A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


Phoenix Restricts Communion Cup

Well, the times they are a'changin' in Phoenix. Like those in most US dioceses, Catholics in Phoenix have routinely received communion under both species, but now Bishop Olmsted is putting a stop to THAT. Announcing a forthcoming decree, the diocese's Communications Office indicates that the cup will be shared with hoi polloi only on the very limited occasions mandated by the new GIRM or specially permitted by the bishop (patronal feasts, e.g.), and sometimes not even then, depending on whether the appropriate conditions for doing so are met.Why? Several reasons are given for keeping the laity from the cup:1. The risk of profanation by, e.g., spillage or swilling. (Swilling? Really? Is this an issue in Phoenix?)2. It's not required for salvation to receive under both species. It's just a fuller sign of Holy Communion. (Um...isn't that a good thing?) 3. It will make special feast days more special, since only then will the cup be offered. (Of course, that's exactly what some Protestant churches say when explaining why they only have Communion monthly or quarterly...)4. Most Catholics in the world don't receive under both species, so it's an act of solidarity with the world Church. (odd--I'd think that a better approach might be to help see to it that other Catholics in the world DO have Communion under both species,)5."In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied." Ah!! Now we're getting to it. The Q&A reiterates this point:

As highlighted in the GIRM, the practical need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary (or lay) ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species.

In fact, this is why the cup may not be offered to the laity even on the limited occasions mentioned in the GIRM:

For example, let's say a pastor deemed it appropriate to have Holy Communion under both species on the feast of Corpus Christi, but his particular situation would necessitate a dozen extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. While he and a deacon would be the only ordinary ministers, it is common sense that he would not be able to judge the necessary conditions as met.

Let me be clear--I've been at Masses where it was unwise to offer Communion under both species, and so we shared only the host. But to take the cup away from the laity of an entire diocese?The backstory goes like this: in 2001, an indult was granted that allowed for much wider reception of the Eucharist under both species in the US. That indult expired in 2005 and was not renewed. While the 2001 indult clearly recognized the bishop's authority in deciding how widespread the practice of receiving in both forms was to be, the language of the request made a clear and beautiful case for the cup being offered to the laity:

Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience "a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet."

But not in Phoenix any more.


Commenting Guidelines

Oh, and let's not overlook "confecting the eucharist".I just love this phrase: Turns the eucharist into some kind of manufactured product.Seriously, I combed through for any reference to:+ 'priest'+ 'presbyter'+ 'bishop'+ "confecting the eucharist"+ "sacred host" (even the word 'host')No luck.Not a single reference.When will Catholics assert "Enough with this papal and episcopal lunacy!" We're not gonna' take it anymore!"???

I've been a Eucharistic Minister for 36 years, serving in in at least 4 states and participating in numerous liturgies abroad. From that perspective, I'd like to offer some observations and thoughts about this decision which I find both deeply troublesome and very sad. The only spillage I have ever seen was by a deacon who knocked over a cup of consecrated wine ON the altar. I've thought about asking some friends with high speed cameras to photograph a mockup of the fractionation rite. I suspect that thousands of microscopic particles of consecrated bread go flying into the atmosphere. Isn't that a far more likely source of profanation - if one considers the accidental spillage or dropping of crumbs a profanation?The percentage of folks who receive the cup seems to be a matter of geography and culture. Anglos in the Mountain West where I live now seem to have a higher percentage expecting and receiving the cup than in the Eastern parishes I visit regularly. Hispanic parishioners in my current parish show less tendency to receive from the cup, but that is changing with catechesis.We have been told by the Bishops that on Nov 27, we will still have the same Mass, but we will have a deeper appreciation because of the more explicit references to Scripture. Folks here on this blog have already mentioned that Jesus is pretty explicit about "take and drink". Another important Scriptural reference that makes a strong connection to the cup is the query Jesus makes to the Apostles: "Can you drink the cup which I will drink?" Why is it important to return to more obscure references to a centurion but be willing to ignore direct commands and important connections to the sacrifice of our Lord. Does anyone know whether a renewal of the indult was requested by the bishops? If so, was it denied or never responded to?

