W
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting – that does sound right to me. Liturgy is about the heart as well as the mind. So, I think we have artists and composers who think up things, but there’s little reverence, fear of God or spiritual belief in their work. So, it might sound good, but it doesn’t lift us up or transform us. Then we can find more simple music which is offered in prayer – with reverence for God and focus on the Sacrament and awareness of the power of the saints, etc.
One thing I’m glad about with Vatican II is that it allowed people to try to become more creative and do new things. Even though (in my opinion) 90% of it is distasteful (or more bluntly, “junk”), at least it opened up some possibilities for new things.
Reverence for the classic works of the past is great – but it can also be stifling. We might have the idea that only the most expert, academic musicians can write music (or artists create art) for God. If it’s part of Mass, it should be of very high quality, but that can have different interpretations. Many of the “classic” Catholic vernacular hymns (in English) from the pre-Vatican II era were based on popular melodies.
While I love Gregorian chant and polyphony, I agree that we also need Catholic songs that we can sing and which are “new classics” that everybody knows.
In our own culture in America we have a very big need for that. For example, the Catholics in Spain, Germany, Italy and France all have great Catholic vernacular songs that they can sing when they get together (and they enjoy singing them – even the men do). Some of those are not suited use for liturgical worship at Mass, but others could be.
To bring this back on topic … if the Dissenters, who are thankfully, dying off now, were only interested in “dissenting” against clericalism and academia controlling the creative powers of the Church, that would have been something very good.
Unfortunately, they got into creating their own doctrines via “new theology”. Plus, they are enamored of absurdist, post-modern art which is built on an anti-spiritual, anti-Christian foundation (see some of the repulsive images of saints or distorted architecture for churches).
Maybe now that the self-appointed neo-reformers are passing away, the new generation can take up some reverent and spiritually-solid creative projects and develop a deeper culture – not just at Mass but in society also (Catholic filmmakers, who are not leftist dissenters???).
P
PJM
Guest
My response to POST 1,2, & 3 of this string.
***From there lips to God’s ears:thumbsup:
May God Bless us further with evidence of this decline.
Love and prayers,.***
***From there lips to God’s ears:thumbsup:
May God Bless us further with evidence of this decline.
Love and prayers,.***
D
DomusAurea
Guest
Wow that was harsh. And unfair.
All I was trying to do was tell about this experience I had in Kenya. I am well aware it’s subjective.
And although I’ll defend the tambourines in Kenya any day it actually implies a rather harsh criticism towards guitar-masses in the west (those I’ve been to. About five or so). I really believe the mass in Kenya was as beautiful as they could possibly make it. I’m not at all sure that was the case with the other guitar masses.
D
DomusAurea
Guest
Sorry. just realized a brought the thread off topic. Carry on …
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
:byzsoc::harp:
C
cecilia97
Guest
33-yr-old cradle Catholic here, and I could not agree with you more!The good and bad news for orthodox Catholics is that the contracepting liberals don’t have (many) kids. If we just keep our heads down and do what we’re supposed to, we will win.
So… so long, baby boomers! I’m 28 years old, and my generation is about to take charge, and we can’t stand your stripped-down ugly churches and the guitar strumming '70s songs you like to sing. We don’t want to hear you tear down the church’s all male “patriarchy.” And we don’t appreciate you moving the altars and the tabernacles and trying to protestantize God’s Church. If you wanted a different Church than the Catholic Church, you should have left the Catholic Church instead of trying to destroy it. You can’t win…
I am a converting Anglican, coming from a rich liturgical parish. You have no idea how much it pains me to leave altar rails, communion kneeling, incense and pipe organs and chant, and have to come into a Catholic Church which seems to detest these things. My Episcopal Church was more Catholic than Catholic, but now I have to put up with guitar strummers and liturgical garments made out of felt and laity running around in the sanctuary like they own the place! But I guarantee you this: we who cling to God’s word and the Tradition of the Church (and the traditions of the Church), we will win. God promised it…
Liberals have had their season of destruction and death and yes, Catholics are contracepting. But I have put my money where my mouth is, so if any cradle Catholic who is currently not doing what the Church teaches wants any tips on NFP, I’d be happy to discuss it with you. I may not be Catholic yet, but I promise you what the Church teaches is absolutely true and my marriage is soooooo much better following what the Church teaches.
