Thursday, June 19, 2014

I'm Over My Tantrum

Okay, I'm over my temper tantrum and self pity.  I've opened my blog back to up to comments.  Give me your best shot.


  1. Don't let anyone get you down - you are doing well. God bless you.

  2. Thanks, Terry. I honestly don't know how I'm doing, but I appreciate your kind words. I've got to learn that when we put ourselves out there, we've got to be willing to take it.

    I love the Catholic Church, but it is getting harder and harder these days to find her. I do find her in your writings. Thank you.

  3. Enemies stab you in the back, friends occasionally stab you in the heart.
    "I love the Catholic Church, but it is getting harder and harder these days to find her." Sounds like you and Voris agree on something anyway!

    Great first hand account of the pre-pride Mass that got much press. Thanks. One of the real issues that the Faithful must face is subjective experience of the Church. The Church founded by Jesus is about objective truth. - So - I went, I experienced it, it was good. My feelings, my senses, my emotions confirmed its 'goodness'. Hmm. I'm thinking there is a canon that covers politicizing The Mass. So publicly labeling it a "Pre-Pride" Mass clearly and notoriously and objectively couples it with the Pride event which (for better or worse) fully and clearly supports (dare I say) Sodomy.

    So it was like a pre-game 7 world series Mass in favor of the Yankees. Because as we know all Yankees fans are worthy of our affection etc.?

    The problem is that I'm a Red Sox fan. See it? When you use Mass for an agenda you over Shadow the Holy Sacrifice of the Alter, objectively, even it feels or is experienced as 'good'.

    Re: Shepherds. I actually have some first hand experience with sheep herding. Here is an example of the beauty of it. for a more complete and objective look at the work check:

    Good shepherds know the wolves as well as the sheep, They train and have close to them their most trusted servants: the shepherd dog. These dogs are called to lay down their lives for the flock on occasion. Shepherds of old carried a long crozier with a hook on one end, and a most important sharp point on the other. The pointed end can be driven like a spear into the wolf in order to save the herd.

    Staying with the metaphor I wonder if some shepherds (clergy) think their job is to knit fuzzy warm wool sweaters out of the wool, rather than protect the sheep from the wolves that wander the world seeking their ruin.

  4. This not a joke.

    What is the appropriate pastoral approach to the couple, sorry trouple (?)

  5. No. You are not.

    Here's the comment I wrote for your post about the Mass at St. Francis of Assisi. First, it is interesting to have your eye-witness account of this Mass. At first blush, your description makes the Mass seem harmless. But is that the right reaction? By using “Pride” in the name of the Mass, the organizers were clearly making a political statement and, in so doing, they were trying to attract the “LGBTQ” community to attend the Mass. There is no clear precedent for this type of Mass in the Catholic Church. All men (and women) are sinners. To carve out a specific sin and organize a special Mass just for those inclined to commit that sin is very unusual. We would probably frown upon those who might want to organize a Mass just for gluttons, or for liars, for the disobedient, or for fornicators, adulterers, pornographers, or pedophiles. Why this exception? Perhaps we have this exception to get them into the Church. Of course, the Episcopalians have been “welcoming” for years. The difference should be that once we have them at the Mass, the Catholic Church preaches to them the truths about chastity. The sex life of every single Christian should be the same (regardless of whether the person in question has same or opposite sex attractions): one of Chastity given as a gift of love and devotion to God. But that is not the message that was preached at this Mass. The portion of sermon that you quote (assuming you quoted it accurately and your omissions do not distort its meaning) did a terrible disservice to every unchaste person who attended that Mass. Nowhere is there a clear articulation of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The Church had an obligation to preach to the people there about the nature of this sin and to call all who were wounded by it to repentance before approaching Communion. If this did not happened (and your account suggests clearly that it did not) the Mass was an abject failure. Surely you recognize this. Why do you not condemn the failure of the sermon you quote to call the LGBTQ community to follow the teaching of the Church in their lives?

    1. If you read the post and the comments, you will have all the answers to your questions. To me, the Mass was a way of trying to bring people to the Church. It was not a time to tell them they are all a bunch of sinners who are headed to hell. As I said in a comment to someone else, when you invite people to your house, you try to be hospitable and make them comfortable. These are people who are told by society that there is nothing wrong with them, and anyone who tells them so is a bigot and a hater. I think St. Francis did the absolute right thing in just trying to get them there and expose them to the Catholic Church.

      And as far as I am concerned, it worked great. The place was packed, and it was a truly beautiful Mass. Not a traditional Mass, so some might have a problem with that. But I have come to see, as you yourself have pointed out to me, the Ordinary Form of the Mass can be just as spiritual as the TLM. We get from the Mass, whichever form it is, what we bring to the Mass.

