Goats, Sheep, and Gasometers©: A Modest Proposal for Catholic Renewal
The Clerical Whispers blog for September 8 has a posting about a new Opus Dei parish in Dublin (http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/09/gays-and-divorcees-must-repent-before.html). In an interview with the Irish Sunday Tribune yesterday, the pastor, Fr. Fergus O’Connor, insisted that gays and divorcees must repent before receiving communion at his parish.
For those who may not follow news about religious organizations that have tremendous influence on all our lives—-Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, non-believer—-even when we don’t know it, Opus Dei is a worldwide organization comprised largely of obscenely rich Catholics with connections to high places. Which promotes itself as a corrective to the Catholicism of Vatican II, with its insistence on open dialogue with the contemporary world.
Opus Dei prefers to pursue its goals in secret, mainly through placing its operatives in very high places in business and government, where they can use their wealth and political clout to pressure the secular world to toe God’s line. Or else. It’s no accident that the organization’s ancestry has a direct line of descent from the fascist wing of the Spanish Catholic church in the Spanish Civil War period and afterwards.
So. Father O’Connor insists that gays and divorcees must repent before receiving communion in his church. According to Clerical Whispers, when asked about his stance on this issue, Father O’Connor stated, “The teaching of the church is that if a person is a practising homosexual, [they] would need to repent [i.e., before approaching the altar].”
Then, in case his listeners hadn’t “gotten” it, Father O’Connor immediately repeated the complex statement: “So that's the teaching of the church."
(Note to self: research the following—-Is repetition a peculiar tendency of right-wing political and religious operatives? Do said operatives tend to rely on repetition when all else fails? Is there a tendency in these circles to recycle tired old ideas by tricking them out as new, when the ideas are simply being repeated? And are we just not supposed to notice the repetition, we who are not inside the circles of God’s elect?)
But to return to the other scintillating observations of the Opus Dei pastor: Father O’Connor also informed Tribune readers (news flash: radical new Catholic idea approaching!) that, “A person who is not in a state of grace should not approach the altar to receive holy communion. They can come up and get a blessing and so on, but they shouldn't receive holy communion."
Oooh. “And so on.”
The mind boggles at the goodies that this vague term might comprise: a blessing “and so on” at the communion rail of an Opus Dei church! Scapulars? Whips to lash oneself as one prays the penitential psalms? Better yet, a lashing from Father O’Connor his ownself?
And all for dirty practicing homosexuals and dirty divorcees! What goodies “and so on” are available for dirty homosexuals who no longer have to practice, Father O’Connor leaves deliciously unspoken.
I remain fascinated by the novel approach right-wing Catholics are inventing for the practice of communion these days. Traditional Catholic theology has—wisely—left the question of who or who is not worthy to approach the altar up to God. And to the individual believer’s conscience. And to the sacred seal of confession, at which the conscience of the believer is supposed to parlay in total privacy with a confessor.
The fanfare about who shall or who shall not traipse down the aisle to the altar rail is all new to Catholicism. And it raises some interesting new possibilities.
Among them is how to detect those practicing homosexuals before they reach home base and “receive” Jesus into their sordid, sin-ridden, unrepentant hands (and even worse, mouths). It’s not so easy, dontcha know.
In this posting, I’d like to propose the development of a device that, should fellow Catholics cotton to the proposal, I’m prepared to patent. This is the GASometer©.
The GASometer© separates the Goats And Sheep. It performs the nifty little service that has previously been thought to be the Lord’s work at the end of history; it performs that service here and now, in our vice-ridden parishes, for us too impatient to wait for Judgment Day.
Here’s how it would work. Since it has now been scientifically proven* that gaydar actually works—that is, that a statistically significant proportion of observers can accurately determine the sexual orientation of men simply by looking at pictures of their faces—I propose installing in each Catholic parish a GASometer© that will be full of downloaded pictures of known practicing homosexuals, and will alert the parish priest and his Goats And Sheep Ministry Squad© immediately when a homosexual "type", practicing or otherwise, enters the parish church.
Of course, simply identifying a potential goat does not a goat make. There's that goats masquerading in sheep’s clothing thing, you know. Homosexuals, practicing or otherwise, are notoriously tricky. They tend to “infiltrate,” to “disguise” their identity, to try to look “normal”—normal enough to pass for sheep who need no special passes to claim the communion wafer prize at Sunday liturgy.
So along with the GASometer©, parishes would also need to develop a GAS database—preferably, a computerized one, that interfaces with the GASometer© to feed instantly the sighting of a potential goat into the system and determine whether the homosexual intruder (or seeker of a blessing "and so on") is practicing or not practicing. And is repentant or not repentant.
Granted, the GAS Basedata© would need to be continuously updated, what with Saturday evening confessions “and so on” constantly shifting the calculus of who’s worthy and who’s not, who’s in a state of grace and who’s not. And it would have to be fast, since the tricky little buggers are likely to slip into the church right as the Introit is being intoned, leaving little time for the Goats And Sheep Ministry Squad© to obtain the readout of that particular Sunday’s goats, and to make arrangements to bar those goats from the altar rail.
Whether the GASometer© can be configured to recognize goats of some other variety—e.g., garden-variety goats who have flounced around in a bed other than that of their lawfully wedded spouse and are unrepentant, or who have cheated their employees out of health benefits and are unrepentant, or who have lied and back-stabbed to obtain job preferment and are unrepentant, or who have reveled in homophobia, sexism, racism and been unrepentant, “and so on”—I can’t quite say.
But since the focus of many Catholics today seems to be more or less exclusively on catching genus-goats species-practicing homosexual before they sashay up to the altar and grieve Jesus and his flock oh so grievously by profaning his sacred body and blood, for now, I’m content to let the GASometer© do the important work of gaydar for Christ.
I do wonder, though, what would happen if bishops insisted that every parish install a GASometer© designed to detect pedophiles, and positioned this device both at the church door and the sacristy door . . . .
Would we even be having this discussion now, if we had such GASometer© capability in our parishes at present?
Oh, well, never mind.