After the bad 80s catechesis almost sunk me, I eventually got serious and started studying for myself. I’m so excited by what I see happening in the Church now! We are Catholic…we need to embrace it and be joyous and thankful for the great gift of Christ’s Church.I’m also a woman, and I can’t believe it when I hear the Church accused of excluding women. Please. That is a completely lame argument. Sts. Clare, Therese, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Mary Magdalene, and Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Mother, pray for us! Show me a strong Catholic parish and I will show you a bunch of women quietly going about the work of saving the world with God’s help.
Take heart…there are orthodox Catholic parishes hiding out there with intinction, patens, music written before 1972, and even the odd Anglican Use parish here and there. I have proof.
C
chriso
Guest
Except for… I choose to go ahead and apply the hope that there was some subjective intent on the parts of many of these people in that I dont feel compelled to judge them, rather to pray for them.
Likewise, I pray for those who are so busy being tough that they’ve left love and compassion by the wayside.
I’ve seen it both ways in my nearly half century catholic life. In my opinion, neither has it right. I’m catholic to the core, but I aint conservative, and I aint liberal. Preserving the traditions I view as critical, a firm stance on whats right and whats wrong I view as critical, loyalty to themagesterium, I also view as critical, spreading Gods love amongst one another and to strangers and sinners I view as critical, growing in spirituality and applying it to modern times I also view as critical.
Downgrading the Holy Mass merely because a guitar is played to a mere “guitar mass” or a “tambourne mass” says something (IMHO) about our lack of understanding for how precious and blessed the sacrament truly is… the Holy Mass is the Holy Mass always… calling it a “guitar mass” even if someone plays terrible guitar is plain not right… its still the Holy Mass, and Christ himself will supercede our petty human shortcomings.
I’m reminded of a very traditional man who for years refused to share the sign of peace with me or my children at daily Mass when we’d attend… he actually told another parishoner that they “interfered with HIS experience of the Mass”… and I’m not the guy who tolerated a bunch of jumping around and noise making from my kids during Mass. Anyway, I pray for him no different than I pray for these misguided “dissidents” we’re supposed to be talking about.
O
Onegin
Guest
I think you’re missing the point here. My point isn’t to tell you that you can’t heap love and compassion on people, but to emphasize that Catholic culture is on a disturbingly subjective trend and this, more than ever, is the time that the Church Leaders must instruct the faithful clearly as to what behaviors are acceptable in the life of a Catholic and what ones are not.
Otherwise, we’ll forever be wandering about in a haze of confusion over whether the good elements of the Mass outweighed the guitars, dancing and tamborines or whether we should ignore the kids wearing offensive shirts or turn a blind eye to the Priest who chooses to dress in street clothes. Or what can be done in the name of collegiality or ecumenism, or whether it has gone too far.
In the absence of strong leadership from Rome, people (lay and religious alike) will begin making their own rules. It’s already starting to happen.
Otherwise, we’ll forever be wandering about in a haze of confusion over whether the good elements of the Mass outweighed the guitars, dancing and tamborines or whether we should ignore the kids wearing offensive shirts or turn a blind eye to the Priest who chooses to dress in street clothes. Or what can be done in the name of collegiality or ecumenism, or whether it has gone too far.
In the absence of strong leadership from Rome, people (lay and religious alike) will begin making their own rules. It’s already starting to happen.
D
DomusAurea
Guest
I can’t believe I’m on the same side as the moderns in this conversation but hey, it’s pretty good practice.
Do you think it’s fair to assume that a pop-song sung with true faith sounds better to God than the Salve Regina sung by a atheist who happens to be a professional and outstanding tenor? That means intention comes into the discussion.
I am aware that that doesn’t mean all music is the same. I do not believe in that. Even though I haven’t thought about it enough I am convinced there are such things as objective beauty and objective ugliness. And I believe that it hinges on intent. Can you, as an architect, draw a beautiful church if your intent is for it to look modern and accessible and all new? Yes, but it’s not likely. Is it fair to say that modernist architecture has a faulty intention? I believe so. And I think it could be said for some types of 20th century music, too. If the intention is wrong it is less likely that God will be able to inspire.
