Failure to Communicate

The other day I posted about the disappointment I had in the way my parish handled the Proposition 2 issue. I was disappointed, because where I attended Mass in Michigan, whenever a ballot initiative came up that a priest could and should discuss "from the pulpit" they took that opportunity. Yet here in Alaska, I saw nothing that came close to active support.

Leading up to the election I made sure that I did what I could in terms of supporting the proposal. I posted about it on my blog, linked to the Catholic Anchor, linked to the APR website, and I even wrote to my parish urging them to support the measure publicly in various ways that were available. I received in return a we are looking into it response. What we got was a brief mention during announcements that a letter from the Archbishop had been printed and was placed near the bulletin. (Not in the bulletin, not stuffed in the bulletin, not even NEXT to the bulletin... but near it. Not to mention it was a word document copy and not on official letterhead.) This... non-action disappointed me. But I offered it up, did what I thought was proper in terms of my own response, and let it go. Prop 2 passed, and I was happy.

Until I read the Catholic Anchor's post from the Archbishop. It stung me like lemon juice on a cut. When I read the post, I wasn't upset by what was said, no, I was upset by what didn't happen. Here is the part that got me (emphasis mine):

So for a year leading up to today’s vote, the Catholic bishops of Alaska – Archbishop Schwietz, Bishop Edward Burns of Juneau and Bishop Donald Kettler of Fairbanks – rallied Alaska’s Catholics to support the parental notice initiative.

From Anchorage, Archbishop Schwietz sent letters to the diocese’s 32 parishes and published statements in the Catholic Anchor encouraging his flock to sign a statewide petition required for the ballot proposition, collect other signatures and otherwise “actively support” the parental notice initiative.

He prompted priests to address the issue from the pulpit and post notices in parish bulletins. Parishioners were urged to collect petition signatures on church property and in their neighborhoods.

...

“The support of the Catholic Church played a crucial role in our success,” Minnery observed.

Once the state certified the petition, a ballot question was prepared for the August primary election. And the Knights of Columbus sprang into action. Councils from around the state, along with the national Catholic men’s group, raised over $80,000 for radio and television advertisements in support of Proposition 2. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest purveyor of abortion – and other abortion supporters poured over $800,000 into opposition ads, setting up a David-versus-Goliath media battle.

As the August vote drew near, notices supporting Proposition 2 appeared in Catholic Church bulletins and prayers were offered at Mass.

Sherry Grenier of the Respect Life group at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in South Anchorage distributed yard signs and bumper stickers. And on busy intersections, Catholic families including St. Benedict parishioners Megan Walsted and her children joined throngs of supporters waving “Yes on 2” signs to rush hour drivers.

On election day, Alaska’s Knights of Columbus offered rides to the polls. In Anchorage, the group provided 23 rides to voters who lacked transportation, reported District Deputy Cal Williams.

...

What did our parish not understand? We didn't hear it from the pulpit. I even emailed them and asked for it. In fact... you want to know the real sting, Ms. Lisa Murkowski attended Mass at our parish the Sunday before election day. What a chance to publicly speak out against the vile of abortion, with the captive audience of a Catholic Senator who has a less than stellar Pro-Life record. Instead... we heard a homily about community...and respect...and differences.

We didn't have it in our bulletin either. I emailed the links for the bulletin inserts. I offered my time, talent, and treasure to help stuff the bulletins or do whatever it took. Instead... we got a letter near the bulletins.

Now I have never said where I am a parishioner, and I will continue to keep that off the interwebs. That being said, this pushes me ever close to revealing that. My purpose and goal has never to bring scandal or spotlight upon my neighbors, friends, and faith family.

That being said... we failed here. Sure some of us went to vote, and I pray that others voted Yes on two. But as a parish? We failed. We ignored our Bishop, in fact, we defied our Bishop. He said in his post:

It is a core issue for Catholics, who believe the relationship between parent and child is sacred – and not one to be broken by others, including abortion practitioners.

We weren't part of the success. We were too afraid. To afraid to stand up and say anything, too afraid to support the teachings of the faith, and too afraid to stand up to our church leadership and demand they fulfill their obligation to authority.

We failed to proclaim the Gospel to one another. I say we, because we are a parish community. We are only as strong as our weakest link. We win as a team, and lose as a team. As individuals, we might be OK... but that shouldn't be good enough for anyone. If we truly believe in what the Eucharist is... then we failed. For it is supposed to unify and create the communion with one another that only it can bring. Therefore, we failed. We did not communicate the message of our God to one another, and therefore failed in communicating it to the world.

I know people from my parish know who I am. I don't hide who I am on my blog, I also don't advertise. Our parish business is our own. But if we are unwilling to stand for this most basic teaching of the faith... we will fall for anything, and should that be kept quiet? Our parish, and others like it, must do a better job of teaching the faith. We aren't the only ones. In many parishes in the area Catechesis is laughable, ministries are wacky and questionable, an inconsistent (or worse sometimes: heterdoxical and even heretical) message is conveyed about the teachings of the faith, and the liturgical life is about as inspiring and sacred as an Alaskan grey sky. It is harder and harder to refrain from saying these things. I do want to be charitable, but at some point silence becomes an enabling effect. How come Anchorage parishes have Respect for Life groups? The answer is not because they asked for it. We ask for things. I know of at least 4 people that have offered themselves carte blanche to various parishes to no avail. We must become an authentic Catholic community.

The sick and twisted irony of this situation is that in a mere month or so we are going to celebrate "Respect for Life" month. Will we hear this message then? Will we have people stand up and have dinners, breakfasts, and get into Diocesan papers showing how Pro-Life we are? Every last parishioner at our parish, and at any parish that doesn't consistently hear a Pro-Life anti-abortion message, should demand to know why not. This can not be an issue that is used for clout, fame, or religious-political popularity.

We have abortion clinics in our surrounding towns, but no parish Pro-Life/Anti-abortion ministries... why not? We have prisons and therefore prison ministries... why isn't the same true for life issues? For those that say: "You don't need the parish." You are right... buy my point is why not?

