my marriage when I returned to the Church several years ago.

Father Rutler truly loves the Church and loves Our Lord, and no matter what his personal feelings are, he will never speak out publicly against his superiors, and most definitely would never give any kind of statement to the New York Times.  He models his priesthood very closely on that of Blessed John Henry Newman, St. Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney and St. Padre Pio. Father Wylie and all of the people at Holy Innocents would do well to learn from Father Rutler.

I am increasingly concerned that Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan is fast becoming fertile soil for schism. They are so convinced of their own rightness that they feel anything they do is fair game and that the end justifies the means.

We have seen our first casualty of this fight: Father Justin Wylie. How many more will there be? I know those involved blame the Archdiocese for the sad circumstances in which Father Wylie finds himself, but priests cannot be allowed to publicly speak against Church hierarchy. If that is allowed, chaos and anarchy will most certainly follow. Rebelling against authority is never the work of the Holy Spirit.

Because of the Internet, the situation of Holy Innocents has become a cause célèbre among Traditionalists across the nation and probably around the world.  Those who label themselves "loyal Catholics" are taking direct aim at Cardinal Dolan and the New York Archdiocese, and our enemies are going to eat this up and use it against us.  And now they have worsened the situation by enlisting the "aid" of anti-Catholic New York Times.  I pray that all involved will realize that there is something much bigger going on here than the church at 37th and Broadway and the Latin Mass.

We live in very evil times when sin is no longer considered sin. In fact, those who defend the things of God are persecuted and ostracized as bigots and haters. The devil wants most of all to cause disunity and separation among those who are most opposed to him. His biggest enemy is the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. And he will use any means he can to cause disunity and division. He has convinced many Catholics that their greatest enemy is the Church herself. In this case, the devil is using the Traditional Latin Mass to turn Catholics against each other, which he must surely relish.

Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us the following:
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
I once again implore all those good people at Holy Innocents. Please stop and consider what you are doing. Show that you trust Our Lord to work this out for you. Do not cause any more conflict and disunity. Follow the examples of our saints. It may sound trite, but don't let your suffering go to waste. Offer it up for the souls in Purgatory and then ask them to pray for you. Enlist the help of the saints, not Satan's Bible.


  1. I have to separate my comment into different parts because it is too long (in imitation of your post).

    I never read newspapers, so I know little about how anti-Catholic the New York Times is. But I have to say that you may be committing tremendous acts of injustice and lack of charity in all these posts you write about (some of) the parishioners of Holy Innocents.

    1) Your title is misleading and sensational (just like newspaper articles tend to be). While in the body of the post you attempt to clarify that "some people" or parishioners are siding with the NYT, your title implies that the entire Church of the Holy Innocents is siding with the NYT. For this to happen and for your title to be accurate, the consent of the administrator (who is the representative of the Church of the Holy Innocents) would have to make a public statement in support of the NYT article you refer to. And, as you have noted clearly, he has not made any type of public. I would advise that you modify your post title. You should not bunch up all the people at Holy Innocents like that – it is unjust.

    If you are going to do that, then you should do much more research and present the other side that you are *neglecting*: there are a lot people who are fasting and praying for Holy Innocents and the traditional Mass (according to the Will of God). They are, to echo your words, trying to follow the example of the Saints. By presenting only one side, you are following the example of the New York Times. I encourage you to come to Holy Innocents, just like you went to St. Francis of Assisi, and mingle with the parishioners so that you can see with your own eyes that you have been wrong in not even considering mentioning those who are offering up prayers to God for the leaders of the Church, for the Church of the Holy Innocents, and for the traditional Mass community. It is unjust to press, as you have done on your blog, only on the sensational side of things.

    2) Regarding the other article about the defrocked Archbishop. I know that you do not support the great evil and sacrilege he committed when he was Archbishop. Neither does the Catholic Church, and that is why he has been laicized. From that moment, that person is not a cleric anymore in the eyes of the Church (he is not a leader in the Church). He is treated as a layman and the Church allows that he be judged and prosecuted just like any other layman. What do you think the process of laicization is for? Did not Pope Benedict preach about the filth in the Church? All of that has to be exposed for the members (clerics and laymen) of the Church to be purified – these things cannot and should not be concealed. We cannot pretend that they did not happen. The papers are writing about them because they happened. It actually makes it look silly to say: “we know it happened, we know they did it, but the papers should not write about it.” It would be almost as saying: the people who were abused should not say anything and they simply should offer up their suffering. This would be INSANE.

    The Priests/Bishops who committed these horrible crimes should have NEVER done what they did. You cannot condemn a paper for exposing something sinful and scandalous like that (when it actually happened).

    3) As a parishioner of Holy Innocents, I will tell you that I do not see the NYT as coming to “my” aid. I would venture to say that the great majority of people who probably do not even now that article came out would think that the NYT is actually trying to help the cause of Holy Innocents. I mean, if you yourself who has said you attended Mass there are not helping the cause, why would a secular newspaper like the NYT help the cause of Holy Innocents? You’ve actually benefitted from what Holy Innocents Church has had to offer spiritually, the NYT has not. Do the math.

  2. 4) Regarding your comment about Fr. Z and “fear [of] retribution for my friends,” could it be possible that he was referring to the administrator? I am not as faithful a follower of Fr. Z’s blog as you are, but I have seen several times posts in which he mentions Fr. Rutler as “my friend” and he has also mentioned him and his church(es) on his blog several times in positive terms. I cannot imagine that Fr. Z would actually refer to “all the parishioners of Holy Innocents” as “my friends.” Do you?