Just as there can be no serious debate about whether or not Palestrina was a good composer of liturgical music, even though he was once the new guy on the block and people thought it sounded dreadful. Just as very few people would call baroque architecture ugly or inappropriate, even though it once was considered to be “out there”. Why? Because even though Palestrina did something new he did it for the glory of God. And so God could speak through his music.
Palestrina was not interested in a clean slate. He did not try to forget about the music before him. He did not try to make something brand new and break with tradition. That is the difference, I believe, between the modernists and renewers before them. Modernism was not organic (to use a worn-out word). The modernists wanted to destroy the old so the new could reign. It is, as far as I understand, something completely new in the history of the west.
That, I believe puts us in a rather neat place.We have three levels of intent:
What is the intent of the movement itself?
What is the intent of the artist?
What is the intent of the performer?
And they need to be taken into consideration, all of them.
I still claim tambourines are not the problem. Had tambourines been used by a good movement (as I believe they are in Kenya) they can be respectful and proper.
Do you think it’s fair to assume that a pop-song sung with true faith sounds better to God than the Salve Regina sung by a atheist who happens to be a professional and outstanding tenor? That means intention comes into the discussion.
I am aware that that doesn’t mean all music is the same. I do not believe in that. Even though I haven’t thought about it enough I am convinced there are such things as objective beauty and objective ugliness. And I believe that it hinges on intent. Can you, as an architect, draw a beautiful church if your intent is for it to look modern and accessible and all new? Yes, but it’s not likely. Is it fair to say that modernist architecture has a faulty intention? I believe so. And I think it could be said for some types of 20th century music, too. If the intention is wrong it is less likely that God will be able to inspire.
Just as there can be no serious debate about whether or not Palestrina was a good composer of liturgical music, even though he was once the new guy on the block and people thought it sounded dreadful. Just as very few people would call baroque architecture ugly or inappropriate, even though it once was considered to be “out there”. Why? Because even though Palestrina did something new he did it for the glory of God. And so God could speak through his music.
Palestrina was not interested in a clean slate. He did not try to forget about the music before him. He did not try to make something brand new and break with tradition. That is the difference, I believe, between the modernists and renewers before them. Modernism was not organic (to use a worn-out word). The modernists wanted to destroy the old so the new could reign. It is, as far as I understand, something completely new in the history of the west.
That, I believe puts us in a rather neat place.We have three levels of intent:
What is the intent of the movement itself?
What is the intent of the artist?
What is the intent of the performer?
And they need to be taken into consideration, all of them.
I still claim tambourines are not the problem. Had tambourines been used by a good movement (as I believe they are in Kenya) they can be respectful and proper.
O
Onegin
Guest
I think you start out on a great foot here. There are things such as objective beauty and objective ugliness. To apply a rough definition, I would say that things that seek to take man’s focus outside of himself and towards God are beautiful while things that encourage man to revel in his own sin, banality and fallenness are ugly.
Now, intent may make a beautiful thing more beautiful, or less so. Or an ugly thing more ugly or less ugly but it cannot make an ugly thing beautiful.
This is where my problem lies. Modern edifices or music, which seek to emphasize the works of man, to take his eyes away from the splendor of God and focus it on the work of an “artist” or modern “visionary” are ugly. These things say “let us make this building plain and boring, or this music dull and lifeless because that is what we are” reeks of a skewed philosophy. And ultimately, it speaks to an underlying protestant mentality: the idea that we are little more than, as Luther put it, a pile of dung with snow covering it. That, at the end of the day, people are fundamentally worthless and bad.
Catholic theology says quite the opposite. The Church teaches that we are fundamentally good but fallen because of original sin. And because we are fallen, we are called to strive to resist our fallen nature, to strive for that which is good, holy and ultimately saintly and to resist the banalities and drudgery of humanity’s many temptations. Part of this resistance involves the pursuit of the good and the beautiful and the rejection of the bad and the ugly.
Now, our culture is a morally subjective one that is telling us precisely the contrary. Every day we’re bombarded with messages that beauty is what you say it is, good is what you make of it, and an action is only bad if you mean it to be. Perhaps hearing this day in and day out makes us become less likely to complain when we see abuses, more likely to argue that there’s no real difference between a modern edifice and the gothic churches of old, more likely to say that the use of Gregorian chant in the Mass was no more beautiful than “On Eagles Wings” accompanied by a guitar, because, hey, that guitarist had good intentions!
