23 Ways to Identify a Faithful Parish

[Defensor_Fidei]

#3 and #4 are not necessary. Kneeling is mandatory whether kneelers are in the Church or not.

Many of the Basillicas in Italy have tabernacles in side chapels.

-Ted

 

[fix]

Lisa4Catholics:

AARGH!

It is said the Jesuits are graying and gaying. More proof?

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

So, it is ok for Katherine to discriminate against affluent, Caucasian males? We can play with terms and definitions, but the sentiment that was expressed in the post is wrong. Call it what you will, the agenda is transparent.

From merriamwebster.com:

"discriminate"
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

You are making three assumptions: First, that Katherine is referring to all aflluent Caucasian males rather than a particular group of affluent Caucasian males at a particular parish. Second, that she is actually treating them differently than she would treat a different social class. Third, that whatever the difference in treatment, it is not based on individual merit.

A charge of discrimination in this day and age is a serious matter, at least in the public sphere. Without sufficient proof, it is nearly slanderous. That is why I am defending her, even though it no longer pertains to this thread.

Additionally, things such as “sentiment” are often subject to misunderstanding in a medium such as this. Text based communication lacks voice inflection, body language, and all other such things. It is especially vulnerable to misunderstanding when devoid of very much context as is the case with only a few phrases or even paragraphs.

Transparency, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, the clearest picture is not seen through a window but in a mirror.

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

From merriamwebster.com:

"discriminate"
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

You are making three assumptions: First, that Katherine is referring to all aflluent Caucasian males rather than a particular group of affluent Caucasian males at a particular parish. Second, that she is actually treating them differently than she would treat a different social class. Third, that whatever the difference in treatment, it is not based on individual merit.

A charge of discrimination in this day and age is a serious matter, at least in the public sphere. Without sufficient proof, it is nearly slanderous. That is why I am defending her, even though it no longer pertains to this thread.

Additionally, things such as “sentiment” are often subject to misunderstanding in a medium such as this. Text based communication lacks voice inflection, body language, and all other such things. It is especially vulnerable to misunderstanding when devoid of very much context as is the case with only a few phrases or even paragraphs.

Transparency, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, the clearest picture is not seen through a window but in a mirror.

Her remark was unthoughtful to say the least. I, and others, pointed out her error.

Your charge of slander against me can be considered almost slanderous. Your pedantic defense of Katherine’s remark shows us all your agenda as well.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Her remark was unthoughtful to say the least. I, and others, pointed out her error.

1. I thought about my remarks quite deeply.
2. You are free not to believe me. However, if you know I am in error, then you must know the persons I was refering to. Would you then privately email me their names. This would confirm for me that you know what you are writing about while not violating any privacy.

I look forward to your email.

 

[fix]

1. I thought about my remarks quite deeply.

1. You are free not to believe me. However, if you know I am in error, then you must know the persons I was refering to. Would you then privately email me their names. This would confirm for me that you know what you are writing about while not violating any privacy.

I look forward to your email.

So, in your opinion, the phrase you used was justified? I would think a devout person such as yourself would not want to even give the appearance of scandal?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

So, in your opinion, the phrase you used was justified?

The statement is accurate. I take it you don’t dispute me on this.

I would think a devout person such as yourself would not want to even give the appearance of scandal?

Are you of the Bernie Law school of churchmanship? Truthful, but unfavorable information about the Church and her clergy must never be mentioned?

To be fair, I’mm one of the people on these boards with the least compliants about the Church and her clergy.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

The statement is accurate. I take it you don’t dispute me on this.

Are you of the Bernie Law school of churchmanship? Truthful, but unfavorable information about the Church and her clergy must never be mentioned?

To be fair, I’mm one of the people on these boards with the least compliants about the Church and her clergy.

I take it you are of the Bill Clinton school school propaganda, that is to parse every word and be sure there may always be multiple ways of interpreting it.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I take it you are of the Bill Clinton school school propaganda, that is to parse every word and be sure there may always be multiple ways of interpreting it.

In other words, you have no response. Go and be well, sweetheart.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

In other words, you have no response. Go and be well, sweetheart.

No response? To what?

 

[Mothers_Boy]

Wow, I thought this thread was a discussion of ways to tell if your parish is faithful, not a thread about racism. Isn’t there another, possibly better, place on this forum to talk politics and racism? Silly me. :whacky:

On topic, it would be redundant for me to speak of my parish as it has been mentioned many times in this thread and has had a picture of it’s Tabranacle (spelled correctly?) posted. Peace.

 

[Fortiterinre]

There is a great article in last month’s *Homiletic & Pastoral Review *about healthy pluralism in the Church. I agree with most of these 23 points but don’t worry about whether or not a church calls itself a “community” or has a florid (to my taste) mission statement. In suburban Chicago there are good parishes that have both! A lot more than 1%!

 

[BOBOBIGGIE]

1. The Mass is not intentionally altered through the use of
   inclusive language.

I don’t have time to reply to all of the quotes so I will just pick one. The Church has used inclusive language since Jesus Christ handed the keys to St Peter. Whenever a gospel reading refers to man or the Nicean Creed "For us men and for our salvation etc… this is inclusive, we mean both men and women. For us men refers to both sexes not just the male side. The problem starts when feminest try to claim that the church has never included them into the life of the Church and then confused priest buy this argument and start preaching feminest language. They start claiming the language doesn’t include them I am a male and i have never felt or thought that the language excluded women. i am sure thier has been lots of my sisters hurt by the church (Priest) but that is no cause to change the language. Mans inhumanity to Man is the problem. Sin is the better way of explaining it, for sin has caused our problems. We should be saying Feminest language not inclusive language. Feminest language puts it into prospective.

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

Her remark was unthoughtful to say the least. I, and others, pointed out her error.

Your charge of slander against me can be considered almost slanderous. Your pedantic defense of Katherine’s remark shows us all your agenda as well.

I did not charge you with slander. Don’t read what isn’t there. You may consider me pedantic, but perhaps that attribute is due to an effort on my part to be precise. My statement regarding slander was carefully qualified.

Why do you refuse to accept my words at face value? I stated the reason for my defense, but instead you assume that such a reason is no reason at all, that I must have some hidden agenda. Since you know my heart and motivations better than I do, there is no point in defending myself.

As such, I do not feel that I can continue with this “conversation”. The only thing that would happen would be an intensification of my pedantic defense, to the point of indulging in an uncharitable sort of sarcasm and the like. I hold no ill will towards you. May God bless you.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.