    5) SCHISM: I ask that you specify (in your post) what schism really is according to official Church definition because you are basically semi-accusing many people at Holy Innocents of schism. In such case, you *must* present proof. It would be a very grave accusation. You should clarify what you mean by this or remove the hint of accusation.

    6) I do not think that you were “blasted,” as you call it, but it is clear that you do not know everything there could be to know about the situation of a church like Holy Innocents or any other parish in Manhattan. The people who disagreed with you simply said that you have very limited knowledge about all of this. I would agree with that. Citing Scripture and lives of Saints is a good thing, but it does not replace the facts that go along with the life of parish or the lives of everyday people in a parish.

    7) You wrote, “By cooperating with this newspaper, the people of Holy Innocents have turned their backs on our Lord and instead enlisted the devil in their cause.” This is also a severe accusation. Basically, you are “returning” the tag of “heretic” and “demonic” to people at Holy Innocents. You may be doing it subconsciously, but it is still retaliation on your part.

    What do you think turning one’s back to Our Lord mean? Are you actually suggesting that people at Holy Innocents have intentionally separated from Our Lord and turned their backs to him? Would you go as far as to say that they should not receive Holy Communion because of their partnership with the devil?

    You base all of this on an article from the NYT? If so, you certainly are giving this NYT article much more importance that the one it really has.

    8) You wrote: “Father Wylie and all of the people at Holy Innocents would do well to learn from Father Rutler.” You keep generalizing to “all” the people at Holy Innocents. You seem to have a very difficult time separating intentions and actions of people A, people B, and people C. You seem to take pride in not belonging to any category (liberal, conservative, traditionalist, etc.) in the Church, but that does not mean that you have the freedom to lump everybody else that does not fit your model into one big pile of “all of the people.” That is irresponsible.

    1. I know who you are and i know for a fact that you posted the article on your Facebook page and seem generally supportive of it other than a few points that you mention on your blog, as follows (you also link to the article on your blog):

      1) that the photos do not do the Church justice because it doesn't show the true amount of people who attend,

      2) "The Parish was not "advised" to consolidate. That was the "preliminary recommendation" by the Archdiocesan Advisory Group,"

      3) Why would Mr. Zwilling want Fr. Wylie to bring up the issues privately with the Archdiocese when it has been clear from day 1 that the Archdiocese intentionally ignores the Latin Masses in NYC, except the one at St. Agnes on East 43rd Street and that's because the Pastors assigned there are, basically, only doing what the Archdiocese expects and wants (Latin Mass only on Sundays and on no other occasion whatsoever!).

      4) Why would the Traditional Mass Community wait until the final decision, when other parishes and groups were told where to go and what to do? I think that this is simply the Archdiocese trying to limit the amount of time the parishioners at Holy Innocents would have to demand what they deserve from the Archdiocese as full members of the Catholic Church and parishioners of the Archdiocese of NY

      Seems to me that in general you are very supportive of the article and I know that you are a leader at Holy Innocents. I have literally spent hundreds of hours at the Church, going to the Masses 3 or 4 or more times a week and going to the monthly all night vigils. If you notice, I talk about the "good" people at Holy Innocents I am not condemning "all" of them by any means. But you and I also know that thee are some pretty harsh things said about the hierarchy of the Church, and I've heard with my own ears such adjectives as "demonic."

      For anyone interested, here is the blog:

      You live in New York and you don't know the reputation of the New York Times? Frankly, I find that a little hard to swallow. I know you are smart and educated and I don't believe you live under a rock.

      I know Holy Innocents very well, having spent literally hundreds of hours there over the years, and that is why I have taken such a keen interest in it. My concern is very genuine. I would very much like the Church to stay open and continue as they have. But with such attitudes as I have seen emanating from this situation, I really don't know what to think.

    2. I have never tried to hide who I am. Otherwise, I would have an anonymous name.

      I did not say that I did not agree with what was said in the NYT article. I do not agree with the closing of Holy Innocents as mentioned in several comments here. But I also do not agree with the closing of any parish/church building that can sustain itself. If a process goes against canon law, I have the freedom to disagree with that and to express my disagreement.

      If you have ever checked the blog you linked to, you will also admit that I rarely post anything other than pictures. This particular article, I saw on somebody's facebook page. So, I linked to it after I read it. If I agreed with everything you say, I would also link to your blog, but, for several reasons already mentioned, I do not agree with everything you say in your posts.

      The way I found out about that article was because somebody else posted it on facebook, as I already mentioned. I believe that people should be informed about **everything** that relates to the closing of Holy Innocents if they are parishioners there.

      I do not think that they should only get the "official" angle of this because it is not the only angle. It is the more honest thing to provide people with both sides of the story. Well grounded information is based on knowing all angles of a story/case/struggle/etc.

      I live in New York, but I still do not read newspapers. I try not to read newspapers (or even tv news) because I do not like to start my morning with sad and depressing stories about everything you can think of. I have never once bought the NYT or any other newspaper. And I still do not intend to.

      I prefer to read books.

      I have gotten the impression that your posts focus mainly on the negative side of things (on those parishioners who do/say what you do not agree with). Your posts should be more balanced.

      The NYT article cited/quoted both sides: parishioners as well as people from the archdiocese. Both points of views were offered to the people, even if the writer took a specific point of view to support.

    3. Thank you for your input about my blog, and I mean that sincerely. We will just have to let all of this play out and see where it goes. You certainly have every right to disagree with administrative decisions made by Church authorities, and you have every right to go through the formal process the Church has given us. I know you will and I would never say there is anything wrong with that.