*See Matt Kaplan, "An Eye for Sexual Orientation," Science Now Daily News (18 Jan. 2008), citing an upcoming study of Nicholas Rule, July issue of Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
WOJO, Willy D. and all, I'll
WOJO, Willy D. and all,
I'll be firstly and deeply apologizin' for m' lack of attention! Bein' as how this machine is as mysterious t'me as my "Baby Darlin's" smile. Someimes I get gone, an can't find m' way back! She'd be citin' certain chronological facts t' me, concernin' that point, but y' know what they're sayin'! "Boyo! Ye jist cain't be fixin' stupid!"
It seems, Willy D., that I find yr' moniker all over these pages,'long wi' WOJO, Frannie, Marie, Rev. Dr. Elaine, Thomas and Dennis! I'm always gettin' side tracked b' yr idees an' instigations! (Them I'm, commin' even close to, unnerstandin!)
For WOJO! I'm prob'ly bein' th' wrong source for commentin' on "Liturgical Dancin'" Seein' as how, "bein' the wrong source, neer slowed me b'fore, I'm gonna jump! It havin' been brung t' me attetion, on numerous 'caisions, that I'us prob'ly borned dancin'! Just like me Daddy! I'us prob'ly 35-40 year ole, afore I realised that the "boogie man" were'nt Fred Astaire! Neer could figer out why people was s' sceered o' a nice fella like Fred!
S' far as mixin' me dancin' into me faith, I seen me Daddy doin' it as a wee'un! An I surely wanted to be like me Daddy! I seen the joy, an th' light, an th flowin' o' th' spirit an' the body. T'was a won'drus sight for a littl'un! I tried it meself and found the joy, and the light and the "flow"! An' I found ME!
I'm admittin', it'us a pers'nl, deeelicious, zilleratin' feelin', an' it come from me Daddy!
Lord seen fit to be takin' him when I'us five. Daddy bein' "took", me edjication on bein' a MAN, fell t' the likes o' a bunch o' Scotsmen, on me mither's side. I'll be tellin' ye, them Gents had calouses on th' backs o' their hand, from draggin' their knucles on th' ground! T'wern't no "manly thing" t' be dancin'! That'us WOMANLY, SISSY, an I loved doin'it!
B' the faith in an th' dear grace o th' one God, it happens that I come on th' place in "Th' Book" where it'us tellin' t' be makin', a "JOYFUL NOISE!" I stuck them words, deep in th' cave of me red haired, freckle faced head, an I'd be well passed St. Peter, when I'd be forgettin' it!
T' this heart, broke s' many times at th' hands o' mere mortals, t' this mind, slapped as straight as a calloused hand kin, when Im dancin, it's a gift from th' Almighty, T' be able t' do so! An I'll be returnin' th' favor, b' makin a joyful noise, unto the glorification o' His name! But I'll b' doin' it wi' me body! He's been exposed t' me singin' in th' choir, an I'd be doubt'n He'd want n'more o' that!
Bein' a teacher o' th' dancin', I'll not fancy meself any more or less qualified to "dance before God"! We, each o' us, was give a body an a soul! We'us also give th' dance to soothe both! Th' dancin' looses th' bones and strenthens th' muscles. An it shakes th' wrinkles outa the soul! Dancin! Bein' a "joyful noise, unto the glorification of His name!" as a prayer o' thanks givin' for a body that'll move, an a soul that'll love? I'd be thinkin your contentiatin's from a knuckle draggin' Scots emanation!
NOW! Let us all be dancin' in th' light and love of God, for the light and love of God!
In Christ's Name! Let us Dance!
J. Edard
I know the joys of dancin a
I know the joys of dancin a polka or four or five--or was that drinks?. What ever, great post and the day the joy of dancing is done in the sacristy is the day I know this Church has turned a corner. Wait a minute, such a thing would most undoubtedly trip the GASOMETER.tm (Sorry Bill, I don't seem to have the copyright thingy on my keyboard.)
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Colkoch~ Agreed. I was
Colkoch~ Agreed. I was fortunate to belong to a small rural parish for a number of years that celebrated music. Twice yearly we held what was called "Pastoral Aires", in the church, celtic music with quality performers, local and 'from away'. The finale was a tangle of all the performers, including our fiddeling priest, in a set of jigs, reels and - in concession to the 'others'- the odd hornpipe. At my first event, a young girl, wraith thin and an impish grin threw off her heels, ascended the steps to the sancturary and danced. Her mother and several of her sisters joined her holding hands. It was as if all of us in the church were holding hands, like naive, happy children, children of the God who, I am confident, smiled with us.
G'wan widja man ! Yer
G'wan widja man ! Yer Careografatin' be the highest form o' sacramentizin' the world an' has ever' right to be part o' the worshippin' in the sacred space o' the chapel confines. As fer me ubiquitous blatherin's here-a - bouts, I've more than once't been forced to eat the humble pie an be about apologizin' fer goin' off half cocked ! As fer the gift o' the Blarney , I can only be aspirin' to the esteemed status of honorary Irishman, as the cruel Fates ha' consigned me genes to be wrought from a source alien to that brood ( barrin' the day O' St. Paddy when all men o' good will be charmed to partake in that ethereal realm ). Keep Prayin' fer the day that the clergy are touched by the light o' the arts and once agin' sing the joyous good news from the pulpit with a passion and zeal befitting the House O' The Almighty Lord !!! Thanks for the reflections on performance, and please feel welcome to instruct us on the rudiments of dance vocabulary. The meanings of designed movements are a critical part of Hawaiian ritual and Japanese Kabuki and Noh theater. I was a blessed witness to a performance of a George Balanchine Production of " A Mid Summer Night's Dream " presented by the Pacific Northwest Ballet in Seattle in the 1990's. A visiting artist from Central Asia was featured. It was truly a religious experience. The transmission of emotions was exhilarating, and I really appreciate all of the effort that goes into the entire enterprise. It makes me want to be a better person. Pray, do not tire from sharing your gift, if even only in words. We all need to know what it means to soar with the eagles.
Sainthood for John XXIII !!!
