Saturday, July 23, 2011

A Hot Button Issue

Anonymous has asked that this video be given a separate blog article. I am willing to do that, even though I feel the video presents a very one-sided view from the far right of the Catholic spectrum.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Far right???? Listen lets tell it like it is. We have the Rubrics of the Mass. We have the G.I.R.M. We have the Catechism! We have Papal encyclicals. Jesus himself instituted the Catholic Church with the Pope being the head of HIS Church. We either accept that premise or we do not.If we do not then we have no right declaring ourselves to be Catholic. If priests follow all of the instruction set before them in celebrating the Mass NO PROBLEM exists.However when they place themselves above the authority of the Pope and the Bishops (united to him)and decide to celebrate the Eucharist not in compliance to the norms established then it is they who have betrayed the body of Christ and his Church. No further example is needed or required. I have said this once but it needs to be said again:There is no left nor right in the Catholic faith only authentic Catholic teaching. This is the faith I have chosen to follow an this is the faith I expect and rightfully demand by the clergy in our Church. If the Priest or Bishop are derelict in their responsibilities I for one will not support that parish. Is that such a crazed position to take???? I think not. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. It is Jesus!! It is He who we come to worship, not a priest or a deacon or for that matter the community. We celebrate the Eucharist with our parish family but make no mistake we certainly do not need a community center or the clergy to entertain us. The Church is a house a prayer established to worship the Lord. That is neither far right, novel or outlandish.IT IS SIMPLY THE TRUTH!

standing maryanna said...

My problem is a certain attitude in the speaker in the video that paints people other than "traditional" Catholics as people who do not believe in the Real Presence. I am not a tradionalist but if I didn't believe in the Real Presence, I would not bother to be a Catholic.

Stop painting with such a broad brush and instead of beating people over the head with the rubrics, show some mercy...

Anonymous said...

In all due respect Maryanna, Mercy is not what someone needs when they who have vowed to be obedient decide they know better then the Church and celebrate the Mass (intentionally) in accordance to their own personal innovations and improvisations. Sorry, in my life time I have witnessed too many illicit and invalid Masses. Simply put if you went to purchase a Mercedes Benz and later on your inspection of that vehicle you found the engine and its parts could not be authenticated as being from a legitimate Mercedes factory, you would be angry and justifiably so. You would feel short changed, cheated and outraged.So it for many who have had their faith diluted and distorted.
Justifiable anger has its place as we witnessed Jesus himself when he over turned the table in the temple. Mercy for the Priest who has fallen ABSOLUTELY!! Mercy for a Priest who is struggling? We are commanded,to show mercy. Mercy for a Priest who INTENTIONALLY decides he knows better then the Church in his celebration of the sacraments? No, we should not condone nor accept that premise when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Pray we must for him but to remain silent is being complicit. The Rubrics are there to be followed. How does the saying go???? Say the Black do the Red.

Anonymous said...

The following is a great article about the Mass. Well worth the read.
http://fatherjames.org/

Katie Beaumont said...

I feel very strongly that the tabernacle should be put back into our main sanctuaries; however, I also agree with standingmary that we don't need to get into left-wing vs. right-wing liturgically-partisan language. It seems that the guy in the video is judging the consciences of those who are against tabernacle-visibility. Just make your point without judging the others. And yes! This diocese does need to mandate that ALL parishes place the tabernacle in a highly visible spot in EVERY main sanctuary of EVERY parish.

Anonymous said...

An interesting thing happened on the way to the bank…it seems that some time ago in one of many parishes in Chesterfield County that a line of credit was extended by Bank of America to parties heretofore unknown for $60,000. After a few years BA has recalled the line of credit and demanded payment plus interest. It has been learned the Diocese has paid BA and has demanded the parish in question repay the Diocese the line of credit amount plus interest. Normally would this not make headlines? It did when a lowly secretary attempted the same thing but on a much smaller scale. The question begs who is being protected and why?

Anonymous said...

i'm not much for tabernacles, statues and all that hocus pocus eucharist stuff. the way i see it, where two or more are gathered, god is in our midst, thus, no need for all the exterior private devotion stuff. too many ignorant catholics place too much emphasis on eucharistic bread, when the real eucharist is the community gathered to celebrate our commmon priesthood by the merits of our baptism. so, in short, keep the tabernacles out of sight, they distract from true worship.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 24 6:30pm. Why don't you contact the newspaper and tell them what you know?