We have failed to communicate to one another the importance of this issue. So instead we communicate another message. We tell each other that innocent life doesn't matter. We communicate that Social Justice is free trade coffee and taking kids on mission trips. (Don't get me wrong, valid, necessary, and important things... but not sufficient.) We communicate that Social Justice works are about something else... We have failed to communicate though, the Gospel. So we have failed in our Catholic duty. I cannot stand for this...and neither should you. This is one issue... but there will be others. Issues like this are toxic to the faith, they mock God and they rot the core of our parish. Once the core is gone... what fruit can survive? Do not let the silence prevail.

**N.B.:
I was informed of a post by Msgr. Charles Pope. It addresses the issue of preaching and priests. It is a very informative and insightful piece. It quotes Pope St. Gregory the Great and his instruction on preaching. You can read it here: (Link)

Defense of The TRUE Church or Why an Episcopal Bishop "consecration" shouldn't occur at a Catholic Church

.
This information was sent to me and several others:

Katharine J. Schori

Consecration of the 8th [Episcopal] Bishop of Alaska will take place Saturday, September 4, 2010, 2 p.m., at Our Lady of Guadalupe, 3900 Wisconsin Street, Anchorage, Alaska.
...
Following the Consecration ceremony, a reception will be held at the Lunney Center, next door to the church. This is an opportunity for all to meet and greet both the new Bishop Mark Lattime and the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. (Source)

····•····

...the consecration and ordination is scheduled for September 4 at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church in Anchorage. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will be the chief consecrator. (Source)

The following are pertinent parts of the Archdiocesan Vetting Policy:

This is a "Clarification Memo" (Source)

This is the page that is linked under Vetting, on the main page of the Archdiocese of Anchorage's website. If you notice the 3rd bullet-point on this memo it says (Original Emphasis) (My Emphasis in red):

This policy is applicable to anyone sponsored by or using any Archdiocesan or Parish resources.

Seems like a pretty clear statement and policy. So why then is Our Lady of Guadalupe being rented/loaned/used by a Christian Denomination whose principal leader speaks contrary to the teachings of the Church? Here are some quotes by the woman that will be "consecrating" a new bishop at Our Lady of Guadalupe:

Anglicans should be led by local communities rather than powerful clerics, Jefferts Schori argued in a Wednesday (June 2) letter to her church’s 2 million members. And, after 50 years of debate, the Episcopal Church is convinced that gays and lesbians are “God’s good creation” and “good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones.” (Source) 

The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori derided individual salvation calling it 'the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.' 

In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori said it was a "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ acknowledged in a prayer of repentance.  (Source)

How are these teachings acceptable for a person that will be leading a religious ceremony at Our Lady of Guadalupe?

°•°•°

There are two major problems that I see with this situation:

1. You are inviting in a religious denomination and a "bishop" that espouse teachings that are directly contrary to those of the One True Church - not only in their construction but in their essence.

2. The double standard that this creates is mind-numbing. I know of several groups, apostolates, speakers, and events that have been denied time and time again in their requests to use facilities, advertising and resources; while this group seems to have full use of OLG.

Does this have everything to do with procedure and the vetting process? Yes, there is a vetting process, and YES it should be followed. In fact, I applaud the Archbishop in taking a stand to ensure that the faithful are safeguarded against heresy, dissident teaching, and heterodoxy. What I cannot understand is how in pursuit of this goal there are good, pious, devout, orthodox, doctrinally sound persons that are not permitted to speak for "procedural reasons." Again, I understand the need for the vetting process, and I understand the necessity in being obedient and following rules and procedure - I work in the legal field; what I can't understand is how procedure is king. How form trumps substance. 

How is it that this Episcopal event will occur inside a Catholic church, while some Catholic groups and people are shunned to homes and restaurants to have their events, ones that adhere to the teachings of the Faith? Why are some events which are approved not given space in bulletins, at announcements, or talked about by parish staffs? These questions may have answers, unfortunately no one seems to know what those answers are.

Other Questions linger:

Will the Eucharist be removed from the Tabernacle during this ordination?

Will the Altar be used?

Will the Consecrated Vessels of OLG be used in any Episcopal ceremonies?

Will the the Sanctuary of OLG be used for this "consecration"?

Will anti-Catholic teachings be allowed to be uttered from the  Ambo?

Does this not give Scandal?

I do not take pride or joy in posting about such things. Some might say that this is gossip or rumor. They would be incorrect. This situation is public and posted on multiple websites. The entire world is free to see that a Woman, pro-gay/lesbian, Episcopal bishop will be "consecrating" a new Episcopal priest in a CATHOLIC church. Simply posting about it, and asking questions should be completely acceptable. All of these questions must have answers... I am simply asking the questions.

It hurts so bad to know people that have been denied access to their own church facilities and resources because there is a safeguard procedure in place that is used in a manner which seems to be against them and for outside anti-Catholic groups. As recently as a month ago I saw a parish bulletin with an advertisement for a local Labyrinth. Yet, some people are forced to email me their events and info in an effort to get the word out, as they have been denied access to and the ability of using parish bulletins and resources to disseminate their approved information.

I pray that there are good explanations to all my questions... I think we would just like to hear them. If our churches are used as platforms for distortion and heresy, but not as sources of Truth and Doctrine, what chance do we have to give the Faithful proper formation? If the area where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated is used by those opposed to the true teachings of the faith, what does that say about our belief and our understanding of what occurs in the Sanctuaries of our churches?

I trust in our Archbishop. He is a holy, holy man, that has show recently how he is willing to put the true teachings of the faith, and the protection of his "flock" as his first priorities. I know that in the end the right thing will happen. Therefore we must continue to pray for him, for wisdom, courage, understanding, and fortitude.


Please leave comments, but be charitable. I would love to hear others opinion of this, but I don't want this to descend into attacks against persons. Ideas are open for any criticism, people and the judgment of their souls is for God alone. It is important that we use the internet as a place of intellectual debate, and not to pile-on against people. Please prayerfully consider your words before posting. 

Why are *you* Catholic?

Can you answer the question?
Why aren't you protestant? Or are you?
Isn't Catholicism an all or nothing belief? Isn't it?

•°•

What have you done lately to defend the faith?