  6. Second, in your response to a comment above, you asked me to prove that I heard a remark you quoted and that I knew who made it. If you come to the All Night Vigil at Holy Innocents this week, I will try to answer your question in person. I assume you do not want me to post the speaker’s name. What I can say here is that the remark was made at the All Night Vigil and that the speaker was a person closely involved in the Latin Mass at Holy Innocents, whom you have essentially already identified (I don’t suppose he’s the type to sue!). I remember the remark in the context of parish closings. But the context doesn’t really matter. As I indicated, if a Pope can call a spade a spade and state plainly that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church (under his watch by the way), can an ordinary Catholic not call some diocesan action (or even, in the worst cases, the Diocese itself) demonic? Would that word not apply to a religious order at the time when its founder, a priest, is sexually abusing his own children (fathered while the man was a priest and the absolute head of the order), even though the order was at that time energetically supported by a Pope who is now a saint? I certainly think the founder of that order must have been possessed. Can we not call him demonic? And would that word not also apply to an Archdiocese while its Archbishop is a sexual predator preying upon seminarians, covering up sex scandals and paying off extortion attempts with diocesan funds? I have heard you yourself say many harsh things about the Church and the hierarchy (I am thinking back to the time of the Al Smith Dinner for example). It is surprising to find you faulting someone for the sort of remark you were once not only likely to support but also very recently quite likely to make yourself.

    1. You think I am talking about the main organizer of Holy Innocents. I most definitely am not. I want to be very clear on that. I have never heard him make that comment. It is someone else entirely, and I have only seen him only on certain occasions at Holy Innocents. This comment was made several months ago, and you have obviously forgotten the circumstances. Since this involves someone else, I really would like to let this drop.

      Now I think I know who you are. Why are writing under another name? Why don't you use the name you were using previously? Why are you trying to hide your identity?

      I have admitted here that I have said many harsh things about church authority in the past for which I deeply sorry. I have done blog posts here which I have now deleted because I have come to see how wrong they were. And yes, at the time of the Al Smith Dinner I was definitely still in that frame of mind. And may I add, you were in complete agreement with me.

      The whole point is that I realize how wrong I was, and so when I hear others now saying those same kind of things, I am very sensitive to them. I realize how harmful they are to the person saying them and to those who hear them. I see this throughout the traditional movement. In many ways, I feel like a recovering traditionalist. I feel a little like St. Paul when he lamented the fact that he was part of the persecution of the Church.

      I think that is one of the reasons I write these posts. I am trying to make up for all of the harmful things I have said in the past. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church is our mother. We need to be defending her, not attacking her, as I am most definitely guilty of having done in the past.

      You think now that I am attacking you. Please try to read the things I write without prejudice. I am not attacking. I am imploring others not to make the same mistakes I have made.

    2. Methinks one's pseudonym remains intact.

  7. Finally, you mention that I do not know your background. I most certainly do. Forgive me if this is harsh, but my observation is that you have a pattern of converting from one new absolute to another (even within the Catholic Church). Each one earns your complete submission (for a while) until you find another that takes its place. And, for each new point of repose, you are quite eager to persuade others that they too must submit to this new-found absolute. You were certainly always among the more extreme people to be found at Holy Innocents, on all issues, especially in your criticism of the Church hierarchy. (I must, however, make clear that you were also always kind and respectful to whomever you were speaking in person which makes the extreme positions and language on this blog all the more surprising. Perhaps you just find it easier to express fully your stronger feelings anonymously on a blog than you do in person?). Few of the people you now criticize at Holy Innocents were anywhere near as extreme on most issues as your were. If memory serves, you were once a big fan of Michael Voris, and also of Fr. Zuhlsdorf, but now not so much. You were certainly extremely concerned, one might even say obsessed, about homosexuals among the clergy, but now not so much? And as you admit, you were once a very jovial critic of Cardinal Dolan, again, now not so much. The fact that you have found a new absolute (obedience, docility and submission, your own particular dogma of diocesan-level ultramontism) and that you want everyone at Holy Innocents to worship this new golden calf helps explain your frustration with the parishioners there. On a psychological level, the louder you condemn faults you imagine in them the more you expect to absolve those same (and very recent) faults in yourself. By now, I imagine, you know who I am.

