Replies

Was St. Patrick's desecrated when Amos and Andy held their infamous live radio broadcast of a couple having sex in the pew?

"Opie and Anthony", details:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/opieanthony1.html
While the acts were serious, they were ejected by Security, so then, what is the judgment of the local Ordinary? I recognize that the CCL puts the responsibility in his hands. Use of the Church for blasphemy, differs from abuse of the Church for blasphemy. In a Church I attended, bums would fall asleep during daily Mass, and sometimes urinate. It is scandalous, but did it require the Church be rededicated? I can't judge that and neither can you, but the CCL gives that competency to the Local Ordinary.

Based on your use of the fictional term, "Amchurch", I would call that railing contempt at the Catholic Church. I guess you didn't like CCL 1369?

Thanks for the correction of the name. Objectively, what was done in St. Patrick's was a desecration, because it was a deliberate affront to religion (unliek the poor bum who falls asleep in the pew and urinates himself). Whether or not it required reconciliation and a rededication is a different matter, and the CCL makes that a subjective Prelatic decision.

Based on your use of the fictional term, "Amchurch", I would call that railing contempt at the Catholic Church. I guess you didn't like CCL 1369?

I have no problem with Canon 1369. If you think it is "railing against the Church" to disagree with how a law is being abused based on the literal reading of the law, then you are making void Canon 212.3.

"Canon 212 §3 [Christ's Faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals."

If you think saying "AmChurch" voids this right, when using it as a collective term to describe those people who have spent the last 40 years ignoring clear directives from Rome and violating the sacred Canons in the name of "the Spirit of Vatican II" and "Ecumenism", then why is my diocese carrying the Wanderer in its Seminary for its Priests and people to read, seeing as nearly every issue uses that term?