Again, my bottom line is that we are quickly losing sight of the crucial interplay between intent and truth. Intent can cast a thing in a good or bad light but it cannot change the underlying nature that thing. Because of this, it is impossibly for me say that Gregorian is objectively equal to Eagles Wings or that the LA Cathedral is just as beautiful as St. Peter’s.
J
Jvrlns
Guest
Tradition that means absolutely nothing when divorced of the true meaning of the mass.
Have you thought that church railings, veils etc. mean nothing to some people, this people can be very spiritual nontheless.
L
ljubim
Guest
Lol you made all that up yourself
I was using examples of what is considered to be both more traditional and less traditional, to ask for clarification on which aspect of the Church you are unhappy with.
D
DomusAurea
Guest
Well actually, since there is one God only, whatever God thinks is beautiful is beautiful. That must be the final definition. But I can’t imagine we don’t agree on that.
Now, intent may make a beautiful thing more beautiful, or less so. Or an ugly thing more ugly or less ugly but it cannot make an ugly thing beautiful.
That’s where we differ. I feel convinced that even a bad song sung with true faith is beautiful to God. The singing being beautiful does not, however, mean that the composing or spreading of that song is beautiful to God.
This is where my problem lies. Modern edifices or music, which seek to emphasize the works of man, to take his eyes away from the splendor of God and focus it on the work of an “artist” or modern “visionary” are ugly. These things say “let us make this building plain and boring, or this music dull and lifeless because that is what we are” reeks of a skewed philosophy. And ultimately, it speaks to an underlying protestant mentality: the idea that we are little more than, as Luther put it, a pile of dung with snow covering it. That, at the end of the day, people are fundamentally worthless and bad.
I don’t think so. I think most of the ugly examples of 20th century art is ugly not because it tries to point to the believers as piles of dung hoping to be covered with snow. I think it is a case of lowering God to the standards of the modern man. God’s house should look like any old house so that people will be more comfortable. God’s music should sound like normal music so that we can speak to God in our own tongue. God’s art should prompt us to look into ourselves so that we can tell God what we’re like.
And yet - even though I have this very severe opinion of modernism - I still believe God can take an ugly thing and make it into something beautiful.
Now, our culture is a morally subjective one that is telling us precisely the contrary. Every day we’re bombarded with messages that beauty is what you say it is, good is what you make of it, and an action is only bad if you mean it to be. Perhaps hearing this day in and day out makes us become less likely to complain when we see abuses, more likely to argue that there’s no real difference between a modern edifice and the gothic churches of old, more likely to say that the use of Gregorian chant in the Mass was no more beautiful than “On Eagles Wings” accompanied by a guitar, because, hey, that guitarist had good intentions!
I totally agree. But I do not think this has to do with intention. “If I like it it is beautiful” is not the same as “If I do it in love it is beautiful”. The first is relativism, the second is the sad faith of any man still living on earth. Nothing of our beauty can compare to the beauty of heaven (or paradise). Our music and singing has nothing to the great angelic choirs. We must realize that all we can do is sing with cracked voices and cracked hearts. Our heavenly father is good enough to proclaim it beautiful, anyway.
Again, my bottom line is that we are quickly losing sight of the crucial interplay between intent and truth. Intent can cast a thing in a good or bad light but it cannot change the underlying nature that thing. Because of this, it is impossibly for me say that Gregorian is objectively equal to Eagles Wings or that the LA Cathedral is just as beautiful as St. Peter’s.
I am not american. I don’t know the song or the church. But I can pretty much imagine it. I agree with you this far: Gregorian chant (or my favorite, Palestrina) is better than guitar music because the underlying idea for the older types of music was better than the underlying idea of pop music.
Some go so far as to claim we should only have music in our churches written prior to 1900 or 1800 or 1700. I think that’s madness. If we would do that we would not have Rachmaninov or Bruckner or Pärt
And even though I am very impressed with the way the national shrine in Washington looks even modern architecture (modern not modernist nota bene) can be fantastic. Keep in mind that Gaudi is up for beatification …
A
AndyF
Guest
FidesSpesCarita:
Andy
Andy
D
DomusAurea
Guest
And here I was thinking I was making those nifty quotations that I see all of you doing. But I’m new to this forum and obviously failed. If anyone feel like instructing me feel free to.