Per the reply to Mary:".......Since the priest celebrant takes the place of Christ the High Priest at mass, he must receive both the precious blood and sacred body of the Lord; as is the tradition of temple worship in Israel and has been the tradition of Catholic worship for 2000 years. This is not about clericalism or power, this is about the requirements of sacrifice as laid out in the Old Testament. Christ the perfect High Priest offered his very body and blood as he poured out his life for many on the altar of the cross. It is this action repeated by our priest."Sacrifice as laid out in the OT - for real? Thought that Jesus came to complete the OT especially some of the Temple rituals. This paragraph makes no sense when he is also refuting any notion of "clericalism".It goes along with doing this because "most" catholics in the world do not receive the cup; unity thus equals uniformity; It can be the cause of profanation - would guess that there is more profanation with our little hosts than with the cup?His first paragraph makes no sense either - when did total reception of the cup become required or we do not have a "full" sign of unity? My experience is the opposite of his - very few do not take the cup - a small minority. So, we legislate based upon the exception and an assumed minority? And if a specific situation does indicate that most do not receive - than, address that specific situation; find out why; do catechesis but don't withdraw or punish the rest?It presumes to start not with Jesus and the eucharist but with ordination, high priest, cleric with little mention of the eucharistic community.

Irene, your question points to something that I also view as problematic: only men can be instituted as acolytes. However, that restriction is of a legal nature, and the law could be changed. Not that I expect it to be changed soon - but it could. And certainly, the tens of thousands of women who faithfully offer the Body and Blood of Christ every weekend in American parishes is powerful witness that it could - and, in my opinion, should.

Regarding scripture's views on this: I just think that 1 Cor 11 is pretty good evidence that, in the church at Corinth, the church drank from the cup.In fairness to Phoenix, it appears that they are not taking it away completely, but seriously restricting its availability.

"Since the priest celebrant takes the place of Christ the High Priest at mass..."Is this not a novel understanding of the role of the presider at the sacred liturgy?Unless one or more of my historical sources are wrong, the primitive, unordained liturgical presider fulfilled this duty by maintaining order in the assembly and receiving the gifts of the people for offering to God through Jesus the High Priest. Christ was seen as the High Priest, not the presider.Now we're told that the "priest" (a term --- given its current understanding/acceptance --- with which I strongly disagree) "takes the place of Christ the High Priest..."Yes, I know the Phoenix reply is "orthodox".It's also inconsistent with the understanding of our primitive ancestors in the faith.Another manifestation of the sick, dysfunctional clerical culture, to wit, the unnecessary and unwarranted elevation of the ordained at the expense of the rest of us.Thanks, but no thanks.

Per Mark J: Ken, do you really think that Bishop Olmsted made this decision for financial reasons? . .I am simply saying that this man ought to be left to run the diocese over which he has been given the responsibility and authority, and to do so in the manner he, that in his judgment and view on-the-ground there, thinks best.Why people feel inclined to chime in on the particulars of the Phoenix diocese, to second-guess the local bishop, escapes me.

Ken, we are worried that he is part of a trend. Coming soon to a bishop near you! We are watching with disbelief, perplexity, and growing anxiety as we see that every little change that happens is separating us a little more from the ordained.

"It goes along with doing this because most catholics in the world do not receive the cup; unity thus equals uniformity;"Bill deH. --Isn't this mindset which mistakes uniformity for unity at the bottom of much that is wrong with the hierarchy? For them unity is a matter of repetition, a matter of producing the same thing over and over and over, like a machine does. Contrast machines with things which are alive, things which need to develop and produce their different but integral parts. The hierarchy sees the faithful as machines with about as much brains as robots, doing the same things over and over and over even from generation to generation. Just keep those cogs and wheels running, and you're considered a successful bishop. But the Body of Christ is an organism, and as such it needs to develop different parts which are integral to the whole, parts which allow it to adjust to and serve in different environments. Unfortunately, when you treat what is essentially an organism like a machine, it dies.