William, The Holy Spirit, in
William,
The Holy Spirit, in guiding souls into moral truth, does not say "no" to one man while saying "yes" to another. It is a sad fact that from time immemorial, men have claimed for themselves special "gnosis", special insight into truth, special understanding and superior wisdom - all the while trying to make black into white, and sin into righteousness. All such moral contortions are the pathetic work of evil.
A billion years can never make sin right. A billion sinners can never vote a lie into truth. A billion feelings to the contrary can never adapt God's design of the man and the woman, and their exclusive sexual communion, to same-sex desires. Sin remains sin.
Rev 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
May every sinner find repentance now, while the mercy of God is still extended.
Thomas
This is creepy, Thomas.
This is creepy, Thomas. Perhaps, its only part of the Halloween spirit, but I think it is time you made a distinction between your behavior and behavior you observe in others. I wonder if you might see that it is evil-doing to judge others the way you do. I think you might be falling into the group of "every one who loves and practices falsehood" when you state that God's mercy is finite and about to expire.
There have been some
There have been some significant recent developments in the campaign, developments which are showing us the TRUE colors of the republican candidates and the republican party.
For starts, McCains campaign staff have admitted to the press that McCain cannot win the election on his merits. Therefore, McCain and Palin have chosen to go on a HATE spree, doing whatever they can to destroy Obama's reputation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27018572/
This is a desperation move, and it says a great deal about the character of the republican candidates and the republican party as a whole. It also says a great deal about any Catholic that continues to support them.
Do we want a president that has to stoop to this level to win?
How can we respect our church leaders who continue to support McCain? By continuing to support him, they are admitting that they support deception and hate instead of authenticity and integrity.
Catholics who claim to be faithful, who claim to follow the teachings of the church, who continue to support McCain - are choosing to ignore behavior that is clearly against the basic tenets of our faith. What does that say about them.
The election has turned a corner. We now see what McCain and the republican party are clearly offering us .... LIES, DECEPTION, HATE ... is this really the candidate that we as faithful catholics wish to support?
AB Burke continues to voice support for the republican party in the light of these new developments. What does that tell us about him?
The issues that are facing this country have become irrelevant to the republican party. McCain's own staff admits that he cant win based on his merits. "Hate Your Neighbor" has become the campaign slogan of the republican party. Is this really what we as faithful catholics want to be associated with?
As Jesus cautioned us ... "let him who has an ear listen". The message is clear. Only a fool would ignore it.
This past Friday, Joe Biden
This past Friday, Joe Biden visited our community. A few women were standing in various places outside of the secured area, including in front of the doors to the newly named basilica, so that they could be seen by the people exiting. They held homemmade signs saying "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion"--implying that those Catholics attending were pro-abortion--"You can't be Catholic and pro-choice", and "I regret my abortion".
My reaction, since I'm not Catholic, was to want to reassure them that I had no intention of becoming Catholic. However, my ten-year-old daughter's reaction was, "I'm Catholic and who are they to say who can and can't be Catholic". Then she asked, "Mommy, what's abortion?".
My answer came from irritation. It was that abortion is what these women did because they couldn't take responsibility for their actions, which is still what these women were doing by claiming it was our fault that they made the choice that they now regret. So she said, "No, Mommy, what is abortion actually?".
I said, it is when a woman ends her pregnancy, which happens by having the baby killed and removed from her body. Her response was, "Why would anyone do such a thing, babies are so cute and nice?" I said, "Yes, not only are babies cute and nice, and who would want someone doing something so yucky as putting something into her body to kill a developing baby. It's all very disgusting."
We all usually refrain from judging women who have abortions the way I had judged them to my daughter, but maybe it's time for "You can't be Catholic if you had an abortion", "Your poor judgment is not my fault", and "Just because you can't take responsibility is no reason I should have the government checking under my skirt".
Way back when this topic
Way back when this topic first posted, I wrote "I like it!". However, my comment did not post, perhaps because I didn't say why I like it. I like this invention because I am 100% confident that the very people whose activities would become automated by the invention of the GASometer would find themselves in the goat classification.
The function of clergy is to convey moral teaching so that people can use that information in making life choices. It is not to judge others, but to walk with them on their spiritual journey. That is shepherding. What a few, like the Fr. O'Connor, are doing is GASometering.
Havin' not been much o' a
Havin' not been much o' a reader or scholar in this farce I been callin' me life, I'm beginnin' to be afeared o' addiction t' this group! Sim'lar backgrounds, where I was yanked up, I was surrounded by the most beautiful o' Italian and middle eastern tykes! Assyrian, Lebanese, wi' nice olive skin and beautiful black hair, and big brown eyes! I stuck out like a sore nose, (it'us usually red any ways, from bein' smacked b' one o' them Gaglianos or Lovoys, or Graffeos, or Marinos or Locasios, an' natuz just football!) bein' red headed and straggley at that, pale white skin wi' freckles bigger'n either eye, both o which was blue!
I'd be offerring ReyHinkley a word to the wise (listen t' me, goin' on about "wise" in this group!) Ye might be considerin', wi the refusal of the "chip" you'll just be progressin' yerself to the drinkin' of the Kool Aid!
Th' one word I didn't have t' look up, was one I don' hear mentioned alot anywheres t'day. that bein' humility. I knowed that'n. Can't conjure up seein' much o' it lately neither. I'm thinkin WOJO brung it up. Thanks WOJO!
I wouldn be being much o' a guest here if I'd not be thankin' ye all for bein' such a brightened and enlightened spot in me days o' late!
Gods love and all His gifts t' each o' ye!
Ed
Edard, you bring to mind
Edard, you bring to mind something someone said to me in a pub in, I believe, Co. Waterford on my first trip to Ireland: You're as welcome as the flowers in springtime. That statement of welcome will never leave my mind.
If you haven't read the book Frannie mentioned, Scott Pomfret's Since My Last Confession, I think you'd really enjoy it, for its flavor of Irish-American Catholicism, surely, but most of all for the humorous yet theologically incisive way in which he deals with Catholic issues today. It took me awhile to move beyond the humor of the book and realize it makes some important theological points, a central one of which is that it's through our flaws that the Spirit moves in our lives, and the collection of folks drawn together in the church is a flawed, comic, mess full of the Spirit.