      But none of us have the right to sit in judgment of Church authority, and there can be no doubt that there is far too much of that going on all over the Internet, and that is no exception when it comes to the subject of Holy Innocents and Cardinal Dolan. The comments and posts I have seen are way beyond the pale.

      I must repeat, I still fear that schism may come of this. I will repeat the last paragraph of my blog, which I believes show that I am truly sympathetic to the plight of the parishioners at Holy Innocents, but at the same time, I cannot support rebellion against Church authority:

      "I once again implore all those good people at Holy Innocents. Please stop and consider what you are doing. Show that you trust Our Lord to work this out for you. Do not cause any more conflict and disunity. Follow the examples of our saints. It may sound trite, but don't let your suffering go to waste. Offer it up for the souls in Purgatory and then ask them to pray for you. Enlist the help of the saints, not Satan's Bible."

    4. But none of us have the right to sit in judgment of Church authority

      Except for Catholic in Brooklyn, who is pleased to sit in judgment of Fr. Wylie, who, as a priest, is a church authority and a member of the hierarchy.

      Furthermore, how do you know that others do not act as they do in consultation with and obedience to the authority of the Church. The Congregation for the Clergy has laid out rules for the closing of Churches, the Archdiocese is disobeying them. Both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict (and St. John Paul II) have urged the laity to manifest their spiritual needs to the sacred pastors of the Church, even when that means disagreeing with them. We owe a higher obedience to the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Clergy which acts in his name and by his authority then we do to the local bishop. When the local bishop acts against Canon Law we have a duty to protest his actions.

      You seem not to understand another thing. That it is permissable to not protest when evil is done to yourself as an individual, but it is often not permissible to concede to evil when it is done to another in your presence. To not speak up when evil is done to you can be salutary. To not speak up when evil is done to another (e.g. the parishoners of Holy Innocents) is quite likely to be an accomplice by silence in the sin of another.


    5. Do you realize that your comment, sadly, vindicates my post?

      First of all, just as you say we do not have to obey a disobedient bishop, so we do not have to obey a disobedient priest, and I say with all sadness that Father Wylie is a disobedient priest. This is not a judgment of Father Wylie. I looked at what he said. Father Wylie got up in the pulpit and compared the Archdiocese of New York to Reformation England and Cromwellian Ireland. This is where the Catholic Church was literally outlawed, priests had to be smuggled in, and if the priests were captured, as they almost always were, they were literally drawn and quartered. Father Wylie is a priest who took a vow of obedience to his superiors. He was in complete disobedience to his vow when he attacked his superiors in this way. And as I said in my post, you are not doing him any favors by defending his actions.

      Next, nowhere was I writing about Canon law. Please re-read the post because you seem to have missed it. I am talking about the fact that a group of lay people with a grievance against their bishop took this grievance to a secular newspaper so that it could be aired to the world. And this isn't just any newspaper. This is the New York Times. Father Z is the one who named this paper the "devil's bible" because of their disdain for the Catholic Church and support of everything the Church stands against. Is there a Canon law that says if the laity have a problem with their bishop they are free to air this complaint to whole world, and if it can be done through media which hates the Catholic Church, so much the better? You will have to show me that law.

      You say you owe a higher obedience to the Pope than to the bishop. Yes, if the Pope declares that the bishop is acting wrongfully, which has most certainly not happened. If you are disobedient to a vaildly ordained bishop in good standing with the Church, then you are disobedient to the Holy Father.

      You next talk about defending people against evil. This evil, of course, would be Cardinal Dolan. There was an interesting reading today in the LOTH. It concerned the death of King Saul who was wounded on the battlefield. King Saul, as I mentioned in another post, hunted David down like an animal in an attempt to kill him. When Saul was wounded, he turned to another man and asked him to kill him (Saul). The man refused and Saul fell on his sword, killing himself. When the man got back to David, he told David that Saul was dead and that he had killed him, thinking David would reward him for that. Instead, David replied, "How is it that you were not afraid to put forth your hand to desecrate the Lord’s anointed?" David then had the man put to death, saying, "You are responsible for your own death, for you testified against yourself when you said, ‘I dispatched the Lord’s anointed."

      I ask you, how is it that you are not afraid to put forth your hand to desecrate the Lord's anointed? By condemning Cardinal Dolan as evil, you have, in effect, "dispatched the Lord's anointed." We may not like Cardinal Dolan and the way he does things, but we have no right to figuratively lift our hand against God's anointed and declare him "evil." And that is the whole point of my post. Too many people are doing exactly as you have done in your comment: going to the world and telling them that Cardinal Dolan needs to be "dispatched." You have unilaterally made the decision that Cardinal Dolan is an evil man who wants to destroy the Church.

      This is why I have a real fear of schism coming from the events at Holy Innocents.

    6. "Father Wylie is a priest who took a vow of obedience to his superiors. He was in complete disobedience to his vow when he attacked his superiors in this way."

      The first difficulty is that, strictly speaking, Cardinal Dolan is not Fr. Wylie's "superior.' He is a priest of the Archdiocese of Johannesburg, previously detached for duty with the Holy See's UN delegation. To the extent that he reported to anyone, he reported to the head of the Holy See delegation, Rev. Msgr. Janusz Urbanczyk, First Counsellor; and ultimately to his own ordinary, the Archbishop of Johannesburg. He was given faculties to celebrate sacraments in ADNY, but Cardinal Dolan was not his ordinary. Cardinal Dolan did exercise a very limited jurisdiction over Fr. Wylie's conduct (to the extent that he was given faculties in ADNY), but not that of an ordinary over his priest.