°•°

Can you explain the Sacraments to a 7 year old? Can you explain the Mass to a newcomer? Do you know why you do what you do at the Mass?

°•°
What does apostolic mean? Why do we look for the resurrection of the dead? What is contrition? What does venial mean? Why do we go to confession? Do you go to confession?

°•°

What is the Assumption? The Immaculate Conception? The Ascension? The Transfiguration? All Saints Day? Ash Wednesday?

•°•

How many excuses have you made while reading this? Are you ashamed? I am ashamed of myself.  What is the text in the picture? Can you read any of it? Do you think english should be spoken in America? Does that make you a hypocrite if you can't read the above?

°•°

Will you do something about this?

Quiet

A few posts back I asked for your prayers of discernment. Knowing where one will live, and the type of employment one will have is a nerve-racking thing. It can drive the most faithful man to despair and doubt. That being said, what scares me the most is the idea that I will slink from God. That I will somehow pick my own selfish and filthy desires over God's will. I am afraid I will sneak into the silence, and hide myself from God, for I will be ashamed. (Gen. 8:3)

~•][•~

What causes fear? What is the sin? Is it pride? What causes good men to be fearful of doing what is right? How can leaders, priests, bishops, and the faithful turn their minds, hearts, and eyes away from God and distort His Word? Was not pride the catalyst of original sin? Did not the devil merely question the surpreme  authority of God just prior to his expulsion from the presence of God and Heaven?

~•][•~

Do they not crucify and martyr the loud? Are not the quiet safe and offered reprieve? It is the loud, the boisterous, the brave that are struck down. The gallant and the bold become lion food, and willing martyrs. The quiet gain earthly reward, and eternal torment. The quiet gain the entire world, but lose their life. (Mk. 8:36)

~•][•~

Why are so many Catholics today wanting to keep quiet? Why is audacity and bravery cast aside in all instances in the name of "charity, prayer, and patience?" Why do we allow ourselves and those we trust to deny God? Why has the will of God been replaced by the will of men? Why do we search for peace when we are told that we should expect a sword? (Mt. 10:34)

~•][•~

God says kneel and we sit, he says bow and we stand. Why do we deny God, simply to make peace with our brothers and sisters? When will we take up our Cross? Why does God sit upon the altar, alone, naked and cold? When will God become more important than our jobs, homes, and even our family? (Mt. 10:37). How come a "quiet and kind" priest is seen as pious, but one that teaches and instructs in the way of the lord is condemned and persecuted? Why will we follow any man who will lead us, wherever he may go? When will we stop being quiet and raise our voices?

I never intend, God being my good Lord, to pin my soul to another man's back, not even the best man that I know this day living; for I know not where he may hap to carry it."

Saint Thomas More ~ To his daughter, while in prison - 1534

(N.B.: Check out the synchronicity...Cleansing Fire)

Zuhlsdorf, McBrien, and some Bishops

There is a lot to say about the three topics of this post, but the best thing to do is read Father Z's post about the issues:

McBrien's Favorite Bishops

If you don't know who Fr. Richard McBrien is... read a review by the National Council of Catholic Bishop's, of his book Catholicism. It really paints a quick picture of who he really is not only as a person and thinker, but as a priest. If you don't feel like reading it... just look at the picture to the left... of FATHER McBrien. I don't know what is worse... him wearing a tie, or the fact that he is speaking at a Call to Action podium.

An interesting note about two of the Bishops on McBrien's List:
Francis Hurley, archbishop of Anchorage, Alaska, 1976-2001;
Michael Kenny, Juneau, Alaska, 1979-95

The Vortex... a strong message.

The Vortex doesn't pull punches. In fact... it hits harder than a ton of bricks. It is hard not to get inspired and motivated by their videos. Strong messages like this don't resonate with everyone, but the content is what is important, and they are very rarely off the mark.

Why people DON'T leave the Church

There are a lot of reasons why people leave the Catholic... but I would bet quite a bit of money that the reason is rarely, or if ever, that a person studied the scriptures, studied the Catechism, read the Church fathers, read encyclicals, and then came to the belief and analytical conclusion that the Catholic Faith is somehow wrong within the larger context of Christianity. I got this idea from Fr. John Riccardo, who mentioned this idea in one of his "RCIA for Catholics" talks. Fr. Riccardo was my pastor at my Novus Ordo parish back in Michigan.

This argument is based on the idea that many people that leave the faith, or "fall away" do so because they either don't have a good understanding of the faith, and (or) have been a part of a parish that did not resonate in them. Many also leave, because those around them either lacked in the way they understood the faith or lived the faith. For example, how many times have you heard lapsed Catholics espouse incorrect doctrine or describe "Catholics" in a way that isn't necessarily true of Catholicism, but may be more specific to a certain group of people that profess to be Catholic?

Therefore it is vital that we learn our faith, that we learn it CORRECTLY, and that we live it both in word and in deed. We don't know who is watching us, or how it is affecting them. People rarely leave parishes or the Church because their experience includes a welcoming and warm parish, a tight night community of like minded individuals and families, and people that not only know their faith intellectually but also "live it." Instead, folks abandon their faith because of cold and disconnected parishes, individuals that make no attempt to form a Catholic community, and people that espouse their own personal notion of the faith and live contrary to the precepts of Catholic thinking.

If we want the American Catholic Church to survive we must educate ourselves in the faith, we must live out the teachings of the faith, and we must reclaim the truth - one that includes an authentic liturgical and prayer life that leads the community closer to the Truth that is Jesus, the same Christ our Lord Whom leads us to the Father in unity with the Holy Spirit.

Why isn't this on the front page of the New York Times?!

Q. Health Care Reform Bill = Stupid? Nancy Pelosi = Marxist Socialist?
A. Yes.

Proof:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that thanks to the new health-care reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health care coverage.


“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

Um.. I am a hunter. Can I quit my job and just hunt? Not only would I be focusing on my talent, skill, and passion but I would also stay healthier eating good food, and would be getting exercise thereby cutting down on my health care costs.

How can this woman continue to claim that she is Catholic? There is NOTHING... I REPEAT nothing in approved Catholic teaching that says, "Focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations... while someone else supports you financially." Usually if you do that sort of thing, you go in debt until you are 40, paying the bill back, at around 9.9% interest. I pray for her... but at the same time, she might need some tough love. An excommunication until she repents might do the trick.