William D. Lindsey
Thanks and welcome to ye
Thanks and welcome to ye Jimmy Boy ! It might be of interest to you that some vociferous contentiatin' has been indulged here on the topic of Liturgical Dance. We would be much obliged if you would wax poetic on the brilliant vocabulary of the Dance as a medium for tellin' the story of Salvation. I myself have witnessed a Solo interpretation of the Gospel and found it uplifting. Many of us are Choreographically illiterate and don't fully understand the depth of the expressions. Please be warned though that the Young Fogeys of Conservatism will see this as fresh meat for their Traditionalist agenda. But, what's life without the occasional Donnybrook or two, eh. Please feel free to share the ecstasy of presenting a excellent preparation of this sort. It surely requires alot of discipline and hard work, and qualifies along with singing as ' praying twice '. There is a significant absence of this sort of Beauty in the sacred spaces of worship, to which God himself must be sorely aggrieved.
Dear Bill and Everyone
Dear Bill and Everyone Else,
I've just found the most wonderful book. "Since My Last Confession" is a memoir by gay Boston Catholic Scott Pomfret. It's deliciously funny and heartbreakingly real
like a lot of the writing here, especially yours, Bill. I suspect that most of us have piles of to-be-read books around the house or office, but I would suggest that this one go right on top.
Happy reading! Frannie
If you all can get a copy of
If you all can get a copy of the WONDERFUL cd: "Because the Bible Tells Me So" Please do.
It's a great resource not only for personal viewing but also for church bible study and group discussion.
God's peace,
e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
Frannie, synchronicity! i
Frannie, synchronicity! i just bought Scott Pomfret's book two days ago. Since my fortune cookie at lunch today told me to read a good book for relaxation and escape, I had set it out to read--and now your message confirms that decision for me.
William D. Lindsey
Righto darlin Willy! I think
Righto darlin Willy!
I think ye'd be alludin' t' what I know as a Zen laugh! Ain't it?
Gods love and all His gifts to ye!
J. Edard!
You're all t' be commended
You're all t' be commended on your x'lent knowledge and scholarship! I'm grossly intimidated b' your vocabulary alone, I'm spendin' more and more time wi' me dictionary these days. But I'm learnin some, an' besides congratulatin' darlin' Willy D. on his droll (had to look it up!) sense of humor, I'm now findin' the courage (not a drop of it bein' liquid, mind ye!) to reply my own seeins in the matter.
Seems as how t' me, havin' Canon Law would require Canon Lawyers. It's seemin' t' me that a lawyer is a lawyer, is a lawyer, bein' it's Canon or New York! Would ye be thinkin', anything like meself, that if you're havin' more'n one lawyer in palaverin' proximity, life gets complicated and somebody usually loses somethin', mostly often ...money!
Would ye ever be considerin' that, when the Eucharist was 'stablished The Man said, "This is My body! Take ye of it and eat. This is My blood! Take ye of it and drink! Do ye this in comemoration of Me!" T' meself, those wishin to comemorate Him, would be polite and considerate enough to comemorate Him in a state o grace! At a comemoration, would you be walkin' the comemoree through a barnyard full o dung? I'd be thinkin' not! So! Bein' this comemoration is at the request and pleasure o the Comemoree, and it bein' that He offerred no caveats concernin' comemoratin'Him, I'd say that the state o the comemorators soul, at the time of comemoration is bein' business 'tween the two o them! I'd be wonderin' here, if, at the original feast, was the bread and the wine "consecrated" b any hand other than Christs hand? I realize that the bread was unlevened (I'm thinkin') but was it "sacramental' and if so how? An I'd be wonderin' the same about the wine. I do understand that the wine was NOT unlevened. (Is that anything like Manischevitz? He was Jewish, Ye know?)
OK! Enough o th pussyfootin 'round it! I think witholdin of th sacraments is nothin but judgement and arrogant power, and the attempt at displaying that arrogance an' power! For th life o me, I can't remember once in the whole "book", it bein' reported o' Jesus withholdin' His Blessing form anyone! An fair certain that He blest some pretty black souls! I'm thinkin it's power and arrogance o them that wants power and admires arrogance! Tain't soundin' Christlike t'me!
Would that God be blessin' all o you and all o yours!
Ed
Och ! Faith and
Och ! Faith and Begorrah, wouldn't ya be havin' the right of it me boyo ! And your man from Galilee, be only givin' the silent treatment to a couple o' Gombeen men , your Roman Procurator Pilate and King Herod , a poltroon o' the first order.
Ah! Darlin' Willy D.! You're
Ah! Darlin' Willy D.!
You're provin' that you be what me baby darlin' is callin' "one o them deep thoughters!" I meself, would be beggin' an indulgence, if you will! Could ya be fittin' some sort o logic into your machine, to be disincludin' those much like meself? That'ud be those of us possesin' personalities o such magnetism, it'd be discombobulatin' your 'lectronic circuitry! T'would certainly save some red faces and raised eyebrows on a fine Sunday mornin! I'd be much obliged if you'd be considerin' me request in this matter.
Just by way of introduction, me father's Grama was a Gallagher, and very much like yourself, sometimes... I really crack me up!
May God be blessin' you and yours!
Ed
Now that you raise the
Now that you raise the point, Jimmy Lad, them machines would need to have logic enough to detect the magnetic personalities of sheep who ring up as goats, wouldn't they now? Otherwise, church could become a lively place of chaos and mirth, with the pillars of the community setting off the machines every fine Sunday mornin'.
Thanks for complimenting my attempts at humor. I've often thought that it's with the Irish as with the Jewish people (and gays): have to laugh instead of crying, though I've seen quite a bit of both on the Irish side of my family, and sometimes in the same sentence!
William D. Lindsey
The original question stated
The original question stated in this forum topic, gave a humorous twist to a very serious issue in the Church today---'Who May Receive Communion?'. The thrust of the discussion centered around the fact that in some parishes (Opus Dei's, traditionalist, etc.), people who are gay, lesbian, divorcees---may not receive communion---must repent before receiving Communion. The heart of this topic centered on William's statement that "Traditional Catholic theology has--wisely--left the question of who or who is not worthy to approach the altar up to God, the individual believer's conscience and the sacred seal of confession---where the believer is supposed to speak (parlay) in total privacy with the confessor."