Bender Where did you possibly get the idea that . . . ______________Mr. Buechel -- after one has received the Host, and thereby received the entirety of Jesus and the fullness of grace, why would anyone want or feel the need for more? What is the justification for wanting or needing more?If someone receives and consumes the Host, and then walks away disappointed or resentful or wanting more, then he has effectively totally ignored the graces that he has just received. He has effectively left those graces up at the altar.If someone is going to be resentful or disappointed in receiving only the Host, it is perhaps better that he or she not go up for Communion in the first place. Receiving our Lord in the Eucharist is not an occasion for disappointment or resentment or rage against the bishop or the priest or this or that.

Joe J.,While we agree on this thread in that it is wrong to withhold the cup from people unless for grave reasons, in your most recent post you seem to question the very nature of the role of a priest. Am I correct? Could you explain more? AA

Benders idea that we should obey the bishop in all things is not actually what one finds in conservative parishes, esp. if the bishops is perceived to be liberal. _____________I guess that means that Bender is not a "conservative Catholic" or a "liberal Catholic," in addition to not being a "radical traditionalist" (rad-trad) or a "progressive Catholic." And that would be correct.

Thanks David G (10/05/2011 - 10:43 am), for the note on possible transmission of disease through the medium of a common cup. Good to know that it's not considered dangerous. For myself, though, I'd not want to take the chance. Fortified wine might kill most germs, but most of the saliva in question probably doesn't have a chance to become diluted in the wine. Personal choice.

Bender Where did you possibly get the idea that there were people claiming that to receive the host only is to receive half Jesus? . . . ______________Mr. Buechel I'm sorry, I should have read further before responding to you.Where did I get that idea? Please speak to Mr. DeHaas about that, especially regarding his comment that "restricting eucharist to one symbol decreases and minimizes the eucharist . . ." The Host is NOT mere symbol, but the Real Presence, and the Host is NOT a minimized Jesus. The complete Jesus is present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Host.And in receiving solely the Host, one who is properly disposed to receive, and is thereby full open to grace, attains the fullness of communion with the Lord, that is, our body and blood become one with His Body and Blood, our soul becomes one with His Soul, we are two become one, i.e. "communion." This relationship of love is fully attained in the Host alone.

Since the priest celebrant takes the place of Christ the High Priest at massIs this not a novel understanding of the role of the presider at the sacred liturgy?______________And Mr. Jaglowicz, for your sake, please let go of the rage before you have a brain aneurysm. Seriously.As for the priest acting in persona Christi and as an alter Christus, that is only as novel as the Second Vatican Council, which re-emphasized that ancient understanding of Holy Orders.

Benders idea that we should obey the bishop in all things is not actually what one finds in conservative parishes, esp. if the bishops is perceived to be liberal._____________One more point on this and then I'm going to go have dinner. Yes, we should follow our bishops. That too is a primary teaching of the Council -- "bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ." LG 20.As a mere humble servant, it is right to do as the bishop says, even if we might do otherwise were we the bishop.For example, I would NOT have made some of the word choices in the new translation of the Mass were it up to me. It is not up to me, though. So, even though I think that some of the translations are less than optimum, and some are needlessly clunky, as a servant, I will joyfully say the new words. Even though I personally might have done things differently, I will defend the new translations.

"bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ. LG 20.Bender, that is not without limits. A bishop is not Christ. It is only too easy to give examples of misdeeds done by bishops..."even though I think that some of the translations are less than optimum, and some are needlessly clunky, as a servant, I will ..."Actually in this context the servant is not you but your bishop. He is the one who is supposed to be serving you by providing the new translation of the Mass.