    1. Everything you say is correct, and I have not tried to deny it. Yes, I have gone through many changes. I like think it is called "growth. " Maybe you have it all together and never need to change. I have never been able to say that about myself. Yes, I was a huge fan of Fr. Z, Voris, etc. I let their statements and ideas color my thoughts and views. But when I started this blog, I started to think much more for myself, and what I have now written is the result. You obviously think I am wrong. If so, please pray for me.

      You are quite right in your criticism that I should not try to push my beliefs on others. I think by writing a blog, I am merely putting my thoughts out there and people can just keep on going if they don't like what I am saying. I do feel very strongly now that we should always stand behind the Church, and so that is what I am writing. If you don't agree, that's fine. But I feel you are just as wrong in telling me that I don't have a right to express my opinion.

      BTW, I have never known you to hesitate in expressing your opinions, and they are usually pretty strong. So be careful in the stones you throw.

      One other thing. You really should explain your statement that obedience to the Church is a "golden calf."

      I will not be at the Vigil this month. Maybe I'm wimping out, but I really don't want to be arguing with people, and I think that is all it will be. I will be going to St. John's.

      And thank you for letting me know who you are. It helps me to understand and accept your comments more.

  8. Given that you really cannot tolerate disagreement and misconstrue comments, I find this blog "useless."

    I used to think it good ground for arguments of both sides (you post the extremely negative side and others with more sense the other side), but since you close comments boxes and misunderstand comments, it is just not as appealing to even read the blog.

    I will only say this: I DID **NOT** SAY THAT IT IS OK TO SAY DEROGATORY COMMENTS ABOUT CHURCH AUTHORITY. Can you quote back to me where I wrote that?

    What I did say was that Priests do it (including the ones from whom you would least expect such comments).

    This very fact encourages the regular faithful to do the same. Not that it is O.K., but it gives an excuse for other people to do it.

    In my very limited conversations with you (in person), I would doubt that you have ever heard me say anything negative about anybody in the Archdiocese, in particular the Cardinal. If you have, please remind me. I frankly would have a hard time telling you when Cardinal Dolan was appointed to NY. I probably can only give you two names of people in the Chancery because I simply, as I have said before, do not read the news as much as other people do.

    Finally, your comments all assume that Fr. Wylie is a "Traditionalist." He never claimed to be one. In fact, he scolded people who tried to brand him as such.

    Thank you for your time and reading the comments, but you did not seem to read them carefully because you said that I said things that I did not say. I don't care for an apology, but I hope that you will read them again after this second tantrum is over (the second one in less than a month).

    1. I have never heard you say anything against the Church, and that is why I was so surprised at what you wrote. I obviously misread it and I apologize. This is what you wrote;

      "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."

      I thought you were being sarcastic and basically telling me to get over it. I realize now that you meant those words and again, I apologize.

      I really do apologize for misreading your comments. But everything I have said has been attacked in one way or another, and frankly, I am getting a little tired of it. If people want to disagree, fine. But it doesn't seem anyone really wants to discuss things. They just want to tell me how wrong I am. I am seeing a situation at Holy Innocents which concerns me. This is a church I care about and that is why I have written about it. I have stated my concerns, and have not used any ad hominem attacks. Yet, everyone seems to be taking it all as if I was attacking them personally. If what I say doesn't apply to you, then why do you feel you have to come after me? I know there are good people at Holy Innocents who are just trying to do the right thing. But as you have admitted, there are others who are harsh and judgmental of church hierarchy, and that is what I am pointing out.

      I do disagree that just because priests make these kind of statements that it somehow excuses lay people. If anything, this shows how responsible priests are, and why Father Wylie, in his harsh criticism of the Archdiocese, had to be disciplined.

      I am a human being. I am not a saint. I am a sinner with a long way to go, as my blog says, "the journey of one Catholic searching for truth in a world gone mad." So many times in my life I have thought I have found truth only to find out it was not so. But I think I am getting closer now. I am trying to do as we are told from the example of St. John the Baptist in speaking of Christ: "He must increase while I must decrease."

      We are living in very evil times when truth looks like lies and a lie looks like the truth. The only way any of us are going to make it is to put all of our trust in Our Lord and Savior, to cling to Blessed Mother Mary who will never let us go. I am basically taking one step forward and about three steps backwards each time. But I know if I don't give up, He won't give up.

      That is the message I am trying to get across, but I am obviously not doing a very good job of it.

    2. I have deleted my comments in which I mistakenly accused you of saying something you did not say. Also, I have deleted comments I made to our friend, "Suffering." Further, if anyone is still interested, I have re-opened the post to comments. But this time, I am going to pretty much let it go. I have said about all that I can on the subject.

  9. Please see the disclaimer I have now put at the top of my blog. Thanks for being patient with me.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...