      The second difficulty is that, when given orders, Fr. Wylie was, in fact, obedient. He was told to cease celebrating any public sacraments in ADNY, and he complied. He was ordered to return to Johannesburg, and he complied.

      So we're left with the comments Fr Wylie made in his homily, which never mentioned Cardinal Dolan by name. I grant very readily that a priest who says something unwelcome in a local chancery had best be prepared to face some consequences, and arguably Fr. Wylie did so. But I remain unconvinced that this was a case of "disobedience."

  3. 9) Finally, you wrote, “I once again implore all those good people at Holy Innocents. Please stop and consider what you are doing.” I would implore you to show at Holy Innocents the same kind of “charity” that you wanted to show off at St. Francis of Assisi. You should go to the church and talk to the people one on one. This would not only be a good act on your part, but it would also give you a much more accurate idea of whether you should lump all the people at Holy Innocents together with people you see/read attacking the Church.

    I hope that your attendance at the pre-Pride parade Mass was not meant only to show that you wanted to prove some people wrong, but that you actually were able to preach the Gospel by example to the people who were present at that Mass. I hope that you actually talked to them (either before and after the Mass) about the lives of the Saints, about holiness, chastity, purity, obedience to Church teaching, respect for life and human dignity, etc. Quoting Scriptures and Saints on a blog post is not the same thing as to preach those things directly by word, or even better yet, by example.

    I still think that you would actually follow the example of the Saints better by using less time blogging and using that time for other things (devotions, prayers, etc.) that have to do with charity and the commandments of God. Remember that charity has much more meaning when it is offered to those with whom we disagree, those who are our enemies.

    You are bound to show it to the people at Holy Innocents, especially because you think they are doing something wrong. The tone of your blog posts **must** change if you really want it to make a difference. Otherwise, what you are doing, in reality, is what you are accusing Michael Voris of doing, except that your target is not the archdiocese but the people of Holy Innocents. Most of them probably do not even know who you are or that you are writing these posts about them.

    1. I am only a tiny little speck in the Catholic blogosphere. As you mention, most don't even know about my posts. So why do they upset you so much? If I'm just a kook out here posting a lot of uninformed opinions, why do you even bother with me?

      I can only assume that somehow I am striking a chord with you, and you don't like it.

      What was there in my article that was not charitable? In what way did I attack you and the others at Holy Innocents? I see a lot of rebelling against Church authority and as a I said in my post, that can never come from the Holy Spirit. This entire situation is fraught with spiritual danger.

      I know I will never get you to look at this situation objectively. You have given so much of yourself to Holy Innocents and have served there very faithfully, investing a good part of your life there. I have always admired you and my opinion of you has not changed. But I do believe that you need to step back and try to look at this situation more objectively. I truly do believe there is a great danger of schism here.

    2. No chord has been struck. I am more incline to rage or anger than I may have (or have not) been before.

      I tend not to let blog posts or comments destroy my serenity -- it is just not worth it.

      But I do reiterate that you should not lump all of the people at Holy Innocents as if they all were doing the same thing Michael Voris is doing, because they are not.

      This is what was not charitable in your post: You tried to focus only on the negative side of the situation. You talk more about those who are doing what you do not like, but rarely mention those who do what you think should be done. You think it necessary to go to the people at St. Francis to make a point, but you cannot bring yourself down to doing the same things at Holy Innocents. I seem to remember that you said that, in the past, you have tried to talk to some people there, but that you were ignored.

      Fine. In life, it happens that people ignore us, but that is the reason to give up? You went to St. Francis and observed everything that you saw, but were only critical of those protesting. Whatever good may come out of the good intentions of those doing the pre-Pride parade Mass and whatever good St. Francis of Assisi Church does, you also have to present the other side of this story.

      It does not look good to have such a Mass advertised in that way. I will assume that the people who attended the Mass were not really evangelized to live a life of purity and chastity. I was not there, so I do not know for sure, but knowing the preaching of the Franciscans there, I doubt that anyone would mention the word chastity. If that was the case, it was a missed opportunity.

      I am looking at things more objectively that you think. I am not sad about the fact that they want to close Holy Innocents. As I already mentioned before, I have "known" this all along from the very beginning. However, I am still free to disagree with it. I am still very active there. I go and help there as much as I can, just like I did before the recommendation to close Holy Innocents.

      The comments I made when I posted the article were comments that other people made when they saw the article. In simple terms, why would they want Holy Innocents to wait for the case to be closed? These types of decisions/concerns are dealt with before the matter is closed as a guiding help in reaching the best final decision.

      It is simply the only organized way to do things. Would you sell your house before looking for a place to live after you sell it? Or do you sell it first and then start looking for another place to live? Only one case makes sense. Smart people in the chancery should know which is the better choice when they want to help parishioners of a church that will be closed.

      You do not have to be smart and educated to know the difference.

    3. I meant: "I am not more inclined to rage or anger than I may have (or have not) been before."

    4. As I have said, I have spent literally hundreds of hours in worship at Holy Innocents. I know the Church very well. I also realize that I am no longer welcome there after what I have written. You have made that abundantly clear.

      What have I written that makes you think I want Holy Innocents closed? The only thing I have called for is to not allow a rebellious attitude to take over.

      You may say you are in control of your anger, but your sentiments say something else.