You can read the full Moonbattery craziness here: Pelosi to Aspiring Musicians: Quit Your Job, Taxpayers Will Cover Your Health Care with Video Yummy-ness!

The Average Catholic Parish has become an Idiom.

The Modern Catholic Church/Parish saw Vatican II as a catalyst for modernization and reform. Instead of reawakening the Church here in America by "cutting away some of the old dead leaves" they have instead "thrown the baby out with the bath-water." Now this isn't true for every Parish, but for many this has been the case.

 

Both of the above phrases in red are IDIOMS. That is exactly what many American Catholic Parishes have become... Idioms. The definition of an idiom is:

1. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.

It is a little more than a figure of speech. The words of an idiom form a collective unit, they fossilize themselves to a very distinct and specific meaning. The other major feature of an idiom, is that it is usually only understood by those who speak that language and understand the particular idiom, outside of its particular "literal" context. In other words, one cannot necessarily derive the meaning of the idiom, from the words used to construct it. It is meant to be illustrative or metaphoric, but to a specific group that is aware of its meaning.

 

So how is the average Catholic Parish an idiom? Well... what do you see and experience when you walk into many modern day Catholic churches? I mean the ones built post 1965ish. What do they look like? What do they resemble? What are the floors: marble, tile, carpet? What does the Altar look like? What is the experience at Mass like? The prayers, Music, the "full and active participation" of the faithful? What does it sound like, smell like, look like, feel like?

 

Think about how you would DESCRIBE a Mass to someone that has never been to Church before. The sights, the sounds, the feel. What would you tell them they should look for, expect to see, need to know? Imagine you are a "Religious Real Estate" agent, and you are "Selling" your Church, Mass included, to someone who is willing to join the church with the best "overall offer".... What would be your key selling points? (The answer here isn't location, location, location.) What makes a Catholic Parish - Authentic?

 

How would you explain the difference between a Catholic Church & Mass and a service at a Protestant Mega-church?  What are the benefits of your parish? How about a smaller evangelical church? A Lutheran or other main-line Protestant Church? Is it getting harder? Are the lines blurring? Try doing the same with a Church and Parish built in the '30s, '20s, or possibly even earlier? How do your answers change? What are the differences now? Is it easier to explain the differences?

 

I think for many of this... we don't have good answers. The lines between Catholic Parishes and Protestant Parishes have blurred horribly in many areas... and unfortunately, a lot of the time in those areas the Protestants do it better. The few areas that Catholics continue to outshine the Protestants in, doctrine, rubrics, and theology have unfortunately been "abandoned" as not important.

 

The Catholic church decided that the best way to modernize the Church, was to follow the protestant model. They saw the growth of many evangelical churches, that could pop-up, recruit new followers, and becomes models of success. So they decided to "speak" to Christians, and "seekers" of Christ in idioms. Rather than building on the solid foundation of tradition, community, and doctrine they went another route. This idiom route can only be described as gimmicks. We stopped seeing Cruciform churches and started seeing the Church-in-the-round. We went from marble floors,  to carpet. Pews and kneelers to upholstered seating. We went from hand carved altars that rose to the heavens, to video screens and flying banners and beams. Pillars were abandoned for long beams allowing for vaulted (not cathedral) ceilings. Organs were abandoned for guitars, keyboards, drums, and rain-sticks. Why these changes? They didn't have theological under-pinnings, in fact many of the changes required for an alteration or even complete abrogation of certain beliefs and practices, just to conform these new features to Catholic teaching.

 

Was this intentional? Yes, I believe it was. I believe that the "powers that be" in the American church were looking for a way to "spice up" the average American Parish that they chose this route, because it looked "new and exciting." Was it malicious? For the most part no, I don't think it was. I think that there was an element of Cultural depravity attached to it, but I don't think in large part that there was some malignant strain of theological belief that found some chink in the armor, and was trying to bring down the traditional theology and doctrine of Catholic belief. I do believe that there are some that have grown into this modernist-progressive mindset, but I think it was a slower process than some seem to forwarding.

 

So why do I say it is an idiom? Well.. because we have become a metaphor of protestantism. The Authentic nature of Catholicism can no longer be clearly seen in many aspects of the Average American Parish. Sure, we have something resembling the Mass most days, but is the Parish, the Church, and the community Authentically Catholic? Let me ask it this way, do you know that it is Catholic because of what it appears to be, or because of what it says it is? If I say I am a New York Yankees fan, but you catch me wearing a Red Sox hat, am I really a Yankees fan? I mean, deep down at the intrinsic "Absolute Truth" level a Yankees fan? This is where the idiom part comes in.

 

You see, the Catholic Church, and Parishes likewise, used to be an AXIOM. The definition is:

a self-evident truth that requires no proof. Universally accepted, as true. Unmistakable as to its meaning or truth.

Self-evident. Requires no proof. It is, what it appears to be. Isn't this what a Catholic Church should be? Self-evident? Shouldn't a person be able to go into a Catholic Church and sense that it is Catholic? Shouldn't it be authentic and true? Why then do we appeal to people in idioms, when we want them to speak in axioms? Why have parishes molded themselves in the image, of exactly that which they are opposite of? Why do they quest for Truth, yet do so in the mask of something else?

 

Think back to the thought experiment I proposed earlier. Should we not be able to talk about things such as statutes, icons, golden consecrated vessels, embroidered vestments, incense, the Mass, Sacredness, worship, chant, Authentic music, and a slew of other things that clearly set apart the Church from other Christian denominations? Shouldn't we seek to be less like them, as opposed to more like them? Isn't the Catholic Church supposed to be counter-cultural?

 

When will Catholic Parishes give up this gimmick and revert back to the Authentic teachings of the Church? When will we stop speaking in idioms and reclaim the AXIOM? When will we, the faithful demand this from our Parish? When will we step-up and commit ourselves to providing what we can to the Authentic nature of the Church.