V
violetandgandal
Guest
Please don’t put all of us baby boomers in with the liberal crowd. There are many of us in our 60’s who suffer and have suffered for a long time over the same things you younger generation do. We, too, long for the return to reverent worship, a sense of awe in the presence of Almighty God in the Eucharist, meaningful hymns and Gregorian chant, tabernacles in the middle of the sanctuary, silence before and after Mass, sermons with real meat in them. We too rejoice to see the younger generations of fervent Catholics replacing those who set out to destroy the Church.
This is the quote I am responding to from post #12:
"So… so long, baby boomers! I’m 28 years old, and my generation is about to take charge, and we can’t stand your stripped-down ugly churches and the guitar strumming '70s songs you like to sing. We don’t want to hear you tear down the church’s all male “patriarchy.” And we don’t appreciate you moving the altars and the tabernacles and trying to protestantize God’s Church. If you wanted a different Church than the Catholic Church, you should have left the Catholic Church instead of trying to destroy it. You can’t win…
I am a converting Anglican, coming from a rich liturgical parish. You have no idea how much it pains me to leave altar rails, communion kneeling, incense and pipe organs and chant, and have to come into a Catholic Church which seems to detest these things. My Episcopal Church was more Catholic than Catholic, but now I have to put up with guitar strummers and liturgical garments made out of felt and laity running around in the sanctuary like they own the place! But I guarantee you this: we who cling to God’s word and the Tradition of the Church (and the traditions of the Church), we will win. God promised it…"
This is the quote I am responding to from post #12:
"So… so long, baby boomers! I’m 28 years old, and my generation is about to take charge, and we can’t stand your stripped-down ugly churches and the guitar strumming '70s songs you like to sing. We don’t want to hear you tear down the church’s all male “patriarchy.” And we don’t appreciate you moving the altars and the tabernacles and trying to protestantize God’s Church. If you wanted a different Church than the Catholic Church, you should have left the Catholic Church instead of trying to destroy it. You can’t win…
I am a converting Anglican, coming from a rich liturgical parish. You have no idea how much it pains me to leave altar rails, communion kneeling, incense and pipe organs and chant, and have to come into a Catholic Church which seems to detest these things. My Episcopal Church was more Catholic than Catholic, but now I have to put up with guitar strummers and liturgical garments made out of felt and laity running around in the sanctuary like they own the place! But I guarantee you this: we who cling to God’s word and the Tradition of the Church (and the traditions of the Church), we will win. God promised it…"
C
chriso
Guest
Wow… so very well put… I started to cut out the stuff from your post excepting the best of your observations, but find that its all so very well put it stands on its own in its entirety.
I so agree with you that many of them crossed the line into creation of their own doctrine…and I believe the consequence of that was this loss of reverence, fear of God, and spiritual belief as you point out. And whether or not they intended that from the start, it certainly was the result of many of their works, leaving us with at least half a generation of wrongly influenced worshipers for which I believe many will be crying endless tears when they do stand before Christ for their final judgement. Holding positions of authority and influence within Christs church and irresponsibly crossing that line has had such far reaching consequence that it now threatens to swing to the entirely opposite extreme as well, which I believe isnt the correct answer either… and I believe over time we’ll find that out if we keep our eyes on the true and correct leadership of the Holy Church.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. You perfectly stated my concerns and hopes and prayers.
C
chriso
Guest
I actually agree with you a thousand fold on this entire post… The Church does seem in need of real reform in my opinion, especially here in America, and seemingly in Europe judging from a couple young seminarians over there whom I’ve been blessed to have watched grow up in their catholic faith and take it to places I was unwilling and probably unable to take mine.