    5. In what way did I attack you and the others at Holy Innocents

      Uh, when you say that "the people of Holy Innocents have turned their backs on our Lord and instead enlisted the devil in their cause."

      That is a mean and vicious attack.

    6. You are as welcome to Holy Innocents as you were before you stopped coming more frequently. I have never said that you are not welcome there. I would not have that authority. I do not know what makes you think now that the doors will be closed to you if you go there again, and I would probably say hello as well.

      I did not say that you want Holy Innocents closed. When did I say that?

      What I said is that your arguments are very one-sided and you barely offer the opposite point of view. The rebellious attitude is there, but so is the other one that you want: people are praying and you have rarely mentioned that in the posts. You have mostly focused on the "angry traditionalists" like Fr. Z, Michael Voris, and Christine Le Niles, according to you. I don't think they come to Holy Innocents every Sunday. Do you?

      There's no anger at all. What my writing reveals is that I think that you are not offering the full view of the story. You have not once quoted any person from Holy Innocents who is praying and fasting for the intentions of Holy Innocents and the traditional Mass. You have not once mentioned the novenas people are making for the spiritual well being of the community and the Church leaders who need a lot of prayer.

      My sentiments? I keep those very privately. If you want to talk about them, you can always write me a private e-mail as opposed to a blog comment box. I have offer in comment boxed is called "opinion."

      Attending Mass at Holy Innocents does not mean that you know the church very well. I doubt that you know the servers, the singers, the people who come to the coffee hour, the Priests who say Mass and celebrate Vespers, the people who clean the church twice a month, the knights of Columbus. You might know the building well, but not what keeps it going or not going. I know you try to attend the all night vigil, but does not mean that by knowing those people you know everybody else.

    7. Samuel Howard - "Mean and vicious" is cooperating with the New York Times to attack Cardinal Dolan. Do you really think that is the work of the Holy Spirit? You are torpedoing your own cause.

    8. You are excellent at trying to change the subject, but please try to stay focused. You write that "the people of Holy Innocents have turned their backs on our Lord and instead enlisted the devil in their cause" yet you deny that you are attacking them? You say that this is not an attack?

    9. I did not change the subject. I was not attacking anyone when I made the statement about turning to the New York Times. As I stated in my blog, the New York Times wants to destroy the church. Joining forces with them is joining forces with the devil.

      You tell me that I am mean and vicious. I say that joining forces with the "devil's bible", so named by Father Z, is mean and vicious.

  4. As someone who has spent over two decades in pastoral ministry in various apostolates of the Archdiocese of New York, both in professional and personal capacities, I must say that these blog posts are spiritually detrimental and deleterious. Not every expression of frustration on the part of a traditionalist is an invitation to schism or heresy. This current reorganization agenda (as was the last one) is mainly driven by real estate speculation. The Reid Group has only one overriding objective and mandate: shrink the Archdiocese. It is scandalous that there is no official recognition of the unique pastoral requirements of a identifiable demographic. I don't think I that I can express the situation any more objectively than that.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. I guess you really wanted to make this point. It is must be very difficult for a Catholic when he/she believe that our greatest enemy is the Church.

    2. I think I missed that lesson in ecclesiology.

  6. Where to begin? I suppose I should start by thanking you for this post. Like some of your other recent posts, it is long but it seems that you gave considerable time and, no doubt, your very best thinking to it. It also seems clear that you tried to express thoughts that you sincerely wanted people to find helpful. And, a sincere effort can be commended even when it misses the mark. Unfortunately, however, sincerity does not ensure sound argument. I wonder if it might be possible to bring greater clarity to some of the issues you tried to consider.

    First, the disobedience you allege. The disobedience of the parishioners at Holy Innocents is a central complaint of this post (and others) but you offer no evidence of disobedience. What is it that you think Cardinal Dolan has “ordered” and how has he been disobeyed? It is true that more than a year ago Cardinal Dolan put in place a process that recently produced a Preliminary Recommendation about the Church of the Holy Innocents. But, by his own admission, he had nothing to do with making that Recommendation. The Recommendation was actually made by a Committee called the Archdiocesan Advisory Group. Cardinal Dolan did not even attend the meetings at which this Committee deliberated. For Holy Innocents, the Committee recommended that the territorial parish be merged into the nearby parish of St. Francis Assisi. It did not mention closing Holy Innocents and, even if it had, it was explicitly called “Preliminary.” That same Committee has now met again and made Final Recommendations to Cardinal Dolan on which he will not take action until September at the very earliest. Thus, the Cardinal has really not yet done anything that could be disobeyed. What disobedience did you have in mind exactly? Unless you can offer up some evidence of an order (a command, a directive, an invitation or even a request) that you think Cardinal Dolan has given to the parishioners of Holy Innocents (or, with respect to parish closings, to anyone else for that matter) as well as evidence, of course, that it is being disobeyed, there seems to be nothing for you to fault or correct. I suppose I should leave it to you and your readers to decide if your accusation crosses the line into calumny.

    1. You don't call allowing the New York Times into the church and giving interviews to them which are designed to besmirch the reputation of Cardinal Dolan an act of disobedience? You don't call going onto the Internet and pushing their stories through various channels to bring sympathy upon themselves and again, to cast Cardinal Dolan as the "bad guy" an act of disobedience? As I said in my post, where in all of Church history have you ever seen saints use such tactics? Here is just one comment from Father Z's blog, which he allowed to stand, as a result of the stories about the plight of Holy Innocents:

      "¡Vaya lío!

