Posted on 11/09/2007 10:33:48 AM PST by Frank Sheed
A guide dog is permitted. (Seeing-eye dog) We have one that comes with his blind human to our 10:30 Mass all the time. The man is also in the RCIA class.
He explained that when the harness is on, the dog knows that it is a guide dog. In the class, he took off the harness, and the dog jumped up on the couch just like a regular dog would. LOL!
Are you an expert in Canon Law or a Doctor in Sacred Theology? We are talking about possible “profanation” here and not health laws resulting from cuddly “pooches.” I leave that call to the good Archbishop.
This was one of “many” complaints apparently lodged against this errant priest. I leave the call to him; the Archbishop is charged with the souls of all those in his Archdiocese and fraternal correction is part of that.
Fraternal correction: look it up in the Bible! It’s there!
Frank
>> I don’t see a problem. God made the animals before man. Next, they’ll be kicking the animals away from the manger. <<
Wow, what a shockingly ignorant statement. So because Adam was born naked, you’d have no problems with nudity in the sanctuary? And of course, no problem with the dog taking a crap in front of the ... well, I don’t even want to say it.
Or does this basically come down to: It’s not sacred to you, so why should it be sacred to anyone?
Just why would a blind man with a seeing-eye dog be in the sanctuary? Does he do the readings? If so, could ne hot be helped to the ambo without the use of the dog? And, additionally, why would a person still in RCIA be in the sanctuary in the first place? If what you are suggesting is true, and that a blind catechumen is actually serving in some capacity in the sanctuary at your parish, then that does little to defend allowing dogs to be there.
Jesus road on a colt and had lamb dinner for His Last Supper. He didn’t invite barn animals and pets to the Last Supper. Mankind is above lesser creatures (sheep, doves, dogs, pigs, etc.). Though we can bless servants to the servants of God (bless household pets and livestock who serve mankind, and mankind serves God), animals are not equivalent guests of God’s Eternal Banquet. Animals are not entitled to the Sacraments as we. We can bless with Holy Water, but we can’t Baptize lesser creatures.
Matthew 7:6
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Those who argue that animals are equivalent in right to man are not arguing for the sake of the animal, but are propping up the lie of Satan who fools us into believing we are equals to the Divine. We are not equal to God and never will be. Animals are not equal with man and never will be. What we share with God as He gifts us, we should never allow to be given to animals for we are held in a much higher esteem in God’s eyes.
Matthew 10:
29
Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.
30
Even all the hairs of your head are counted.
31
So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Mr. Sheed:
Abp. O’Brien’s decision regarding Father Martin is not a joke. Your cavalier spirit and attitude are both alarming and repugnant! A priest of God has been removed from his parishes and the faithful there are now without spiritual help or access to the sacraments.
No one is served by ignorance; but neither is anyone served by slavish adherence to rules - especially rules that bind men and women to follow more rules for the sake of testing one’s obedience and not to preserve the dignity, sanctity or divinity of God. (Does God need our help in this?) Did O’Brien’s action that day save a life? Did it feed the hungry or clothe the naked? Did any part of his “discipline” house a homeless man or find a job for a father or mother looking for work? I have a suspicion that it did none of these.
Perhaps O’Brien does seek to fulfill God’s laws of charity and selfless giving; but this rule following is not serving the laws of charity. In the end, it is only a rule with subjective interpretations attached to it, yours included and the others who think the archbishop “rocks.”
As to whether this woman believes in the Blessed Sacrament or not can scarcely be disputed. What other reason would she have for receiving communion?
In reality, the parishioners were ignored; their spiritual well being was tossed aside and trampled on in a cavalier and thoughtless way!! Where in the world are they going to find another priest to serve THREE parishes? Was Father Martin’s infraction so disgusting that the parishioners are now deprived of any sacramental succor? What cost the slavish adherence to rules to the laity (again, us worthless laity, right)? I think in the light of eternity, this was petty and smells of hatefulness. A man who is concerned about the people would not have removed a priest in this time of shortage. My pastor here is serving two parishes full time and a third part time. He has a school with three campuses and an overworked staff. Priests are overstretched, overworked and underappreciated.
O’Brien could have dismissed him for more serious matters, say, theft, violence, abuse of a minor, attempted arson? Something on that level? This is so horribly petty and childish. We need priests. This priest can hear confessions, offer Mass, bless and advise; this priest can give comfort to those in pain, administer Last Rites. Was his infraction so egregious as to eliminate these holy works?
Among these postings you will find a disturbingly immature attitude towards enforcement of the rules: O’Brien rocks? Give a him a cake and three cheers? I don’t think anyone was happy about this decision. O’Brien is not a police officer, he is not a martinette or commandant; perhaps he was in the military too long - he’s taken that “I-was-just-following-orders” approach to fulfilling his Christian calling and the helping of desperate people in desperate situations.
Did O’Brien’s action that day help to preserve the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Yes, they did.
Welcome to FR.