 

• Go to Daily Mass.
• Go to Mass early - say the Rosary.
• Go to Adoration.
• Make your sons be Altar Servers.
• Start and apologetics apostolate in your Parish.
• Volunteer to host fellowship parties or bbq's at your house.
• Invite a priest to dinner, bring them dinner, have them out to a social event, or even just speak to them casually.
• Start a special collection to buy a statue for an empty alcove at your Parish.
• Find out what "needs" the priest or Parish have and start a collection amongst your friends for an "Authentic" version of those needs.
• Join your Pastoral/Parish council.
• Join the groups at your Parish.
• Take up your sword and fight for your faith and Christ!

I have always said we are in a BATTLE, a real WAR against evil. One of the strongest weapons the devil has is complacency and sloth. Do not let him win. It is so disheartening to hear from my protestant friends all the amazing things they do at their Church because their folks are on fire. All they have are four walls and the Word. We have centuries of tradition, custom, and the TRUTH of theological doctrine and we have to used protestant-esque idioms to "attract" our faithful....

 

When will our Parishes give up these idiomatic gimmicks... and return the Axiom of Authentic Catholicism?

 

 

_

Social Experiment...with a Rosary

I don't see it so much now that I live in Alaska, but in any major city in America you will find people in everyday life outwardly expressing their religious beliefs. This is usually done in the form of religious dress, but there are other means as well. But do we as Catholics ever do that? Maybe to some small degree, but I rarely can spot a Catholic in a crowd... why is that? I wrote this post a while ago:Prayer Challenge: Rosary

What if we walked around physically holding a rosary. Not necessarily praying it completely but using it as a sort of reminder? Or what if we looped it on our belts like monk or nun? I know there is a concern of "wearing" religious Sacramentals as jewelry, but why don't we have more outward signs of our faith that correspond to daily life? Maybe we should try this... see what happens. It might even get us to pray more... :) But if nothing else it will get others to recognize that there are Catholics out there, normal everyday people.

The Church is SUPPOSED TO BE Counter-Cultural - Fr. Corapi

I was watching Father Corapi yesterday and he said something interesting. He said:

"The Church is counter cultural, and it is supposed to be that way."

He continued explaining that Priests are PREACHERS. Explaining that when a priest gives a homily, talk, or simply is in conversation with you they should be "On Fire with the Spirit." If they aren't they aren't living out their vocation. He said that:

"a weak PREACHER is wounded creature."

He explained that he loves all priests and prays for them, but "will not go to Hell for them."

This got me thinking; when a parish tries to tie culture and modernistic ideas into their sacred life, are they not wounding the Priest and the Parish? Are they not doing exactly what Father Corapi states is the problem? If the Church is supposed to be Counter-Cultural, why then do we bring in secular music, secular musical instruments, ideas, clothing, dance, art, etc? If Church Culture becomes part of everyday life that is one thing, but to do the reverse? Are we not then simply wounding our Church and hurting our Faith?

I want to expand on this idea more... but need to think about it a bit. It was interesting the way he explained the Church as Counter-Cultural to the fact that a priest should be brave enough to espouse such ideas, without fear of alienating his congregation.

Nancy Pelosi uses Catholicism as a gimmick.

I have tried to remain mostly politically free here.

I can't for this. 

I worked in politics. You *HIRE* people to fact check, speech write, and make sure you button your shirt correctly. How she let this political gaff occur... well it says a lot about her faith. It also says a lot about her ability to do her job well.

This clip is from a PRESS CONFERENCE. That means she PREPARED for this. We are entrusting her to run the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and she can't use Google. Don't believe me. Try this:

1. Type "March 19 St. Joseph" into Google. What is this first thing that comes up? This does: Wikipedia - St. Joseph

2. Now read the first three paragraphs.

3. Now watch this:

Ok. Now. Breathe.

Do you really trust ANYTHING This woman says!?! She went on CNN, to a press conference, that she set up... breathe... and said what??? Seriously... she claims she is Catholic. She invoked Catholicism in her presser. She didn't even use an ounce of effort to prepare.

You may say... "No big deal, it's a mistake so what."
Not so what. This wasn't like a reporter asked her a question (a la Couric & Palin). This was a PRESS CONFERENCE set up by her.

I can't think right now... I am done with this rant... make up your own mind...


-Posted by: Joe

Resources Concerning the ND Observer Situation

In light of the post below concerning The ND Observer and Dr. Rice, I provide for you a few resources that may help form your thought regarding the matters involved:

Papal Writings:
Ex corde ecclesiae - Pope John Paul II - On Catholic Universities
Fides et Ratio - Pope John Paul II - Encyclical on Faith and Reason

Dr. Rice Info:
Dr. Rice's Column: The Teachings of the Church on Homosexuality
ND Law Bio Page
Wikipedia Entry
Books by Dr. Rice - On Amazon.com
Dr. Rice's Call for Fr. Jenkins to Resing in.... the Observer.

ND Observer Links:
The Observer - Main Page
Staff Editorial Regarding Comic Controversy
The University's OFFICIAL Repsonse to the Incident


ND's Independent Catholic Paper:
The Irish Rover


-Posted by: Joe

The Shame at Notre Dame - Daily Observer Wimps Out On Dr. Rice Column - Answering Why...

So the University of Notre Dame periodical "The Observer" has again brought shame down upon the University by their decision to nix a column written by Law Professor Dr. Charles Rice. [You can read about that here: ND Observer Refuses Dr. Rice's Column On the Churches Teaching Regarding Homosexuality]

As we reported yesterday, a Dr. Rice wrote a regular column for the Observer. Dr. Rice is a distinguished member of the Notre Dame Law faculty, and his influence reaches far beyond the hallowed halls of their law school. [Read about Dr. Rice at his Law School Info Page] His column was never short of poignant and was always firmly rooted in the intellectual and spiritual teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. So then why would the new editor of the "Observer" refuse to print his column?

Well the answer may lie in cowardice. Harsh words you say? I disagree, in fact, the reasons given by the editor show that cowardice is most likely the exact reason why the column was denied. One must follow the a trail though, which starts at the reasons given for the denial of publication and leads back to the incident that supposedly created the "reason," or need to deny the column by Dr. Rice.