      To quote “I, Claudius”:
      “Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.”
      If Pope Benedict XVI had not resigned, we should never have been able to see these snakes emerge from under the rocks where they had concealed themselves so cunningly.
      I believe Pope Benedict’s resignation was effectively a mystical echo of Jesus’ words to Judas:
      “What you do, do quickly.” John 13:27
      And they have been quick about it, haven’t they?"

      These kind of comments and much worse are all over the Internet. This is truly becoming a scandal.

      Sin always starts in the mind and the results in actions. This is exactly what I am seeing here. As you say, Cardinal Dolan hasn't even made any decisions yet. I dread to see what will happen if the parish is actually closed.

    2. For Holy Innocents, the Committee recommended that the territorial parish be merged into the nearby parish of St. Francis Assisi. It did not mention closing Holy Innocents and, even if it had, it was explicitly called “Preliminary.”

      This is not correct. The preliminary recommendation when read in conjuction with the manual for the process makes clear that what is recommended for Holy Innocents is both the merging of the parish and the permanent closure of the Church.

  7. Second, the Devil’s Bible. The New York Times is a major media outlet in the United States. You may feel that the ideologically pure Catholic -- like yourself -- should shun it as long as it appears to pursue an anti-Catholic agenda but the Archdiocese itself disagrees with you. It clearly cooperated in the writing of the article in question. Its spokesman gets more space in that article than anyone else. Beyond the article, the Archdiocese engages directly with the New York Times all the time. This is almost always good for the Church and I find no fault in it. For that same reason, I find no fault with people who speak to a New York Times reporter when the reporter arrives asking questions at the Church’s steps. In this, I am at least consistent. I find no fault with either party for speaking to the Devil’s Bible, as you call it. You, in contrast, find fault only with the parishioners of Holy Innocents for speaking to the New York Times but are silent about the Archdiocese (which does its speaking through a paid full-time semi-professional spokesperson). As for those parishioners, I was there the day this reporter arrived at the steps of the Church. There were several other people also there who, like yourself, rarely attend Holy Innocents but have suddenly become most eager to take center stage in the discussion of its future. It was precisely because some holy, faithful, orthodox parishioners of Holy Innocents intervened to offer a more balanced view of the situation that the reporter did not get support for the sort of hit piece these self-appointed spokesmen might have wanted. This is the story you miss. The parishioners at Holy Innocents actually helped to make the story less extreme not more extreme. By the way, you seem to think you uncovered a smoking gun of complicity with the New York Times because it published a photograph that was taken from the choir loft at Holy Innocents. If you attended Holy Innocents as often as you say, you would certainly know that the choir loft is open any time there is a choir singing at Mass or Vespers, five times every single week. Once the loft is open, anyone, including a New York Times photographer, can take pictures there. No one stands guard at the steps to keep out the impure (unless, going forward, you should decide to give up blogging and deploy your purity-screening skills in person at Holy Innocents).

    1. There is a sign at the steps to the choir loft which says, "Authorized personnel only." So please don't tell me just anyone can go up there.

      Secondly, I was not the one who coined the term, "Devil's bible." That is directly from Father John Zuhlsdorf, who even admits that is his name for the Times.

      Thirdly, the entire reason for the article was to give the story of the parishioners of Holy Innocents as being victimized by the Archdiocese. I have no way of verifying that parishioners there tried to mitigate this in any way. Since you are wrong about other things you have mentioned, I cannot automatically assume that you are right about this. The Archdiocese must interact with the New York Times and all media. That is part of their job. That is not the job of the parishioners of Holy Innocents, especially when they have an ax to grind, as they feel they do against the Cardinal.

      I have talked to enough people at the parish to know what at least some of them are thinking, and that includes the leaders of the parish. I heard one man, who is in a position of authority, call the archdiocese "demonic." They use terms like clown and worse to describe Cardinal Dolan, showing no respect for him at all in the things they say.

      One person from HI told me she was not that happy with Father Wylie's sermon. Why? He talked too much about charity.

      What does that tell you?

    2. First, regarding that photograph, why don’t you conduct a test the next time you are at Holy Innocents when the loft is open. See if the sign stops you from going up there. The last time I looked, it did not stop anyone.

      Second, regarding that term, you are indeed the one who coined “Devil’s Bible.” I have never seen it anywhere else but in this blog post. Fr. Zuhlsdorf calls it “Hell’s Bible.”

      Third, (pause and count to ten), the only reason for the article was the Fr. Wylie story. Where does the actual article suggest that the parishioners at Holy Innocents are being “victimized”? There are dozens of parishes proposed for closing in the Archdiocese. Not one of them has gotten any media coverage. The story of the possible closing of Holy Innocents would also have been ignored by the New York Times had the Archdiocese not made it newsworthy by the way they handled the Fr. Wylie story. It was the Archdiocese that turned a minor matter into a news story. How? By making him a martyr to their persecution. By all reports, Fr. Wylie was leaving the Archdiocese within a few weeks of the sermon in question. It would have been easy to address concerns about the content of the sermon without triggering a news story. I certainly could have managed that and I suspect that even you could have done so. Why did they handle it in a way that gave the story legs? You like conspiracy stories. Tell us what you think! Finally, as usual, you have no evidence at all for your preposterous claim that someone at Holy Innocents had anything to do with triggering the story. I am a witness to the fact that the NYT reporter just appeared at Holy Innocents one day after Mass and that the regular parishioners there actually played a moderating role in their responses to her questions. Did you imagine that someone from Holy Innocents could just pick up the phone and that someone form the New York Times would come running? It is so absurd that even you should be embarrassed to insinuate such a thing. You still know some of the real weekday parishioners at Holy Innocents. Why don’t you call them and find out what happened?