We then, had a posting which marched many saints' teachings before us on the subject of "Receiving the Eucharist Unworthily". We have St. Basil telling us that communion may be denied a man who marries his brother's wife (what if she is a widow and he a widower?). Or that a woman over the age of 60 may not marry (in past centuries where marriage was often arranged, often only a contract between families and/also the litigimate means to procreate children---a woman at 60+ could not conceive children---and shouldn't marry. In the Church's mind at that time was---'Hey what does companionship or "Love Got to Do With It"--You took a husband? No Communion for YOU, you scandalous old biddy!)
Saints Timothy and Augustine's teachings get a hearing as well---no communion to heretics, or to those who receive Communion with contempt or derision (for Jesus?).
Even the Poverello of Assisi has his exhortations to the clergy cited to keep the vessels and linens clean--out of respect for the Body and Blood of Jesus which touch them. (Francis would weep out loud if he could see the state of some vessels and linens in Italy's churches today---filthy---and left like that by the priests, bishops etc. He'd probably gather them up and wash them himself).
But the question remains, "How does the priest (arch/bishop), Eucharistic minister know the soul of the one coming before them to receive Communion? They Don't! Only God knows that, the person receiving Communion (herself/himself) and that person's Confessor.
In coming to Communion, we are not receiving a THING---we are receiving a Person--who loves us so much, that nothing stopped Jesus from giving us completely of himself. In this union with Christ, we stand in the truth of his gaze and love---in our nakedness of who and what we are--persons embraced by the Divine Persons of the Trinity who love us with the same love in which they love each other and who make space for us within their own Eternal Embrace. Jesus, in dying upon the cross, embraced all, disciples, friends, sinners, even enemies.
Eucharist is a ritual time in which we celebrate this Divine "making space for us and inviting us in." What happens to us must be done by us. Having been embraced by God, we must make space for others in ourselves and invite them in. In receiving Christ's broken body and blood, we in a sense receive all those whom Christ received through his suffering. The others of that embrace are not just the brothers and sisters who 'observe every jot and title of the law'---those inside of the self-enclosed ecclesial community. The other is also the so-called sinner. All are taken into the embrace by being forgiven and called "brother" and "sister."
We who have been embraced by the outstretched arms of the crucified God, open our arms even for sinners (among whom we are also), to make space in the church, at the Communion line, and in ourselves for them and invite them in, so that together we may rejoice in the Eternal Embrace of the Triune God.
If we do any less, we are denying those for whom Jesus gave up his life.
Little Bear ~ In my heart
Little Bear ~ In my heart you are a true Catholic whom I would hold up as an example of why I remain in the Church.
It is one thing to be right.
It is one thing to be right. It is another to proclaim the truth in glorious, shimmering language.
"In coming to Communion, we
"In coming to Communion, we are not receiving a THING---we are receiving a Person--who loves us so much, that nothing stopped Jesus from giving us completely of himself. In this union with Christ, we stand in the truth of his gaze and love..."
And in coming we also are GIVING a person, our self!
A part of one of the Eucharistic Prayers of our sacramental liturgy (The Great Thanksgiving, Rite One, Eucharistic Prayer 1) says:
"And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him."
...
I think if those offering and receiving the Bread of Life paid attention to the HOLY RELATIONSHIP given by Grace in this amazing sacrament - I mean REALLY paid attention - we would be so bowled over by this generosity of this gift that we would cease the destructive conduct of starving each other of God's spiritual nourishment.
The sacrament is a COMMUNION!
God-willing, such a communion of FLESH and BLOOD - including our own incarnational lives, truly will become a transformative meal as we come to realize what we are eating and what we, too, are offering, in JOYFUL SACRIFICE - the meaning of the Eucharist.
Pauls says this:
"I appeal to you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present yourselves as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." (Romans 12:1)
Why is this hard?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
Little Bear, Thank you.
Little Bear,
Thank you. Beautiful theology of what communing with the Lord both in the sacrament and in the body of Christ is all about, if we get beyond the "economic" theory that some of us earn such communion and others don't. It surprises (and saddens) me to see how deeply that false theology now tinges the approach of many American Catholics to all sorts of issues. If only we had more wise teachers like you to remind us of what we really believe, if we accept what the Eucharist is all about.
William D. Lindsey
William, you asserted,
William, you asserted, "Traditional Catholic theology has—wisely—left the question of who or who is not worthy to approach the altar up to God. And to the individual believer’s conscience."
I thought we had put that mistaken understanding of Church history to rest a while ago. Maybe not.
The following is from a paper on the issue of denying communion, here:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
-------------------------------
Saint Basil the Great, in his First Letter on the Canons, indicates that the man who marries his brother's wife is not to be permitted to receive Holy Communion, until he separates from her. [12] He, likewise, declares that the widow who takes a husband after her sixtieth year is not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until <
The fonts of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches also include a text of Saint Timothy of Alexandria, which underlines the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Blessed Sacrament to a public sinner. The question is posed: Whether it is permitted to give Holy Communion to a heretic who presents himself to receive amidst a large crowd? Saint Timothy of Alexandria responds that it is not permitted to give Holy Communion to the heretic, even if he is not recognized in the huge crowd. He comments that the one who gives Holy Communion to the heretic in such a situation, that is, not recognizing the heretic in the crowd, <
Saint Augustine, in Sermon 227, preached to the newly-baptized on Easter Sunday, comments on the text of Saint Paul regarding worthy reception of Holy Communion. Giving the newly baptized a fuller catechesis on the Holy Eucharist, he instructs them:
What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don't let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it's received, it's eaten, it's consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor's laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don't let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don't see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end. [16]
Saint Augustine draws the attention of the newly-baptized to the reality of the Eucharistic species, the glorious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, cautioning them, lest in looking upon the species, which passes away, they fail or forget to recognize that the reality, the substance, is eternal, that is, never passes away. Saint Augustine's text recalls to mind the words of Pope John Paul II about the invisible dimension of Holy Communion, which demands that those who stubbornly remain in "manifest grave sin" be denied the Sacrament. [17]
Saint Francis of Assisi addressed the question of the indiscriminate distribution of Holy Communion in his Letter or Exhortation to the Clergy. Saint Francis, first of all, lamented the lack of care for the sacred vessels and sacred linens, which hold and touch the Body and Blood of Christ, on the part of the clergy, the ministers of Holy Communion. He, then, addressed their responsibility to attend to their own worthiness and to the right disposition of those who present themselves to receive. He declared:
And besides, many clerics reserve the Blessed Sacrament in unsuitable places, or carry It about irreverently, or receive It unworthily, or give It to all-comers without distinction. [18]
With regard to the reception of Holy Communion, Saint Francis underlined two solemn moral obligations of the minister of Holy Communion: first, the obligation to be personally disposed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ worthily, and, second, the obligation to give Holy Communion with discretion, that is, with attention to those who, in a public way, have made themselves unworthy to receive the Sacrament.
