Everyone here would totally support the bishop if the group was Catholics for Free Choice. To me, it’s the same thing.
I want to say, "It's not the same, because ..." but I'm having trouble filling in anything after the "because." Maybe "because they're not necessarily bad people!"
The Archbishop's point, I think, must be related to its being a public, group event of self-described Catholics. (No, I'm not making a statement about whether they are Catholic or not; the question is beyond me.) If it were a tour group from the United Methodist church seeing the historic sites, it wouldn't have the potential to create confusion regarding the Catholic Church.
So fine... if you are going to block NON-CATHOLICS from entering the Mission... then the Park should be made “Post Vatican II (Novus Ordo) Catholic Only”..
This has tangented into a whole other conversation, but the bottom line is this:
If the Archbishop is not going to allow Trad Caths into a mission...citing they are not “catholic”...then block ALL OTHERS who are not born, bred, baptized Catholics. That means no Jews, No Muslims, no Protestants...no one else.
Do you see what I am getting at here?
I would LAY MONEY if I was to go to the Mission (the actual church) right now.. it would be open, and plenty of “non-catholics” would be in there. (I am actually thinking about doing this to prove a point.)
So if the point is stop “non-catholics” from entering the Church itself, then the park can remain open to the public...but yet the actual CHURCH should be closed to prevent the possible “non-catholic.”
Or are SSPX’ers and other Traditional Catholics the only ones that are “not Catholic?”