Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
The dead don't count as far as perceptions on earth of a crisis in the Church.
My point is that most of the Church does not consider there to be a crisis.
Yes, it is simply the cause and effect that I was disputing. Fr. Zigrang did not become a wandering priest and then was disciplined. He was disciplined first (for saying the Latin Mass) and then when his normal canonical position was taken away, he was forced to find another situation.
The punishment for saying Latin masses was for direct disobedience to an order from his ecclesiastic superior, when said superior had already been very lenient to the extent that he felt he could at that time in indulging his desire to say the Latin Mass.
Here then is the precise situation that I was describing in a previous post. If an officer commands a soldier to kill innocent civilians, he must refuse to obey immediately. He cannot obey an intrinsically wrong order and then worry about the consequences later.
So the question comes down to this, "Should Fr. Zigrang have followed the order to cease offering the Latin Mass, or was he required in conscience to refuse this order?" He decided that he was required in conscience to refuse the order, because to obey the order would be to make oneself complicit in the deaths of many innocent souls.
As it turned out, Fr. Zigrang only said the Latin Mass once in his parish, because the bishop responded with such lightning speed. When a pederast is sodomizing young parishioners, bishops seem to require years or in some cases even decades to respond. But when a priest commits the unpardonable sin of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he is locked out of his rectory the very same day.
And yet Christ the good shepard would leave the ninety-nine sheep for the sake of the one, or in this case the .1%.
I suspect it's to appease the golfers with morning tee times and others who simply like to get it over with.
Maybe he just doesn't feel like it? I don't think there are too many golfers there.
He already hears confessions from 8:30a-9a, says Low Mass from 9a-10a, talks to parishoners after Mass, hears confessions from 11a-11:30a, says High Mass from 11:30a-1p, says benediction and has adoration and talks to parishoners from 1p-2p. When you consider he also says his Breviary in there and has his own personal prayer time and needs to have lunch after 2p and take care of other things like Baptisms or visits to the sick, its a pretty long day already without needing to prepare for another Mass somewhere in between or later on.
And who knows if the Bishop would grant permission when Saturday evening is perfectly legitimate? Really, the only practical alternative would be 7a or 5p on Sunday. Most people don't want to be up at 7 on a weekend, and want to be with their families in the afternoon.
The 65 million number is everyone who identifies themself as being "Catholic" when given a choice on a Gallup survey or some such thing. This is the biggest possible number with no qualifications required. The vast majority of those 65 million are not practicing Catholics. At most only half set foot inside a church during the course of a year, and only 20% show up on any given Sunday.
Life is so rough, having to go to Mass once a week.
That's not true. He ws not forced to do anything. He chose to continue to disobey the Bishop to do what he perceived as his new calling. The Pastor of my wife's childhood parish is under some mysterious discipline by the Bishop of Pittsburgh right now. He was told to move out of the rectory and into the seminary and not to say Mass anymore or any other sacraments since he was suspended. He has done so. He is also fighting for his canonical rights in a canonical lawsuit. He hasn't run off with the SSPX or anyone else, but has been obedient and followed the law to defend himself.
As it turned out, Fr. Zigrang only said the Latin Mass once in his parish, because the bishop responded with such lightning speed. When a pederast is sodomizing young parishioners, bishops seem to require years or in some cases even decades to respond. But when a priest commits the unpardonable sin of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he is locked out of his rectory the very same day.
I agree with your perception of this perversion of real problems in the Church.
Your point is irrelevant. Since when do numbers count in spiritual matters? There is a crisis--do we need to take a poll to realize this?
No actually, closer to 80 million are self-identified Catholics (27% of the population by survey). 65 million is the tally of parish registrations.
About 25% of the 65 million show up for Mass on Sunday. Most of the 65 million are involved with the Church at some point in order to obtain Baptism and First Communion and entrance into the Catholic School system and a funeral Mass. Only about 25% of the 65 million rarely attend Church (wedding and funeral Catholics). Another 25% are Christmas and Easter types. Another 25% are irregular attendees (roughly once per month or so, which gives the 30% typical attendance of most dioceses 25% regular + 5% irregular).
These categories have always been around, its just the numbers in each that have shifted.
Or perhaps there isn't a crisis because only a very small number of people think so. Perhaps the perceived crisis is just life and its follies.
I know no one puts much stock in anecdotal experiences but I can't help but say that as a mother there is little that makes me more sad than when my children bicker and wrangle with each other over whose "opinion" should prevail.
In this case Father Zigrang made a decision not to honor the bishop's request but to comply with only the parts that he chose. The bishop,who's person I have never respected,but who by the position he holds had the authority to give the order he gave,should have been obeyed.
Father Zigrang kind of lost my sympathy early on,when he went to the retreat house he wanted to go to in place of where he was asked to go. It really seemed like he was playing games to me,kind of boundary testing,like teen-agers do. When He came back and visited the bishop with his priest friends from SSPX,I believe,I could see he was deep into a teen-age,"nobody's going to tell me what to do" mode. I really thought it was a very inappropriate "in your face" defiant act. What a tragedy for SSPX and Father Zigrang and many others,who engage in dialogue that can go nowhere,given the givens.
I'm honestly not trying to be flip here but are you some sort of idiot/savant or something? You know like those guys that can do complicated calculus problems off the top of their heads but can't tie their shoes.
The only reason why I ask this is in such a way is I'm wondering how a seemingly well read and intelligent person can come up with such an absurd statement as that above.
Humor me and tell me you were just kidding.
Your sympathy is selective. Fr. Z was tormented in conscience. His was a moral decision, totally permissible and canonical--obedience had nothing to do with it.
I would expect any teenager who's parent was an apostate criminal who covered up for child abusers to do the same. Why should such a person be obeyed in the first place?
Just curious, what is wrong with the picture you posted?
"Or perhaps there isn't a crisis because only a very small number of people think so. Perhaps the perceived crisis is just life and its follies."
Or perhaps the moon is made of green cheese.
(notice that little golden Buddha on the altar behind the priest? Mebbe that's it? ;-)
OMG! I completely missed it. Thanks.
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.