Anonymous said...

because i don't want to! mind your own business!

Anonymous said...

That last response was not one I would have given....Sadly, if this is all true, it is another example of how our Church and its shepherds refuse to take responsibility and allow the chips to fall where they may...who is being protected and why...so we sit back and say "ho hum" because we are good obedient Catholics..For once I would like to see someone take a real stand and admit, we really really screwed things up....

Anonymous said...

This says it all:

In Sacramentum caritatis 23 we read that:

priests should be conscious of the fact that in their ministry they must never put themselves or their personal opinions in first place, but Jesus Christ. Any attempt to make themselves the centre of the liturgical action contradicts their very identity as priests. The priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord’s hands. This is seen particularly in his humility in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart, and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality.

Anonymous said...

I'll take a priest's charismatic personality over a metal box with a candle ANY day.

Anonymous said...

And i'll take what's in the box over the priest's personality any day.

Anonymous said...

Hey 7/26 1:38

This leaves my Pastor out. He doesn't like processions of any kind.Says he is the only one who should be processing. Not to mention he loves to perform.He is often referred as the actor. Can you imagine he is about to lift the lord in the final elevation and turns to the congregation and say" everyone stop and look at the sunset: could care less that its the most sacred time in the Mass and the creator of the universe is present on the altar. then you wonder why people have had enough of this 70's nonsense?

Anonymous said...

From my experience as a lay leader in my parish, tabernacles and liturgy in general are divisive. Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to telling our catholic sisters and brothers not to worry about liturgy, just go out and fight for justice.

Anonymous said...

it's the community, stupid - not a bunch of idiots genuflecting to a metal box.

Anonymous said...

I like how it appears that one person is actually making every post in this thread.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Di Lorenzo,
Its time you read this article and take it to heart.

Obedience to The Magisterium and the Responsibility of the Bishop Toward the Laity

Anonymous said...

http://www.mariancatechist.com/burke/obedience_responsibility.html

Anonymous said...

So how much longer Bishop Di Lorenzo will you remain deaf to the pleas of the people of Williamsburg. It is time to make a change.The diocese is allowing our Pastor to make a mockery of the Catholic faith .Enough already!
http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/10/15/news/doc4e989014c2f04678801665.txt

or check out this editorial! they get it and you don't Please worry more about the souls of the people rather then money.

http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/10/15/news/doc4e988fd0eff38802060271.txt

Anonymous said...

Try this link
http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/10/15/news/doc4e988fd0eff38802060271.txt

Anonymous said...

EDITORIAL: Byzantine


How else to describe the events surrounding the St. Bede mausoleum? A controversial set of buildings has touched off fierce opposition from the neighbors, and many parishioners are embarrassed to be such poor neighbors.

The heart of the issue is six identical buildings of 10,000 square feet each, three stories tall, holding 1,530 crypts each.

The closest parallel is the infamous asphalt plant proposed years ago in Toano. It was billed correctly as a bituminous coal factory, but the feeling was that the neighbors were getting snowed.

The first snowjob here was monthly delays of the hearing before the James City Planning Commission. Even though nothing changed in the plan for multiple buildings to house 9,000 crypts, the clergy and high-priced lawyers of Kaufman & Canoles worked their way behind closed doors. Guess who pays the legal bill from Kaufman-Canoles? The parishioners.



The church also met with almost all of the commission members privately, lobbying outside the public view. Two members are parishioners, so they should have recused themselves from the 5-2 vote of approval. In fairness, the planners were operating within the technical protocol of what’s permissible under zoning, but talk about a non-conforming use!

More intriguing is that the delays effectively moved the decision by the Board of Supervisors until Nov. 8, the very night of the general election when incumbents John McGlennon and Mary Jones are up, along with challenger Jack Fraley. Incumbent Jim Kennedy is unopposed, but he has just started attending St. Bede.* Bruce Goodson is leaving office. So all four supervisors can vote without fear of electoral backlash. Lucky them.

No details changed in the application between June and the October planning meeting, so clearly the church was not interested in compromise. Monsignor Michael McCarron didn’t even show up at the hearing, yet dozens of neighbors from The Meadows sat through a five-hour meeting, only to be ignored.

Nearly 200 letters and a packed hearing room indicate that St. Bede really didn’t try to get community buy-in, much less address the neighbors with any compromise. That’s 200 people who won’t forget what the church has done.