I’m just trying to express caution that we laity dont likewise jump the gun as did these other “voices of dissent” and reach out for more influence than is properly ours in trying to take the needed reforms too far to the other end of the spectrum. I trust our Pope and Magesterium dont intend that… if I’m proved to be wrong I’ll be gladly obedient, but so far other than seeing that they intend for us to bring a greater sense of reverence for traditional doctrine into greater focus, I dont see a wholesale parting from all things post Vatican 2. Just as I think it was wrong for these others to have grabbed onto Vatican 2 and cram their own misguided beliefs down our throats and attempt to force Rome to follow suit, I dont believe its proper for you and I to do so to the other extreme. We must remember to keep love and reverence and spirituality and tradition all hand in hand and to follow faithfully the examples of the heirarchy. (IMHO)
But, thanks for clarifying your belief, I hope I’ve explained mine well enough that you see we agree on most points excepting I probably lean a bit more towards caution with the new changes, and you probably lean a bit more towards caution in ensuring the new changes actually get done and take root. (which position I also support, just maybe not with the same fervence as you)
Thanks for understanding my concerns, and thanks for sharing yours. I wish you lived here in Alaska, I’d surely enjoy having coffee with you and discussing this to great length!
M
Magdalena09
Guest
I’m a convert, too… and I must say… that part of me doesn’t understand the argument either, but I guess that would seem normal, because I’ve only ever really known what I’ve been exposed to for the past few years as “Catholic.” And I must say I am quite happy with it, else I probably wouldn’t have felt so completely called to Christ’s church.
That being said, within that time period, I was able to experience Mass in several different places. My “main” Mass venue did have the guitars unless you opted to go to the early morning Mass. It also did not have communion rails unless it was the once-a-week extraordinary form. But I loved it just the same, regardless of which Mass I was attending. Certain things slightly bothered me… like “getting lost” in the EF Mass due to my inability to understand Latin… and sometimes I couldn’t find my place again until the consecration… but then I knew exactly what was going on because that is the same regardless of the form. Something that bothered me about the novus ordo Mass was the praise team (including guitars) playing during reception of communion and what I viewed as over use of EMHC. And that fact that sometimes the people singing were horribly off key or sharp or flat.
There were a couple times when I went to parishes where I found some things odd… like not kneeling during the consecration or a permanent crucifix missing from the sanctuary… but I don’t know if that is an abuse or just something that I was not used to. Possibly the weirdest thing I ever saw was a tabernacle that looked like a globe.
Despite all these things… I still love the Catholic faith… and I love the Mass… and the gifts that God has given us through the Sacraments… I am still a “baby Catholic” so it could just be that I haven’t been a part of the Church long enough to recognize many of the problems… but I am just glad to be Catholic and will do whatever the Church mandates.
But for the record I would not mind communion rails returning to the norm… I like receiving Jesus on the tongue but ever since him almost falling on the ground off of my tongue, I have received in the hand out of fear… so communion rails and patens would be nice to have for that reason. Nor would I mind a return of the chapel veil–something draws me to them but I’m not sure what… however I haven’t worn one because I have wanted to avoid distracting people/drawing attention to myself…
Anyway God bless everyone and thank the Lord we are Catholics.
That being said, within that time period, I was able to experience Mass in several different places. My “main” Mass venue did have the guitars unless you opted to go to the early morning Mass. It also did not have communion rails unless it was the once-a-week extraordinary form. But I loved it just the same, regardless of which Mass I was attending. Certain things slightly bothered me… like “getting lost” in the EF Mass due to my inability to understand Latin… and sometimes I couldn’t find my place again until the consecration… but then I knew exactly what was going on because that is the same regardless of the form.
Something that bothered me about the novus ordo Mass was the praise team (including guitars) playing during reception of communion and what I viewed as over use of EMHC. And that fact that sometimes the people singing were horribly off key or sharp or flat. There were a couple times when I went to parishes where I found some things odd… like not kneeling during the consecration or a permanent crucifix missing from the sanctuary… but I don’t know if that is an abuse or just something that I was not used to. Possibly the weirdest thing I ever saw was a tabernacle that looked like a globe.
Despite all these things… I still love the Catholic faith… and I love the Mass… and the gifts that God has given us through the Sacraments… I am still a “baby Catholic” so it could just be that I haven’t been a part of the Church long enough to recognize many of the problems… but I am just glad to be Catholic and will do whatever the Church mandates.
But for the record I would not mind communion rails returning to the norm… I like receiving Jesus on the tongue but ever since him almost falling on the ground off of my tongue, I have received in the hand out of fear… so communion rails and patens would be nice to have for that reason.
Nor would I mind a return of the chapel veil–something draws me to them but I’m not sure what… however I haven’t worn one because I have wanted to avoid distracting people/drawing attention to myself…Anyway God bless everyone and thank the Lord we are Catholics.
- Status