What I find troubling about the decision is that the reasons trotted out seem rather inane. Why the sudden worry about profanation after so many years? Why would communion under both species make feast days special unless there is something good about it? To me it appears that the Bishop is somehow uncomfortable with EMs and wants to restrict thenumber. But he does not want to say so. Or if as Ken says it is the matter of "a Bishop tending to the practical matters of the diocese for which he is responsible" then he should say so. Of course none of this would ordinarily matter to me since I live in India, where we do not have communion under both species in the Latin rite (though it is there in the Eastern rites which are equally prevalent), no (lay) deacons, no EMs, no girl altar servers.(Such a dream for the traditionalists. But nobody there wants a Mass in Latin!). But I am now in Phoenix visiting my daughter who lives here. I've attended Mass at different parishes here and notice that most people actuallty receive under both species. And from what I hear the people are not happy. (My 9 year old granddaughter is afraid they'll stop girl altar servers next and she will lose that opportunity)

In the old days when the people did not receive grain the emperors feared revolt. This bishop should be removed. At least an active effort to do so. No one is indispensable.

Sunil --Is it any wonder women are leaving the Church when they are treated this way when they're children? It must be terribly hard to be an American Catholic parent these days.

You can justify anything, and the bishops as chief "spinmisters", just want to justify getting women off the altar. I would have much more respect for the bishops if they honestly said we want to get rid of Vaticanll and get back to the counsel of Trent. Between this and the new translation, it seems obvious. The bishops will continue to do it little by like the little devious people that they are. They will never be honest with the laity because first there not forthright and honest people, and being forthright and honest goes against the old boys network. I wish all of you best of luck with your struggles. I'm too old and too tired.

Please correct that line"The bishops will do it little by little. Thank you.

Bender, I wish I believed you. I know this wasn't the topic, but certainly, as Claire noted, there are circumstances when bishops should not be obeyed (clergy sexual abuse, e.g.), and it is only charitable to assume that you would agree. Certainly also one can register disagreement with the bishop, and even protest, as long as one accepts his legitimate authority to decide something eventually, unless it is contrary to one's conscience.This obedience stuff can really make believers seem like fundamentalist to our non-Christian brothers and sisters, so you should be careful.

"But not in Phoenix any more. "Hold on, Lisa, I thought you said both species were available on special feast days. There's a big difference between "never" and "not as frequently." Moreover, could the pull of having both species available entice more of the faithful to an occasional weekday mass? Maybe the Bishop is more canny than we know, though I do suspect his concern about the proliferation of EMs has something to do with it too.

Bender, the following is from the CCC:ARTICLE 6THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS1536Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.(On the institution and mission of the apostolic ministry by Christ, see above, no. 874 ff. Here only the sacramental means by which this ministry is handed on will be treated.)I. Why Is This Sacrament Called "Orders"?1537The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture,4 has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,. . . .1538Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a "sacred power" (sacra potestas)5 which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.Don't you think it interesting, Bender, that these paragraphs do not use the term 'priest' but, instead, the term 'presbyter'?Vatican II's Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (aka "Presbyterorum Ordinis") is a doctrinal, not historical, statement. Even a future pope acknowledged more than forty years ago that "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).At this point, may I recommend for your perusal Robert Egan's "Why Not? Scripture, History & Women's Ordination", which appeared a few years ago in COMMONWEAL. If unable to access this article as a non-subscriber, you should be able to find it in its entirety at this information helps.