-------------------
Thomas
Thomas, What a shame that
Thomas,
What a shame that you spend so much of your Faith and time exploring and explaining how to deny Communion (Christ) to others. This is a great tragedy that you waste your time and Faith in doing this activity and promoting such cruel and unloving behavior instead of being in true Communion with Christ, being grateful for Christ’s love, teaching the Gospels, bringing His love, healing and peace into the world. Instead you induce the premature labor of shame, guilt, judgment and punishment, lay burdens upon your neighbors destructively and selfishly and prevent them from coming to the Lord who can save them by Faith in Him. Acts in this spirit of denial of Christ in Communion to others is anathema to Christ's “new commandment� which is over two thousand years old now - and not so new anymore except to those “born again� of the Spirit, is for us to “love one another as I have loved you.�
In my heart is the word of God and His words live there. His words do not go in one ear and out the other, but are in my heart and soul and mind. How shall I prove to you that God exists and that God is love? The existence of God, His nature is divine love, and is shown to us through Jesus Christ's love for us. You do know how He suffered for us, right Thomas? Do I need to quote the scriptures for you to accept my word as truth? How often those He loved did not listen to Him, yet He did not shun the disciples or give up on them or lay additional burdens on them. It is all written in the Gospels, the accounts of Jesus' love, patience and mercy, the virtues we learn from Him and they are the same virtues from the Father's good nature that He teaches us. How patient and merciful He is with all of us. Even after being nailed to a cross He said “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.�
Communion is all about Jesus Christ and His love, not about judgments made by men. Who is worthy of the greatest gift of all - His love? Are we not all worthy of His gift of Love if we have Faith in Him? While you might spend your Faith in considerable energy and time in finding fault or sin in others, the fault and sin is in judging and judgment, which is not accorded to you or anyone else, but reserved for Jesus Christ.
"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Only say the word and I shall be healed."
If people are receiving unworthily they will bring judgment upon themselves. But the judgment is reserved for Jesus Christ. He, the Teacher, through His Holy Spirit teaches us in His ways. He instructs. He corrects. He reminds. He brings us to His way of love. He provides grace and He can take away.
Do not make the error of thinking you can replace Jesus and His Holy Spirit and make yourself higher than Him, higher than His role that was given to Him by His Father, Our God, as the supreme Judge of all. No one is higher than God and only God is good. Judgment is reserved for His Son, Jesus Christ. There is virtue necessary for you and Opus Dei and anyone else who thinks they are equal or higher than Jesus Christ in judging others and desiring to deny Communion (Christ). I pray to our merciful Father that while we are all lacking in some of the virtues and may sin without knowing it for lack of virtue, that He will provide the virtues and love necessary for us to truly love one another. I pray that you will let Jesus be the Judge and let Him lead the way through His Holy Spirit and His living Word. Let His word come alive in your heart, mind and soul. Judge not. Amen.
St. Basil, St Timothy, St.
St. Basil, St Timothy, St. Augustine, and St. Francis (perhaps he more than the others you enumerate) all struggled with the incarnational truths of their respective conversions. Et tu?
As you did not see fit to answer a previous question from one your previous judgments I repeat it here in hope that you will consider what I ask in light of your persistent and very abstracted judgments. Here, most terribly, in your easy embrace of excommunication: the separation of a child of God from the Table of the Lamb:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Thomas, I noticed on a previous thread that you castigated a participant for focusing on concepts rather than 'real life' (I think that's how you put it.) I am in strong agreement with you regarding the importance of connecting moral, ethical and, especially, religious judgment with real life. To me, 'real life' means real people.
...
My question to you, therefore, is the same question I put to myself daily: What particular, unique, REAL person have you cared for today in fulfillment of your moral commitment? By real person,I mean, flesh-and-blood living human being in close proximity to your lived daily life. Have you EVER opened your home or life ... I don't mean the generalized category... I mean a specific,unique, real, living (world). Have you, in effect, 'kissed the leper'?
Have you ever experienced genuine, personal joy in embracing someone whose sinful life - often, in my experience, a life shaped by economic or social conditions - YOU could change simply by walking with them IN THEIR LIFE?
I ask these two questions as a genuine query. When I read your posts they seem so full of a kind abstracted yet powerful rage that I wonder how removed you are or have become from the creature-world around you. All that world with all its contingencies and perils is also the world of abundant color and experience that, Thanks be to God, comprises an invitation to us all every day to become INTIMATELY involved with: skin-to-skin, face-to-face.
Concepts can't stand in for real life and certainly never for real faith. It is precisely the concrete and intimate involvement with the brokenness of the world Christ forms us to work God's Kingdom in, that is the thing we are called to love. I beg you, don't forgo that wonderful gift for the thin gruel of an angry righteousness.
~~~~~
Do you realize the terrible spiritual trauma that is the consequence of excommunication?
Or is just another one of those abstracted 'moral principles' that you have elevated to your personal quest to enforce?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
Thomas, I learn so much from
Thomas, I learn so much from your posts. Women over 60 are not permitted to marry? I love it. Is that because sex is so yukky it soils the dignity of old women? Or because she can no longer bear children? Are men over 60 likewise barred? If not, why not. Has the law changed? What other laws are changeable?