Dear AB, thanks for answering this. Perhaps the new member will check Mr. Peter's Canon Law site which delves into the Law by which any and every Bishop is bound. We don't "make it up as we go along" I'm afraid. The Archbishop is guided by Laws that antedate most countries and most other religions in the West.
http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html
Dear Mr. Sheed:
Scandal is not shock; scandal is a stumbling block to one’s faith. Were the people scandalized truly, or were a few angry. There is a difference. Parishioners in this parish are not being given scandal: from the reports most are in admiration of their pastor. If anything, one could argue that Archbishop O’Brien’s action created a stumbling block to people’s practice of their faith. (Although if anyone were to use either incident as an excuse to leave the Church that rather would be a tragedy). Even if their pastor is guilty of “malfeasance” his actions are still priestly and his confection of the sacraments is still valid. I for one, would rather have this priest than no priest, wouldn’t you? (Ex opere operatus, and all.)
I am most disturbed, Mr. Sheed, by your glee to see a priest punished. I am saddened by this action that the archbishop took that day as were many other of the faithful. The antiquity of the laws that govern His Excellency’s actions is immaterial here in light of the lack of charity or clarity. I noticed none of your friends addressed the needs of the faithful but rather that the faithful would be served better by slavish adherence to rubrics than sacramental concern for God’s people. Your friend (Mr. ArrogantB) seems to think that adherence to man-made laws is more important than pulling one’s donkey out of the well. One would almost get the impression that you were placing “high church” style above the sacramental needs of the laity. No one has accused Father’s Mass as being invalid; if someone has, please let me know through this post.
I do not appreciate your disrespectful, patronizing tone, Mr. Sheed. I do not appreciate priestly illicit behavior any more than any other conscientious Catholic. But nor do I follow any man or my God thoughtlessly. Your guests who parse the canons forget that charity is the greatest commandment. You have not addressed this woeful lack of respect for one of God’s priests. Somehow I do not think that Archbishop O’Brien was celebrating his decision. Something tells me that he was not happy about what he did that day.
I don’t believe that any of us is seeing the whole picture here, Mr. Sheed. I believe that there is more to this story with Father Martin. However, what alarms me is the disappointing and spiritually immature attitude some of your guests have displayed here based on what scant information we do have. Perhaps Father did act imprudently; perhaps Father did not give sufficient forethought to the consequences of some of his decisions. Yet, your guests’ reveling in his dismissal is juvenile and repulsive. I am waiting for you to correct them as quickly as you jumped on my response in defence of a modicum of charity as concerns Father Martin.
Look,
Dear Mr. Sheed:
I apologize for that abrupt ending. I wanted to email that portion off as quickly as possible before I had to leave for some time-sensitive errands.
I have been browsing other websites with reactions to Abp. O’Brien’s decision, and I must say that your guests’ comments are quite tame in comparison. This gives me considerable grounds for worry:
1) Why is there such anger and hostility? This is not the Church I grew up in with my devout parents reciting the family Rosary, going on pilgrimages and Benediction on Sunday and, of course, Mass on all Holy Days of Obligation
2) We were taught to respect all priests and never to say an unkind word about them
3) My parents and my siblings are quite patient with people of other faiths; we are not patronizing nor do we make hurtful remarks about another’s beliefs
I believe that comments and remarks on the level that I have read serve no purpose but to tear us apart. I long for the return to the days when people did not glorify gore and bloodshed and violence. We were appalled by images like of this nature and disgusted by those who promoted it. I liken these comments to the same as those images of warmongers and others of their ilk: skinheads and Satanic Goth persons. I notice that these groups spew their hate with the same strength and venom that you and others pour down on the Father Martins of this world. I guess this is what it means to be a young Catholic today.
Regards,
parkbae
There is such a thing as being scandalized for so long that you no longer recognize it. Many of the parishioners are probably inured to scandal, as it seems this priest has been in violation of MANY rules, including hiring a man with a long criminal record and disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament.
There is also such a thing as admiration not from a priest's holy life or admirable pastorship, but admiration that is really relief that we are being 'given permission' to ignore the rules and God's law because, after all, the priest does it.
You are right that it is a different church from your parents' church, but you have the reasons wrong. In the 60s and 70s, there was an element in the American church that flouted the rules and God's law not only in disrespect for Canon Law but in defiance of Scripture and the Magisterium. That's the attitude that brought us lavender priests recruiting altar boys, clown masses, open communion, and so forth. And because it's clothed in a spirit of "progressivism" and "niceness" and "openness" and "acceptance" that tracks the secular Zeitgeist, of course the parishioners see nothing wrong and indeed think it's wonderful.
That's not a stern calling to a high and holy life, to the strait and narrow way - not the Cure' of Ars, that intimidating and holy saint - but Father Goodtimes, who makes no demands and corrects no sin.
This priest belongs in the Episcopal Church with the minister that he wrongfully admitted to communion. Because that is EXACTLY what the Episcopal Church has become.
Which is why I am no longer an Episcopalian.
And if we seem to be rejoicing that a much-needed correction has been bestowed by the bishop, we are not. But far too many priests have gone completely uncorrected for far too long. We are not rejoicing that this man has been admonished and removed (I do pity him personally, because he probably assumed that what he was doing was AOK because nobody had said anything for so long, and when this bishop began issuing warnings, he did not heed because he was too inured in his ways.) We are rejoicing that bishops are again taking up their difficult and stern duty of leading their flock.