For all the opposition to the crypts, there is precious little support. The best we could find was a letter to the editor suggesting everyone pray over the matter.

Fact is, the neighbors don’t want this thing so close to the nearest house, and who could blame them? It could reduce already depressed home values, and it certainly won’t build any goodwill for the church. Given the 25-year build-out, you’d think the church would yield and drop the last building, but no.

If the church had sought 9,000 urns in a columbarium for cremated remains, it would have saved itself a lot of grief with a much smaller building, and only one at that.

The dispute has led to amusing but damaging ridicule to St. Bede, something no church needs (see box). Among the more positive comments, Emily Armstrong argued on our blog for a better buffer and pine trees that will block the view in winter. She added that the controversial bell tower has been put on hold. Good thing.

__________________________________

*I’m on the parish rolls too, albeit inactive.

Anonymous said...

llent wrote on Oct 15, 2011 6:48 AM:

" Bill, you hit the nail on the head. The thing that is most disturbing are the highly paid attorneys from Kaufman and Canoles. Their pointman, Greg Davis, is slick. He schmoozes the audience (i.e. the voters) effortlessly making it sound like this monstrousity is a gift to the community. You are correct to say that the parish is paying big bucks for this firm to represent them. Parishioners resent that their money is being spent so foolishly. This project is not a gift to the community. It is nothing but a money making scheme that Father McCarron chairs because he readily does not believe in cremation. The columbarium at St. Bede's is a lovely edition to house the remains of parishioners. These 10K sq ft. buildings will be monuments to McCarron's legacy. He knew he would be confronted and I am sure Davis asked that he not be in attendance at the meeting. The people of this county should be enraged by the actions of the Planning Commissions and most prominently Jack Fraley, who behind closed doors yet again, has violated the trust the residents in this community place in the Planning Commision Chairman.

Thanks, Bill, for setting things straight. Your editorial was right on in every aspect. "




CONCUR wrote on Oct 15, 2011 12:24 PM:

" This editorial is SPOT ON! Even if "front" seed money comes from the Parish's columbarium -- ultimately that money is from the parishioners and could go to other worthy charitable and spiritual causes. Or even, here's a novel idea, go to paying debt still owed for the main church building. Honestly, could the Parish (of which I am a contributing member) done a worse job of socializing this proposal with members and the neighboring community??? "




I Agree wrote on Oct 15, 2011 3:31 PM:
marybeth wrote on Oct 15, 2011 5:48 PM:

" The issues here are many. The Catholic church in general and St Bede's in particular do seem as though they feel themselves above reproach when recent history would say otherwise. Instead of building confidence and showing the heart of Christ THIS happens.

The issue of the lawyers is very irritating for a simple reason that the church has forgotten too: The APPEARANCE of impropriety. It matters not what happened during these meetings, but it matters most to God that his church, those that CHOSE to serve HIM by being part of his church would create the appearance of wrongdoing.

This matters much to God. "

Anonymous said...

sandra wrote on Oct 15, 2011 6:25 PM:

" While the property might be owned by the diocese it will be non denominational and opened to ALL people throughout the state.Hence this no longer applies to a cemetery strictly for use by parishioners.This has spiraled into a business and all requirements of a business should apply.This project should be rejected because the Special Use Permit for this mausoleum is not being met. SUP's should be granted under a specific criteria.I do not believe this application meets that criteria. The approval should be granted if the land owner proves hardship or if it improves the community.This application does neither. I am a Parishioner of St Bede and a registered Republican and quite frankly while I can respect owners rights,I cannot support nor condone an application which impedes and infringes on people whose life investment is their homes.The neighbors of St.Bede did not in anyway know a project like this would be built in their vicinity when they purchased their homes.They have become victims and they have no real recourse to elected officials who will only stand for developers who have the ability to hire well connected attorneys. I urge the Republicans Supervisors to take a long hard look at this application and vote no. I fear the ramifications and implications of a yes vote will be sorely felt for may years to come by the residents of Williamsburg and by the politician who vote yes on this application. "




Stop your donations wrote on Oct 15, 2011 7:48 PM:

" Stop putting money in the Sunday collection basket. That is the only way to put a stop to St. Bede's having the money to pay for their expensive lawyers. It is the only way that McCarron will understand that those who oppose this project are serious. No money means no way to pay the front money needed for this worthless project. "