Anthony, you inquired, "While we agree on this thread in that it is wrong to withhold the cup from people unless for grave reasons, in your most recent post you seem to question the very nature of the role of a priest. Am I correct? Could you explain more?"The problem, I think, relates to history and terminology. It also relates to theology although I think a retrieval of the primitive understanding of ministry would go a long way toward resolving theological issues. Drawing from primitive church history, I believe your "priesthood" --- like that of the laity --- derives from your baptism. Unlike the rest of us who've never been ordained to sacred orders, I believe you were ordained to the "presbyterate", not to any special kind of "priesthood". As a presbyter, you are responsible for preaching, teaching (in a special way, if I recall, by virtue of your academic ministry), and presiding at the sacred liturgy, as well as handling other ministries reserved by the Church to its presbyters and bishops. Unless mistaken, I believe your most important ministry is eucharistic liturgical presidership, which --- like your primitive ancestors in this ministry --- is two-fold, namely, maintaining order in the assembly and receiving the gifts of the people for offering to God through Jesus the High Priest. Consistent with primitive practice, however, I see your role as *presider*, not as *priest*, which, by definition, is mediating between God and the congregation. The Lord Jesus alone is the High (and only) "priest" in this picture. (Alternatively, one could say that, as a presbyter, you are the "lead priest" at communal worship since members of the assembly are priests by virtue of their baptism.)

We had a blog thread on priesthood and related a couple of years ago at; title of thread is "Participatio Actuosa". Recent years have revealed the "fruits" of an old Roman church culture that divvied Catholics into two groups, the ordained and everybody else. I think primitive church history can offer us a comparatively healthier roadmap out of the current scandalous and dysfunctional quagmire. Yes, it could pose the problem of ministerial retention for many of our current hierarchs, but I'll take protection of children any day of the week (and twice on Sundays) over continued papal and episcopal mal- and misfeasance.At some point, Catholics must tell their bishops "Shape up or ship out!!!"

Bender, given your tendency to defer to papal and episcopal authority no matter how exercised, I've got a west coast orange bridge to give you. Yes, give you! Just forward $100 to cover shipping & handling. Believe me, it'd be a steal!!!

There might be a silver lining to this creeping exclusion of the laity. It steers those of us committed to Catholicism to find places in the church where we are, in fact, still welcome: while we're being pushed off the altar, we're at the same time being embraced by the religious orders as associates and companions. I have friends that are lay associates and my 11 year old daughter volunteers once a week at a vegetable co-op run by some religious sisters. I think there is so much opportunity for expanded communities/partnerships between lay Catholics and vowed religious, partnerships which works to the benefit of both.

Thanks for that, Joe. I appreciate it

For all those carping about this and other decisions routinely made by bishops and even by the local priest sometimes: Since you apparently want to be in charge of something (a diocese or a convent) so badly, why not take the vows and become a priest or a nun?Geez!

The Ken argument is the worst! It folows that nothing decided by whatever cleric is beyond question.Geez indeed!I want to add that we tried "the priest is everything" w/o much success.My brief refernce in an earlier post to the ovation for indicted Msgr. Lynn underscores how deep the old boys club (noted well by Andy) runs on.AA may worry about his and other clergy being minimized, but it's just the other way around -part of the continued clericalism infoming the lurch backward and the "new" evangelization that trades on the goodness of the laity to say how wonderful the Church is while it's really about power isues.PS: IMO the rector in Phoenix sounds like another by the book chancery flunky and his bishop (along with several others) were properly labelled on another thread by jimy Mac as "troglodytes"

This is what a "smaller and purer" church is going to be like -- decisions that seem perplexing if not downright distorted that are compelled by the impulse for a purer church without an adequate number of priests to carry that impulse out fully -- don't like EMs, don't have enough priests, so obviously, the answer is to take away the cup -- problem solved. Likewise, parishes will be redrawn to be much larger, and so the church will not feel smaller even though it will in fact be smaller. This is the irresistable force that will shape the church because the bishops cannot persuade enough of their co-religionists, not even the really orthodox ones who agree with them, to take up the burdens associated with a celibate priesthood.At the very least, Ken, many of those who are complaining have posited alternatives. To be told that something is "good enough" is hardly an inspiring call to worship.

Bob N. --The standing ovation for Msgr. Lynn surprised me. Given the depth of evidence against him I'd expect he'd get at best a round of applause from his friends. Of course, it wasn't all the priests of Philadelphia who were there. Still a standing ovation in the face of all that evidence? Discouraging. By the way, New Orleans' ancient Archbishop Hannon died recently, and there was a memorial TV program for him. In a recent interview he made a very good suggestion, I think, about handling abuse cases. He said that the diocesan abuse boards ought to have criminal lawyers on them because, unlike the civil lawyers who sometimes serve, criminal lawyers know which questions to ask. Good suggestion.