Because that will keep the Catholic Church from winding up where the Episcopal Church is right now. You don't want to go there. It's a smooth and easy way, as C.S. Lewis says, soft underfoot, without signposts, without turnings. But suddenly you find that by being 'kind' and 'accepting' and 'merciful' and ignoring those awful 'man made laws', you have walked right into Hell.
I alone am escaped to tell thee.
Dear Ma’am:
Thank you for taking the time to respond and post your thoughts and perspectives in answer to my posts.
Many people make no effort to mask their anger. Is it anger or frustration? I’m not sure. I’m not comfortable with the problems I have seen in the Church since I started school in the 60s either.
I grew up a cradle Catholic in a strict Catholic household. But there was no anger or hostility towards our pastors or associates. We did what Father told us to do, and that was it. You and I and all of us Catholics must return to Holy Obedience to our pastors. If Father said stop squirming around in the pews, you stopped. If Father said he needed volunteers to help move something, we rode our bikes down to help, if we could.
I remember that my mother invited Father over once a month for supper. What happened to that respect? Now I hear really horrid name-calling and assignation of blame and scandal-mongering.
It is not enough to blame all this on “rule breaking” priests. I am not trying to be disrespectful, American Mother, but can’t we find time to talk about the missions or caring for unwed mothers or helping the retarded in our communities? I spent time in Asia, South America and East Africa because I was inspired to serve; inspired by my parents and my friends’ parents who always made packages for the missions.
When did the laity become experts in liturgy? When did ordinary men and women start telling the priests and bishops what to do? When did laymen start knowing how to offer Mass? And since when was a non-Catholic like C. S. Lewis held up as an example of Catholic spirituality - a man who never was in communion with Rome, an Anglican?
I don’t mean these questions to be impertinent. I am frustrated. You seem to be on the cutting edge here, AmMother. Your thoughts?
Respectfully,
parkbae
Blessing of animals is NOT allowed in the Church...outside only.....and St. Francis wouldn’t approve of any other way!! Our Churches are SACRED.
Are you a Catholic? I thought not. What religion are you? Do they bless animals in yours?
LOVE THAT!!!
Are you KIDDING!!
With respect ... those things happened when all too many priests demonstrated that they were not experts etc. The Laity can read the Missal ... and the GIRM ... and the Catechism ... and the writings ... and, for that matter, the Sacred Scriptures ... and when what we see the clergy doing doesn't match what we read ... we rightfully ask "what the heck is going on?"
The Mass doesn't belong to Father Jones ... when Father Jones decides to tamper with it he's wrong.
Good Grief, Newbie....get a grip.....Fr. O.Brien did the CORRECT thing.
Here's where I think there's been a breakdown in the Catholic Church: your family model of obeying Father works quite well, so long as Father himself is obedient in the true model of the Church. Back in the old days, there weren't too many parishioners who second-guessed their rectors -- but on the other hand there weren't too many, if any, priests who ignored a direct order from their bishop. Even the immensely popular and famous Father Coughlin (if you remember him) submitted to his bishop's orders to get off the radio, and never granted an interview after that.
This priest has done what used to be as unthinkable as criticizing Father -- he's disobeyed his bishop directly and repeatedly. One cannot command obedience unless one gives obedience -- a priest cannot expect his flock to follow him if he doesn't follow HIS shepherd.
Also, it's a little different when you're a kid. You don't see all the wires and pulleys and the backs of the scenery -- all the controversies and even scandals that develop in the best-regulated parish (actually, that develop wherever fallible human beings congregate). So your parents were probably perfectly aware of various difficulties in your parish, but as a child you had no 'need to know' and so your parents didn't fill you in. . . and it wouldn't change a kid's duty of respect in any event.
When you're a grownup, it gets more complicated. A priest's duty to obey his bishop is even more stringent than a parishioner's obligation to act in accordance with the wishes of his rector. After all, the priest takes a solemn oath. And the bishop likewise has a duty to obey his spiritual leader, the Holy Father. So when a priest disobeys, it reverberates on down the line and sets up all sorts of complications.
As for your other questions -- our rector is fully orthodox and obedient to our archbishop (he also is a remarkably persuasive old-fashioned hard-core Irishman), so we cheerfully obey, do our parish work, and contribute liberally to any needs, including missions, both monetarily and with our time and talent. That's really non-controversial in our parish, which is why we don't talk about it much. (We do talk a lot about some of our mission programs and our music program, also our pretty nifty adult education program. Stick around and you'll see.)
Have you read any C.S. Lewis? The Catholics often claim him for their own. Despite being raised a Belfast North-of-Ireland Protestant, with all that implies, he had many close friends who were Catholic and adhered to much Catholic doctrine (including Purgatory and the Real Presence). I can't see any way he could be an Anglican/Episcopalian today, no telling where he might have wound up though.
AA:
My apologies. It appears I’m a generation too late and in the opened wrong door. I’ll leave you folks alone.
Adieu,
parkbae
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.