First, there was an incident a while back where the Observer printed a pretty horrible cartoon. It was hateful and crude; it dealt with homosexuals and created quite a stir. There were protests, apologies and resignations. Here are some links:
The Observer Cancels the Comic Strip "The Mobile Report"
The Mobile Report Apologizes
All of this occurred just over a month ago in Mid-January. Between then and now there was quite an outcry for a "change" at the Observer. That is exactly what happened.

Second, the Observer started to change their course. They changed editorial staff, and actually decided to "Right" their "Wrong" by going to the other extreme and "embracing" the homosexual causes on campus. They supported and promoted a change to the anti-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. This showed their agenda, it also highlighted the course in which they were going to be taking over the next few weeks and months.

Finally, the new EIC and editorial staff came on board. The campus was all buzzing over this controversy and there was a perfect opportunity for the paper of the flagship Catholic University in America to lead the way in the Catechism of the Church. Instead, they punted. Actually, they didn't even show up to the game. Instead they ran and hid from the opportunity.

This is why I say it was cowardice. Not on the part of Notre Dame, but on the part of the Observer. This was what some call a "teachable" moment, but instead the Observer decided to push its liberal anti-Catholic agenda. Hopefully the independent paper on campus the Irish Rover picks up on this situation and runs with it! I'd love to seem them print the original Rice article and make the Observer irrelevant. I suggest you all take a look at the Irish Rover and see that there are good things going on at Notre Dame and that there still are students committed to keeping Notre Dame Catholic... even if none of them work for the Observer.

Please take some time to check out the Rover, and possibly support them. They run off of donations and the generosity of their readers. I once was the EIC of a paper just like the rover. In fact, when the Rover was starting up so were we. I know how hard it is to keep independent conservative papers like that going, especially on the campuses of major universities; funding is only one of the many problems they face. So if you are looking for something positive to support and a way to help "the good" consider a donation to them. If you can't afford that, check out an issue and write them some email of support. In the very least, pray for them.


-Posted by: Joe

Breaking!: Notre Dame "Observer" refuses to print Dr. Charles Rice's Column RE: Church's Teaching on Homosexuality

UPDATED*** 7:49 pm ET:

Notre Dame... fails again.

• UPDATE*** 7:49pm ET:
• A new email from the Editor to Dr. Rice is printed below. It appears that the Observer is still licking it's wounds from an earlier "incident." What better way to "repair" your image than print the teachings of the Church?? Guess they don't think that way..... (SEE BELOW FOR NEW EMAIL)

This is story is hitting just now in a few well respected Catholic News outlets:

Dr. Charles Rice (Notre Dame Law School - Bio) recently wrote a column/piece for the Notre Dame Observer, as he does every few weeks. The topic this week is: The Church's Teaching On Homosexuality. Only... this week they didn't print it.

Here is the article: Dr. Rice's - "Right or Wrong?" Column: March 1, 2010 - Homosexuality (from Fumare)

The Editor of the Observer didn't print it for a variety of reasons...or so they say. None of the listed reasons was legitimate. Now, as a former College Paper Editor, I know something about the role of an EIC. There are LEGITIMATE reasons for not printing certain things, and there are times when you don't WANT things printed so you CREATE a reason. This folks... is a brush off.

Below is the email exchange between Dr. Rice and the Editor.

From: Matt Gamber [mgamber@nd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:24 AM To: Charles Rice Subject: Tuesday's column

Dear Mr. Rice,

I wanted to first introduce myself as Matt Gamber, the new Editor-in-Chief of The Observer. Thank you for your continued hard work and contributions to The Observer's Viewpoint section.

Second, I wanted to let you know why we chose not to run your most recent submission in Tuesday's Observer. First, it far exceeded our word limit guidelines, which I understand our Viewpoint Editor, Michelle Maitz, has shared with you in the past. Our daily space limitations require that we enforce this word limit, and we would appreciate your attention to this limit in the future.

Also, I personally had some concerns with the content of the column, particularly considering The Mobile Party comic incident earlier in the semester at The Observer. While your piece was well-researched and I trust the information was factually correct, I did not feel it lent itself to creating a productive discussion, all things considered. I was a bit concerned with certain language as well.

In the future, if you would like to examine this topic, we thought it might be beneficial to do so in a point-counterpoint format, perhaps with an author of an opposing or differing viewpoint. That way, each "side," to speak, would have the opportunity to present relevant facts, evidence and analysis to define its position.

As I began, I again thank you for your contributions to The Observer. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this decision, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Matt Gamber Editor-in-Chief The Observer Cell: (847) 287-1141 Office: (574) 631-4542

Dr. Rice's Response:

From: Charles Rice Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:04 PM To: Matthew Gamber Subject: Rice Column on Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality

Dear Mr. Gamber:

Thank you for your email informing me that my column presenting the teachings of the Church on homosexuality will not be published. Since 1992, I have been privileged to publish every two weeks a column, entitled “Right or Wrong,” in the Observer. I emphasize my appreciation for the unfailing professionalism and courtesy of the Observer editors with whom I have had contact over those years.

You mention the column “far exceeded our word limit guidelines.” It is in fact significantly shorter than each of the three previous columns published this semester in the Observer. I was not asked to shorten any of them. The rejected column accurately presented relevant teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. I understand why you are concerned over the content of the column. You further propose that if I examine the topic of homosexuality in the future, “we thought it might be beneficial to do so in a point-counterpoint format, perhaps with an author of an opposing or differing viewpoint. That way, each ‘side,’ so to speak, would have the opportunity to present relevant facts, evidence and analysis to define its position.”

In a university that claims to be Catholic, I am not willing to restrict my presentation of Catholic teaching to a format that treats the authoritative teaching of the Church as merely one viewpoint or “side” among many. If you require that future columns of mine on homosexuality comply with a format such as you propose, it will be inappropriate for me to continue writing the column for the Observer.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Rice Professor Emeritus Notre Dame Law School

Words fail me. Dr. Rice is amazing, I had some limited interaction with him while at Ave Law, and he was nothing less than a gentleman and a scholar. This is another BLACK mark on the name of Notre Dame, and unfortunately, Dr. Rice is once again a target of Anti-Catholic thinking.