    3. Fourth, I was there when the “demonic” comment you site was made. First, your claim is calumnious. No one called the Archdiocese “demonic.” The remark targeted the parish closing process. Second, I agree with the remark as it was actually made (and not as you misquote it) and I find no fault in it. There seems to me to be no better characterization of a parish closing process that targets healthy parishes important to the spiritual vitality of the Archdiocese. Who but the Satan himself will profit from the closing of these parishes? And, of course, support for this view comes from no less an authority than Pope Paul VI who famously remarked near the end of his Papacy that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. It’s a shame you were not a Catholic in Brooklyn in those days or you could have chastised him for such outrageous language.

  8. Third, the disobedience you overlook. Let me try out an ad hominem argument on you since you seem to have some fondness for them. If you really believe in the kind of obedience that you criticize parishioners at Holy Innocents for rejecting (without any evidence by the way), wouldn’t you have held your tongue and not posted anything about Fr. Wylie’s sermon? That sermon was, after all, given by a priest from the pulpit of a Church on a Sunday and carried with it that degree of the Church’s teaching authority that accompanies a Sunday sermon. As such, it clearly had real spiritual authority over you, the Catholic lay person, receiving it (whether in person or through some blog). Is it not the case that your own very public (and, forgive me, rather poorly reasoned) rejection of his sermon, does the very thing you claim (without evidence) that the people of Holy Innocents are doing, refusing to accept authority? Where in your own conduct is the docility you demand of them? Is it not your argument that the Gospel requires this docility in response to authority even when the authority is wrong? Doesn’t your version of the Gospel require that you submit to Fr. Wylie’s sermon and keep silent about the errors that you find there, errors screaming to high Heaven (and, it would seem more importantly, to you) to redress. How is it not, frankly, rank hypocrisy that you tolerate in yourself the very fault that you criticize (without evidence) so shrilly in people at Holy Innocents?


    1. Please, don't hold back. Say what you really think.

      Father Wylie said some very explosive things in his sermon, and all over the Internet people were praising him as being courageous. I saw things in it, as I have explained and which you conveniently ignore, that go directly against his vow of obedience to his superiors. You all feel that you have a right to say the most horrendous things about bishops and, with some Traditionalists, even the Pope. I respectfully stated my disagreement with Father Wylie, never once condemning him as a person or as a priest. As I have stated, I have personally met Father Wylie and am very fond of him. But I think he went over the line in his sermon, and I have every right to say that. There is nothing hypocritical about it. You can disagree, but your admitted ad hominem attacks reflect

    2. You all feel that you have a right to say the most horrendous things about bishops and, with some Traditionalists, even the Pope.

      You just continue to dig your hole of calumny deeper and deeper.

      That some people have said innapropriate things about bishops doesn't mean that "all" of "you" agree with that. You should confine yourself to actual remarks people make, not imagine people's evil intentions and then state them as fact.

      I respectfully stated my disagreement with Father Wylie, never once condemning him as a person or as a priest.

      You have done so in this very comment.

      I saw things in it, as I have explained and which you conveniently ignore, that go directly against his vow of obedience to his superiors.

      Here you accuse him of violating his "vow of obedience" (diocesan priests make a promise of obedience, not a vow, but let that pass). You cannot repeatedly malign people's actions while claiming that you are not criticizing them. It is intellectually bankrupt. To do so while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity is even worse.

    3. Why do you think Father Wylie was disciplined? Do you think it was just persecution?

    4. Irrelevant. Whether he was disciplined or not, it is, according to your own statements, not your place to judge his actions as a priest. Yet you keep doing so. Lots of calls for humility from other people.

    5. Ah, so you choose just to dodge the question. The question is not the least bit "irrelevant." Answering the question will show just where you are coming from, and you don't what to reveal that. Trust me, your point of view is coming through loud and clear.

      I did not personally attack Father Wylie. I don't know how many times I have said that I think he is a good and holy priest. He went off the rails in his comments, and that is why he was disciplined, and why he faces even more discipline when he gets back home. It is totally relevant to the entire situation.

  9. Fourth, the schism you predict. Forgive me, but nothing in your post seems more absurd than this wild- eyed prediction. You seem to concede that, whenever a Bishop (Archbishop or even Cardinal) decides to try to close and sell a Church, our most Holy Roman Catholic Church (the Church that canonized St. Margaret Mary and St. Pio of Pietrelcina) allows parishioners to oppose his action. Indeed, our most Holy Roman Catholic Church has now sided with parishioners against their Bishops in dozens of recent cases of Church closings (and even in the case of a few parish mergers). If the Church allows parishioners to oppose such an action openly and directly (and without any taint of disobedience), what would the parishioners of Holy Innocents gain by this schism you predict? And, more importantly, how would they even accomplish it? What schismatic acts could the humble parishioners of Holy Innocents take to realize your prediction? Is it their prayer for the Cardinal? or their daily Rosary Novena to Our Lady, or the daily prayer to St. Michael, or perhaps, their fasting on Friday’s? Tell us what actions you think are even tending in the schismatic way at Holy Innocents. Perhaps you worry that in the future they might appoint their own Bishop of Jerusalem?

    1. All schisms have started with people who are absolutely convinced of their own rightness. They will not listen to anyone who disagrees with them.