Is the sister-in-law rule based on Deuteronomy? If it is, why are not other prohibitions from the book enforced.?
I love the one about women
I love the one about women over 60 not being allowed to marry in the church also. In another post, thomas said it was because of a fear of the passion she must have that must be involved in such a decision!! We can only hope!
Then you are going to really
Then you are going to really love this one:
My ex had a hysterectomy while we were married. When she asked about an annulment after the divorce, she was told not to bother. Because she was unable to have any more children, she could not remarry in the church, and as a result of that, her request for an annulment would never be approved.
But, it gets even better.
When I inquired about an annulment, I was told it was an open and shut case. All I had to do was say that I divorced her because she could have no more children because of the hysterectomy and it would sail through without any problems.
Interesting isnt it, that all I had to do was lie, and I could be remarried in the church with the blessing of the church.
My ex did nothing wrong, other than have a medical procedure to save her life. Even during the most difficult parts of the divorce proceedings she conducted herself in a way that exemplified the teachings of Christ. In spite of that, the church has abandoned her.
If this were an isolated case it would be one thing. It is not!
This is the church that claims to be the one true church
This is the church that claims to be descended from the apostles
This is the church that claims to be guardian of the deposit of faith
This is not true.
This is not true. Infertility is not an impediment to marriage in the Church. Impotence is, but not infertility. Where did you get this "information"?
Wait, wait, AnnieO. It's
Wait, wait, AnnieO. It's not women over 60, it's widows over 60. This is very technical. It's important to get it exactly right. If a woman has never been married, then it's OK if she marries after age 60, but if she has been married and her husband of 40 years dies, then she should throw herself on his funeral pyre--Oh wait, now I'm getting carried away. She should mourn indefinitely or choose not to partake of communion. What could make more sense than that? What dead husband would want her to do anything else but to spend the next twenty to forty years of her life in despair? On the other hand the widower over 60 should make haste lest his little sperm people begin to disintegrate within him instead of coming to life in someone's womb. Oh for a return to the good, old days of 329 AD to 379 AD...
ah, you are so right again!
ah, you are so right again! But since church teaching never changes in any way, I guess that everyone that might now disagree with that would be a dissenter who should be excommunicated for thinking there might be something strange in the teaching...
...oh, I forget myself. Either they should be shunned at communion for being a public sinner, or they should be shunned at communion because they have dissented from the teaching that says that they should have known that they had "self"-excommunicated. Do I have it right this time? :-)
Yes, I'd say you have it
Yes, I'd say you have it exactly right now. The point is, if there is any reason at all that someone can think of why someone else should not go to communion, then the someone else should not go to communion and the someone who judges is A O K!
Thomas, thank you for making
Thomas, thank you for making Archbishop Burke's position paper available. It represents one among several positions of the U.S. Catholic bishops about this issue--one I obviously do not share.
I'm sorry you clipped my statement in what you quoted above. You omitted an important part of my argument, the statement about the sacred seal of confession. It's necessary to include that statement to see my argument in full. It reads, "Traditional Catholic theology has—-wisely—-left the question of who or who is not worthy to approach the altar up to God. And to the individual believer’s conscience. And to the sacred seal of confession, at which the conscience of the believer is supposed to parlay in total privacy with a confessor."
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (1415), "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance."
To the best of my knowledge, the longstanding tradition has NOT been to require Eucharistic watchdogs, either among the celebrants or the congregation, to assure that some "unworthy" communicants do not approach the communion rail. To the best of my knowledge (and experience), the decision about who is worthy or unworthy to do so has wisely been left to the individual believer in consultation with her or his confessor.
I regard it as quite an innovation to begin sorting the goats and the sheep now, when we make decisions about to whom to give communion. This is a departure from longstanding Catholic practice, and practice that, in my view, is wise and pastorally sound.
I am afraid I see Archbishop Burke's approach as not so wise and not so pastorally sound.
William D. Lindsey
Thomas's post quotes Bishop
Thomas's post quotes Bishop Burke, I assume, in the following statment: Saint Augustine's text recalls to mind the words of Pope John Paul II about the invisible dimension of Holy Communion, which demands that those who stubbornly remain in "manifest grave sin" be denied the Sacrament. [17]
This is what I don't understand: How does casting a vote equate to stubbornly remaining in manifest grave sin? What is the grave sin? What is the proof that a particular vote ever causes someone to have an abortion that they would not have had if the vote had been cast in the other direction?
I can understand that the person who makes his or her living doing abortions could be seen as stubbornly remaining in manifest grave sin. I can understand that the person who actively promotes abortion could be seen as stubbornly contributing to manifest grave sin. However, I cannot understand how preventing the government from intruding into people's medical decisions, which defaults into protecting their right not to have the government prevent them from ending their pregnancies, is stubbornly remaining in manifest grave sin.
William, perhaps you understand Thomas's perspective. I don't.
Hello Marie, The rightful
Hello Marie,
The rightful concern of government is the protection and advancement of the common good. Murder is contrary to the common good. Protection of the innocent and vulnerable is the rightful concern of government, and part of the protection of the common good.
Hence, protection of abortion rights is protection of the "right" to murder the innocent and vulnerable - indeed the most innocent and the most vulnerable among us. Protection of abortion rights is contrary to the common good, and is a grave violation of the common good, and is a grave abuse of the power of government. Protection of abortion rights is participation in abortion itself, a grave evil.
Abortion is NOT merely "ending THEIR pregnancies." Abortion is killing of an innocent human person, even in the protective womb of the poor child's mother. Can a greater contradiction be imagined?
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly; I am certainly not the gold standard of truth - the Church, however, is.
Thomas
Well, Thomas, if the person
Well, Thomas, if the person in the womb was anywhere near being able to survive on its own and was killed by the abortion procedure instead of being delivered out of its mother, I would agree with you. However, most pregnancies are not ended at the point unless the fetus is guaranteed not to live upon birth.