UPDATE*** 7:49pm ET:
Here is the most recent email from Matt Gamber, EIC to Dr. Rice:

From: Matt Gamber [mgamber@nd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:29 PM
To: Charles Rice
Subject: Re: Rice Column on Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality

Dear Dr. Rice,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your contributions to The
Observer and I hope that we will continue to work together. I do not
wish to question the Church teachings or argue the points you
presented in your essay, but rather, because the paper is still
recovering from the incident with The Mobile Party comic, we would
prefer to examine this issue at a later time.

I sincerely appreciate your understanding of our concerns, and I hope
you will not hesitate to contact me with any further questions or
concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Matt Gamber

-Posted by: Joe

Honoring the Dead...

On wednesday, a trainer at Sea World tragically was killed performing her job, which is the the care and training of Orca's [aka Killer Whales].

You can read about the incident in the Orlando Sentinel:
SeaWorld Trainer is Killed in Killer Whale Attack

My take on this has nothing to do with the actual incident, but instead the way that many Catholic bloggers have treated this. A lot of bloggers have decided to take the time to blog, tweet, or post about this. Which is fine, but in doing so they have done it in a flippant and somewhat disrespectful way. They point out that they "are called Killer Whales for a reason."

I understand their point, I think we all do. Yet isn't there still some bit of honor we owe this woman? Yes I know her job may be 'foolish' to some, but she viewed it as her dream job. Also, how many of us have EVER been to an aquarium, zoo, or SeaWorld? If we have, then we don't REALLY think these people are foolish AND pointless do we? In fact, we are glad they exist.

So why are we as Catholics not honoring this woman? It would be one thing if a blogger chose NOT to post about this incident. That is fine, a Catholic blogger does not have an obligation to POST about every death that occurs and makes the front page of the news. Yet, when a Catholic blogger CHOOSES to post about something, they have then taken on the responsibility to practice the virtues of the FAITH in their post.

It is always hard to criticize other Catholics. I think one should only criticize ACTIONS and not the person themself. So, I am not trying to be "Holier than thou..." I am only trying to say that, it is important that as Catholic bloggers we are careful when we choose to blog about things. Although the internet allows a degree of distance to remain between "information and people" it does not mean that the issues and incidents which we post about don't have implications beyond the words on the screen. Most things that posts talk about are about real people and real events. We need to honor those people, and in situations like this honor the dead.

May Dawn Brancheau Requiescat in pace.

-Posted by: Joe

Color Me an 'Occasion of Sin'

A few days ago facebook was inundated with a weird internet meme. Many of us checked our facebook to find many of our female friends having updated their status with things such as:

• White
• Black
• Red
• Pink with lace
• Blue with yellow stripes
• None :) hehe
• "Butterscotch"

This of course was followed by several other people updating with: "What are the colors for?" "Why are people 'painting' their statuses?" And so, an internet meme was born. Where it came from, it is hard to tell, but regardless it was alive and like most things began to evolve and even devolve in the matter of hours.

Now before I continue I will explain the meme in case some of you do not know what I am talking about. The other day on facebook women started getting private messages telling them to simply post a color as their status update. The color should be that of their bra. (Some have told me they received one that was the color of their shirt - this adds weight to my point later on that these things are more style over substance.) They were told to do a self exam to check for breast cancer and that this would be a "code word" to tell other women that they had done so, and they too should do the same.

Of course, most people spent most of their time wondering what the heck the colors meant and were talking more about the meme than the purpose. Once it was known what the colors MEANT, the conversations usually devolved and centered around how "hot" a certain color sounded, and other comments which turned this gimmick into something sexual. Or was it sexual from the start?

Before I proceed, a disclaimer of sorts. I do not "BLAME" or "JUDGE" any woman that did this for the right reason. I don't think it was a good idea in the end, but because of the instant nature a lot of people who otherwise would have refrained from such a thing did so out of emotion or novelty, and I question if it really was as harmless as many originally thought? So this is not an indictment of the people who participated (my wife being one) in this, but it is and indictment of the gimmick itself. I say this because I understand how emotionally sensitive the breast cancer battle is. I know that every little bit of awareness helps, but "ends justifying the means" philosophy is never proper. [A more personal disclaimer: I don't want to seem holier than thou here. I probably would had participated if I was a girl, because I would have seen it as HARMLESS. That is my point exactly, is it really harmless.]

So my argument is this: our culture is so overly sexualized that we accept the display, actions, and discussion of things that we as a society and culture do not actually endorse or approve of solely because we have become so anesthetized to sexual innuendoes, discussion, and images. In such, when things like this internet meme, "sexting" on cell phones, and facebook/livejournal/twitter have some occurrence that is sexual we often act with "playful" disregard of how sexual and inappropriate it really is.

The point of this meme was to bring awareness to breast cancer and self exams, but instead it only brought awareness to the color of women's underwear. The same thing could easily have been accomplished through other means, without the sexualization of it. But, because we are so numb to sexual things it didn't phase most people exactly what they were doing.

One of the things that some may have not realized is that they were giving some men an "occasion of sin." Here is a summary from New Advent regarding that:

Occasions of Sin are external circumstances--whether of things or persons--which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it).

Now this isn't to say that every man that read the statuses of those who participated sinned. It also isn't to say that men aren't inundated with much worse on a daily basis. The point is that our culture is so free with such information, that many reading this probably disagree with me and think it was "no big deal," "for a good cause," "that I need to get over it, relax, and quit being holier than thou." Men in our culture are bombarded with so much sexualiztion of such simple things, we don't need more to combat. Sure men need to be strong, but they also need help from the women of this world. Men are visual creatures. I  once heard a study that compared how men's brains work in comparison of women. The study explained that, "when men see a woman dressed 'sexually' their brains reactions in a similar way that it would if you were to deprive them of food for a day or two, and then place before them their favorite meal." You can image the urge and impulse this creates. Women on the other hand have a much more docile reaction. Their brains react, "in the way that a person who had just eaten and sees a magazine add with food in it." Quite a contrast don't you think? This type of reaction seems vitally important for procreation and human interaction in terms of mating, it doesn't seem like the reaction that we should invoke when promoting woman's health issues though.

