Replies

Why not? Sex in marriage is a good to which a married person is generally entitled.

So is self esteem. I think a better argument is the one where the wife obeys the husband by giving up her friends, her style, her personal statement to the world to obey and finds a few years later that she is not functioning because who and what she is is lost. She's overweight, frumpy, no friends. She asks her husband if it's okay to do a make over and maybe join a bridge club and take a walk by herself once a day and he says no. So she does it anyway and he throws her out of the house. She was disobedient.

You haven't at all made a case for this priest's blatant disobedience, nor for his shockingly poor treatment of his own flock.

The priest is in charge. It's his call to make. Every parish I've ever been priests have done this sort of thing, so with me that dog isn't going to hunt, point, retrieve or go to ground. Aside from that, is it any different than when the new Mass was instituted? I know a lot of older people who were horribly offended when that happened. There really was no good warning and the people had no voice.

Dear Desdemona,

No, you may not change my analogy without first answering. It was my analogy. But ironically, the bishop did nothing so harmful to the priest as a wife refusing use of the marriage, nor even a husband harming his wife's self-esteem.

The bishop PERMITTED the priest to say the old rite in private, and merely required him to say the new rite in public. The bishop judged that the pastoral needs of the priest's parish ruled out the use of the old rite, publicly. That is within the discretion of the bishop to decide.

Both rites are valid. Both rites are worthy. To say otherwise is to denigrate the new rite. Just ask narses. To insist on saying the old rite IN DISOBEDIENCE TO THE BISHOP, is to say that the new rite is unworthy, is not good, and thus justifies disobedience.

"The priest is in charge. It's his call to make."

No it isn't, not regarding the use of different rites. The pope has specifically reserved this decision to the Ordinary of the See. That's how it is. You can talk, or post, until you're blue in the face, that is the law of the Church. This priest was horribly disobedient. The bishop permitted him the faculty to say the old rite privately.

Frankly, now that I've re-read the article, and learned there is already an indult in the diocese, I'm much less inclined to have any sympathy for this disobedient priest at all.

"Every parish I've ever been priests have done this sort of thing, so with me that dog isn't going to hunt, point, retrieve or go to ground."

And when priests change the rubrics or otherwise play fast-and-loose with the liturgy without the permission of the bishop, folks like us, including you, scream bloody murder. The priest is disobedient! And we think the bishop ought to crack heads when it happens. Well, here, the priest uses AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RITE from that which he is authorized to use. Do ya think that's a bit of a change from the authorized rite? Do ya?

The bottom line, Desdemona, it isn't the priest's decision whether or not this or that rite will be used in his parish. The pope has given this discretion to the bishop, the Ordinary of the See. If you don't like it when "progressive" priests innovate with the liturgy, you ought not like it when priests like this take liberty with the rites. Or is making a small change to a rite a greater disobedience than discarding one rite altogether for the rite of one's preference, in abject disobedience?

By the way, my wife did not vow obedience. ;-)

sitetest