      You don't know my background, but FYI, I was once in total agreement with people like you. I may have been even more extreme than you. I felt that Vatican II was about the worst thing that happened to the church. I believed that most bishops were modernists set out to destroy the church. I have since deleted them, but I had several posts on my blog which were extremely critical of Cardinal Dolan, even one where I complained about him laughing too much. I was one of those people who felt he was a "clown."

      But as I was writing more of my blog, I began reading more on my own and not through the lens of Traditionalism. The writings and talks by Pope Benedict XVI had the most profound effect on me. It is too much to go into here, but basically what it comes down to is that I accepted the authority of the Church, even when I personally disagreed with it. I accepted that Cardinal Dolan is an anointed Prince of the Church, and I had no right to stand in judgment of him or anyone else. I found myself becoming more and more separate from my Traditionalist friends. I still loved (and still do love) the Mass, and so kept going.

      But when this whole thing with Holy Innocents started happening, and I began hearing and seeing the things I have described, I knew I could no longer be a part of it. You probably won't believe me, but it is very painful for me to write these kind of things on my blog. I have great affection for Holy Innocents and the people there. I know how devoted they are. I was a part of it for several years.

      But I cannot turn a blind eye to the spirit of rebellion that seems to be forming there. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't make it go away. And this could most definitely lead to schism. If they are so convinced that the Archdiocese itself is demonic and that Cardinal Dolan does not deserve their respect, and then the parish is ultimately closed, just what do you think will happen? I truly hope I am wrong.

    2. Catholic In Brooklyn, You still have not provided the definition of Schism. I really need you to do that in order to take that accusation (or fear as you call it) regarding some of the parishioners (or attendees) at Holy Innocents.

      While your idea of obedience tells you that you should not stand in judgment of Church authorities, your impulse to charity should tell you that you should not criticize your neighbor. You cannot follow the first commandment if you do not follow the ones regarding your neighbor.

      If schism and rebellion concerns you so much (and all your posts actually indicate that there some obsession with it), then why don't you worry about the schism in all the other churches in midtown Manhattan? Not only those who are in disobedience with the Archbishop, but with the Pope himself!

      Do you worry about the disobedience to the teachings of the magisterium at St. Francis of Assisi? I will now expect you to write a post (or 10) about how the parishioners and Priests at St. Francis of Assisi disobey Church law, Church teaching, Church morals, etc.

      You cannot sincerely pretend to correct (or counterattack) one particular group and be sincere about it, but you do not do the same with other groups who are probably worse. In this case you could say that some of the parishioners feel attacked or threatened and they do not know how to react.

      But what of those whose churches are intact (St. Francis of Assisi) and still do not follow the teachings of the Church? They do not follow Church law? Do you concern about them?

      You still have to tell me where exactly I told you that you cannot come to Holy Innocents anymore.

      Regarding the comment about free access to the choir loft: Whether there is a sign or not to prevent people from going, it is still the fact that the church choir loft is always open whenever there are singers there. This is because individual singers cannot be provided each with a separate key. So, the door that leads to the choir loft is always open when singers are there. In such case, no one keeps guard to prevent people from going up there. So, if you show up tomorrow (which is a Sung Mass day) and see the door open and decide to go up, you will see that no one will prevent you from going up, especially if it is right before or after the Mass.

      Try doing this and take a picture for your post from the choir loft and you will certainly see "some parishioners" will collaborate with you as much as "those parishioners" collaborated with the NYT because you can be guaranteed that no one will stop you from going up and no one will kick you out once you are up there. Once this happens, you should recant your suspicion of "collaboration."

      Regarding your comments about people making fun of the Archbishop and the Holy Father, I have to say that I have even heard Priests (even the ones whom you least expect!) make fun of Cardinal Dolan and the reigning Pontiff. You should write a post about that as well. In fact, if regular people feel "free" to make such comments, it is most because they have heard Priests (including the ones you least expect) make such or even worse comments.

      Go figure that one out!

  10. I don't understand why the people at HI are not given the same level of charity and respect as the parishioners at St Francis. You bent over backwards to read faithfulness into the actions at St Francis, but at Holy Innocents, they are bad, bad people. Does no one at St Francis talk to the paper or criticize the hierarchy? Maybe there are sinners in both parishes and if you want to help one group avoid schism you should devote a similar amount of energy to the other as well?

    1. I'm sorry that you see my actions as being uncharitable to the people of Holy Innocents. I think they have made a huge mistake in partnering with The New York Times which is completely against the Catholic Church. How is pointing that out being uncharitable?

      Yesterday I went to St. John the Baptist Church in Manhattan. This Church is also on the potential hit list. They told the people to remember that the final decision has not been made and to pray that God's Will be done. There was no attacking the bishop for not caring about them, no talk of going to the media to employ their help in stopping the closing of their church.

      Maybe Holy Innocents could take some pointers here?

  11. This is breathtaking. Are you seriously accusing the Latin Mass of inviting heresy into the Church and ignoring the fact that people who have Protestantized and attend the Novus Ordo are full of heresy and absolutely bringing the Church into one of the greatest crises in its history??
    The Latin (read proper) Mass is the one where you see proper Catholic worship, how the saints have always enjoyed it. The Protestant Novus Ordo doesn't even seem Catholic and they disrespect the Sacred Host. How does that not bother you but you're enraged by orthodox Catholics being upset with the hierarchy who often support heresy and are persecuting the most faithful Catholics??
    It's ok with you if they turn a blind eye to baby murder, sodomy and diverse other forms of soul-jeopardizing behavior but to be upset with the persecutorial hierarchy is just too much for you??


Related Posts  0