If men react this way visually? One could assume that by being visual something that triggers a visual thought could easily provoke or induce "impure thoughts." It may seem silly to women that such a little thing could trigger this, but considering the scientific explanation above is it really that far of a stretch?

We have little girls, our daughters, texting boys with semi-nude and nude pictures. We have teens "sexting" each other with "naughty" texts because "at least they aren't doing anything for real." We have numbed our culture to so many sexual things that humility, chastity, properness in dress and speech, and other etiquette that once was common place has now become an archaic practice of the past. Women used to cover themselves in the presence of the Holy Eucharist, in chapels, and during prayer. In our culture today, if someone wears a chapel veil and they aren't at a Mass in the Extraordinary Form people suspect they are some ultra-radical traditionalist. So the question becomes do we really want to accept and encourage this downward spiral?

Aren't we meant for better? Doesn't God want better? Women posted this silly little meme, but how many of our Catholic sisters posted something similar regarding breast feeding and its link to the reduction of breast cancer? How about how abortion, which may be paid for by the new health care plan is linked to breast cancer, how many women posted something regarding that? My point is not to condemn anyone, it is to plead for us to think about our actions and demand more from each other. We deserve more for our men, for our women and for our children. Sex is a wonderful think and LITERALLY gives birth to the CULTURE OF LIFE! Yet, just like anything good, a perversion of sex and a degradation of sex become sin. Satan wants nothing more than to turn LOVE and SEX into his works. The more that it becomes common place and "no big deal" the more that he can use it against us. When LOVE and SEX stop being SACRED, it no longer carries with it the meaning God intended.

Links for Breast Cancer:

http://www.breastcancer.org/

Mayo Clinic - Self Breast Exam

Susan G. Komen - 3 Day Walk

Also:

One of my favorite blogs: TrueManhood.com posted on this as well and had a much more concise post than I did. I noticed he posted about it, but refrained from reading until I finished my post. Check it out here: http://www.truemanhood.com/imagining-bras-a-facebook-stunt

"Rad Trads" - an explanation.

So uber-blogger Mark Shea blogged a grea post [which word becomes the verb here?] today about Radical Tradionalists, or "Rad Trads": Mark Shea - "Rad Trads"

As a TRADDY or Traditionalist, I like to think of myself acting properly in terms of how I practice my faith, and relate it on this blog. I also know that for SOME I am not Traditionalist "enough" to really be considered a Traditionalsit; while others think of me being "too rigid" and Traditionalist and therefore closer to a "Rad Trad" than I actually am.

I don't always agree with Mr. Shea, but I feel that I agree with most of his post. The clincher for me is how he explains any "RADICAL" form of  "sub-culture" or "piety":  that once a sub-culture or piety reduces the ENTIRE CATHOLIC faith to itself and its own rules, there is a problem. I would agree.

So while I may prefer certain things, and even bemoan others, I do not think any one "movement" is wholly incorrect. Likewise, I think the Catholic Faith would be better served if more people acted with this this same set of principles. I know that for the most part this is more a creature of the Cathologosphere, but even as such it still does damage to the Faith at large because it pits brother against brother.

As a parting note, I do not want to suggest that we should not be free to be critical of those things which are contrary to the Catholic Faith or its teachings. Yet, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words we need to do our diligence in determining those things which we need to criticize and those that we need to praise - as well as those things we need to discard and keep.

Facts & Meaning

At Mass last night the Homily started with a very interesting concept. Our priest began by explaining that as we move into the year 2010 we are fully in an age where facts and information inundate us from all angles. We have cell phones now that give us email, texts, twitter feeds, and that we can even read and update our blogs on. We can now literally take a picture with our handheld phone, research online about the item we just photographed, post it on our blog, and disseminate that information to thousands of people in the matter of minutes. [In the case of my blog, I could disseminate it to about 10 people :P] Twitter and Texting limit us to 140 or 160 characters. Newspapers are dying... while these "instant" devices which are small and "quick" are almost commonplace. There is no denying that information and facts concerning almost everything are literally at any of our "fingertips" at almost any time.

The problem is that we no longer want the FULL story. Newspapers are dying and yet Twitter and Facebook have us eating information 140 characters at a time. We no longer care about the fully story or the MEANING, we just want the punch line. Our question for information, solely for information's sake is killing our pursuit of meaning and the truth.

Information is not a bad thing. In fact, it knowledge is essential to discovering the truth about many things. Ultimately, Christ - the pure truth requires knowledge of HIM so that we can be with him. We must accept and believe the Truth and therefore can only do so after acquiring that knowledge. What is dangerous about information and its pursuit is that it seems many have abandoned meaning for the quest information.

We see this all the time in Christianity. We want to access information but we don't want the back story. We kneel in Mass because we are supposed to. We want the Mass in English so that WE  can understand it better. Everything needs to be chopped up into little bits. We don't have time for the Mystery, we just want the bottom line. We can't kneel at Mass because it would take too long, so we stand. We can't have only the priest distribute Communion because people process in a line and so we institute Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to speed things up. We are in a constant pursuit of gratification through information. Jesus argued against the Pharisees because of there adherence solely to the Law. They lacked the meaning behind the law. He also fought against the money changers who took advantage of the temple, again for the lack of their understanding to the meaning. These two factions were on opposite ends of the spectrum - pure law vs. no law; and yet Jesus fought against them both.

Meaning is important because meaning gives itself to the truth. We can only find the truth when we understand the meaning of the information which we acquire and how it relates to the truth. When we stop searching for meaning, we stop searching for truth. Everything we do in the Catholic faith has meaning behind it; if you don't know why you are doing it you should learn. Yes, there is virtue in obedience, but that obedience must eventually lend itself to knowledge. We must reclaim the meaning to our faith. "True Presence" must mean something. The rubrics of the mass and the GIRM must become our base, not our of sheer obedience but because of that which they uphold - the TRUTH. If we really trully believe in Jesus and his "once for all" crucifixion for the salvation of our souls we must commit ourselves to that belief through the way in which we worship. We must find meaning in our worship and we must reclaim the meaning to our faith. There are many ways to to this: reading the GIRM, going to Adoration, studying the rubrics, and even going through an RCIA program - not because we have to but because we want to.