Sometimes the church cares about appearances: for example, divorced and remarried Catholics may be allowed to receive communion on condition that they live with their spouse as brother and sister, and that they go to Mass in a parish in which their situation is not known; that, to avoid giving the impression that the church condones remarriage of divorced Catholics. That would be "scandalous".Sometimes the church does not care about appearances: for example, altar girls are no longer allowed in Phoenix. It may give the impression that the church is sexist and might push people away from the church, which would be "scandalous", but in that case it is not a problem apparently. It can be dealt with by "proper catechism".What is the logic? When do appearances matter?Meanwhile, more and more I hear people lumping together "Catholics and other fundamentalists". Many among our own Catholic youth view the church as sexist and homophobic. If they're correct, we have a big problem. Even if they're wrong, "proper catechism" is not happening, and we have a scandalous situation. But Bp. Olmstead is not worried about causing scandal. Who does he think he is, some kind of prophet? I just wish he was a marginal and problematic bishop, not someone in favor. I worry that the "Catholics and other fundamentalists" label is becoming more accurate among the Catholic hierarchy.

What do Bishops Thos. Olmsted (Phoenix), Robt. Vasa (Santa Rosa) and Michael Jackels (Wichita) have in common? It seems to be the diocese of Lincoln, NE and Bishop Bruskewitz!

BTW the thread at America on the editorial "Save The Altar Firls" has much talk of how people are being driven away from the Church.The issue is far bigger than altar girls or communion under both species - they serve as examples of the continuing irritants pushed foward by policy men who think they are the answer men.It's opt just the Bruskewitz reactionaries either but many Law Burke JII guys.I think of Cardnal Wierl and his group at CU *where else? Steubenville?) on the "new evangelization." which is more about the Church of answer men and power (and command/contrpl.)The coming Catholic Church is well described by Barbara above.The traditionalist policy makers and their acolytes (like Reno talking about Keenan's book or Topping talking about the new evangelization conference) will have their wish.Non loyalsits will either hang on in drift onr move on in the world of answer men.

If I saw my fellow Catholics still *in* the Church of Rome actually resisting their flunky hierarchs, I'd seriously consider returning to the fold to join the fight.To Those of You Still Putting Your Money into the Weekly Collection Plate: Please consider how your monetary contribution effectively enables continuation of this papal and episcopal crap. You are enabling dysfunction, a behavior that is anything but constructive.I learned a great lesson in boot camp years ago: When one guy effs up, every guy pays the consequences!!! If your bishop is not at all like Olmsted and ilk but, nonetheless, won't publicly condemn their reprehensible behaviors, he is just as guilty as the episcopal jackasses. Your *good* bishop is hoping against hope that you'll continue to toss your shekels into the weekly plate and not raise a fuss about the mistreatment of Catholics elsewhere.Wake up!Fight back! Stop the enabling! Stop the money!!!!! Tell your bishop to take a stand once and for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!To the extent you don't fight back, you deserve all the ecclesial anti-lay, anti-Vatican II crap that comes your way.I'd sure like to see the beginnings of a good, long fight and join in the fray.

Classens1 --Bishop Bruskewitz has refused to have an audit of the sex offenses in his diocese, contrary to the Dallas requirement. Bishop Vasa covered up a particularly bad case of sexual abuse (or attempted to) even after the priest was found guilty in a court of law. Now Bishop Olmsted is acting like a pre-Vatican II autocrat. I wonder if they are hoping to start a contra-movement to VII in the U. S.I think we need some spies in the Curia to let us know who is being proposed as bishops. That way we could let the Curia know what the faithful think of their candidates. That's the only way to get any input into the system.

... [Trackback] ... [...] Informations on that Topic: [...] ...