Marie, we are digressing
Marie, we are digressing from the oroginal post quite a bit now, and so I am conflicted about resdponding to your post. However, I feel I must, considering the gravity of error that you put forth - it demands correction.
Please realize the implications of your logic. You are saying that any dependent child may be killed in the womb - he/she is not worthy of life except at the discretion of the mother, because he/she is completely dependent on the mother for life. If and when that child is able to survive on his/her own (relatively speaking, of course - any new-born child would die if not cared for for some time following birth), then and only then, in your logic, does the child deserve protection and life.
You imply that any person who depends on another for life, may be killed - they cannot survive on their own, hence they may be killed. Thus, the Nazis win. The elderly, the sick, the retarded, all the weak and the vulnerable - the "social leeches" who are burdens on the strong - all these cannot pull their own weight, and are dispensable. They may be killed, as the strong determine and decide.
Please rethink your position, Marie. I cannot believe that you, or any sane and humane person, would follow this way of thinking to its barbaric logical conclusions. It is insane - it is death, to side with the strong against the weak in this way. It is exactly "the culture of death". This is why we must stand up for the weak and the poor and the vulnerable, and speak out for those without voices (or votes!) The most innocent and the most vulnerable, especially, deserve what all human persons deserve - to live until natural death.
Thomas
Thomas, from the perspective
Thomas, from the perspective of the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, the unborn child may be vulnerable, but it is far from innocent. It is the reason she is nauseated and tired, the reason she might lose her job, the reason her future looks threatening. Her pregnancy will leave a lasting impact on her body if she continues it, even if she eventually does rid herself of the responsibility of caring for the child. Do you really think that the way to counteract her perspective is to make it illegal for her to do something about her unfortunate situation?
Marie, You have presented
Marie,
You have presented one of the most self-centered and immature arguments for abortion that I've heard. Such a perspective, such an "all about me" world-view, is so antithetical to a Christian heart that I wonder what Forum I have drifted onto. Such an argument as you present (I pray that it is not your own personal thinking!) could justify any murder of any person who makes another's life "difficult" for any reason.
Law exists to protect the innocent and vulnerable from the strong and selfish. We need such laws, because of such godless and self-concerned egos as you describe.
The child did nothing to be conceived, and has done nothing to deserve murder. Does the mother and the father bear no responsibility?
Thomas
"Grievous error":
"Grievous error": abstracting human life in the service of platitudes...
"The Pedagogy of Conversion": engaging incarnate life for the purpose of understanding...
My question to you is the same question I asked way back:
"What particular, unique, REAL person have you cared for today in fulfillment of your moral commitment? By real person,I mean, flesh-and-blood living human being in close proximity to your lived daily life. Have you EVER opened your home or life ... I don't mean the generalized category... I mean a specific,unique, real, living (world). Have you, in effect, 'kissed the leper'?
Have you ever experienced genuine, personal joy in embracing someone whose sinful life - often, in my experience, a life shaped by economic or social conditions - YOU could change simply by walking with them IN THEIR LIFE?
I ask these two questions as a genuine query. When I read your posts they seem so full of a kind abstracted yet powerful rage that I wonder how removed you are or have become from the creature-world around you. All that world with all its contingencies and perils is also the world of abundant color and experience that, Thanks be to God, comprises an invitation to us all every day to become INTIMATELY involved with: skin-to-skin, face-to-face.
Concepts can't stand in for real life and certainly never for real faith. It is precisely the concrete and intimate involvement with the brokenness of the world Christ forms us to work God's Kingdom in, that is the thing we are called to love. I beg you, don't forgo that wonderful gift for the thin gruel of an angry righteousness."
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
Ah! WOJO! It's bein'
Ah! WOJO!
It's bein' entirely darlin' o ya, t' even be considerin' th' analogous EAGLE flight! Th' closest I've come t' anythin' even aproachin' EAGLENESS, would be the quite obvious baldness we're sharin! Havin' sported a "ponytail" for these past 30 sumodd years, folks are inclined to be accusin' me of "growin'" it! Well! it's just so happenin', that me formerly red, hair, just keeps slidin' off me head and down the back of me, formerly red, neck!
Howsomever I'm afeared, I'm strayin' much too far away from th' intent o this discussion! That, in me own mind, bein' th' automatic discernment, by the "scowlin' howlies," o' the difernces, 'twixt them that's goats and them that's sheep! I'd perty much be wagerin', dimes, dollars or donuts, money, marbles or chalk, that a goat, by God' is a goat! And a sheep, by God, is a sheep! It's, them times bein', when there's sheep p'radin' 'round as goats an' vicey versey, what's causin' this here! An it ain't really jus th' goats an sheep, no really! Ain't It! Seems as how we got all kinds o' critters, put here, by God, t' be one thing, an' then stemmin' from pride, person, 'r mis-guided neccessity, p'radin' theirsel's 'round as somethin' they ain't. An here's commin' ole Willy D.,ain't he somethin', wi' a doozy o s'lution! I'd certainly 'mire to be possesin' that'uns tek-nickel acumenities! It's amazin' t' me, how ye all r' so knowin', an I still ain't figgered out why the good Lord'd be for puttin' public hairs 'roud ye privits! I'm concludin', tain't no bizniz o' mine! It bein' God's to know! An further on, tain't no bizniz o th' scowlin howlies. 'F I got public hairs, then they'us put there by God! An I ain't 'bout to be questionin' their placements. "F it'us doin' harm t' 'nother o' Gods critters, then I'd be for changin' or questionin. 'F it'us doin' harm t' me I'd be screamin like a banshee in th' black o nite! Me faith tells me that God knows what He's doin'! Me question God? Ain't I got 'nuff troubles jus bein' Catholic and Irish? Me question th' scowlin howlies? They ain't God! They jus scowl an' then howl 'bout how sinful I'm bein' an' where t' send th' money!
Stealthily alludin' back to the item o' terpsichorean type o' worshipin' in th' House o' Th' Almighty , I just know that, at this age o'me, if I'm doin' it in respect for the Lord, an it ain't hurtin', He's prob'ly smilin!
God loves you all! And so do I!
James Edward