Fed up with irreverence

[Binx]

The perspective that I was trying to refer to was that of Francis of Assisi, for whom the externals of the liturgy were not as important as the theology of the Eucharist.

This ought to be true of any Catholic. St. Alphonsus certainly wouldn’t disagree with that hierarchy of importance. However, any Catholic ought also to see that the externals of the liturgy should by nature align in reverence with the theology of the Eucharist. If this alignment is lacking, that is very bad for the faithful.

It was a very simple form the Gregorian liturgy, often beautified by Laudas (not related to Lauds) which Francis wrote in Italian for the congregation to sing as hymns, the most famous one being the Canticle of the Sun and the Praises to the Queen of Heaven. It was never part of his theology that the externals of the liturgy were a means to grace, but the faith in the transubstantiated Eucharist.

Are you implying that St. Francis would say that the objective attributes of a liturgy are not channels through which grace travels? What do you think St. Francis would have said if the external qualities of a liturgy did not effectively prepare the faithful for receiving the transubstantiated Host?

However, it was part of his theology that one approached the liturgy and the Eucharist with the most fervent and reverent heart and mind.

Of course. This goes without saying. But do you deny that the surrounding liturgy may work for or against Eucharistic fervency and reverence?

St. Alphonsus statement is only one perspective of several perspectives regarding the liturgy. St. Bonaventure subscribed to the perspective of St. Francis,

In what sense are you claiming their views to be different. So far, I’ve only seen the section you quoted of St. Francis emphasizing belief in the Real Presence. Surely this is not what you mean by “difference” between the saints.

Also, a question: in which situation would you find a more radical change: between any two medieval masses or between the TLM and the NO?

 

[coyotekate77]

The O.F., properly done, is equal to the E.F., properly done.

That being said, both have had ‘improper’ things done in them, whether by priest, laity, or both, in individual Masses, parishes, at individual times.

For those whose experience has been with more ‘improper’ things done during the Mass, this does tend to make them more aware of the effects these ‘improper actions’ have had not just on them, but on many others. For those who haven’t experienced such a great number of ‘improper’ things, it doesn’t seem to be that important. It is to a great extent all in one’s perspective.

It is very hard to ‘imagine’ experiences that we ourselves have not had.

It is very easy to make a ‘prudential decision’ to either A: Ignore the abuse and concentrate on one’s own ‘relationship’ with God. B. Acknowledge the abuse and concentrate on trying to stop it in order to help not just one’s own relationship with God but with other people’s relationships with God as well which are suffering because of said abuse.

Both decisions have merit. For many years, for example, A. was the ‘only’ option because the abuses were so widespread and so condoned that nothing COULD have been done other than ‘suffer in silence’. And today, if the abuse is one which is small, or ‘equivocal’ (for example, orans posture and hand holding, while they were unknown to the majority of parishioners before 1970, are now widespread. But they are not necessarily abuses and thus while one could certainly legitimately argue that they should not be used at Mass if the argument is one that is ‘scholastic’, one cannot say that they are abuses), then A is an option. If one doesn’t like hand holding or orans, one is free not to do it. . .but one is not free to ‘criticize’ those who do as wrong . . .if one is FORCED to do it when one does not wish to, that forcing is wrong but the actual actions of hand-holding and orans are not necessarily wrong at this time.

Option B is trickier. There are some abuses which are so critical --for example, changing the words of consecration–that it would invalidate the Eucharist. That would certainly need to be addressed and not just ‘suffered in silence.’ There are other abuses which are not so ‘grave’ yet are specifically reprobated in the GIRM, for example, which might need to be addressed but one would try to do so as charitably as possible, with great reverence and appreciation for priests and bishops and not with an attitude of nasty accusation but rather fraternal charity and love.

 

[eelpis]

bolding mine

I think you just summed up all our conversations. The Novus Ordo mass** IS NOT** a crisis. If you agree that it is not a crisis, it, would be and is, of its own merit, infinite in benefit. This is what I am saying. The only other alternative would be that is not. I do not believe, I cannot believe that is what you are saying.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The form is not infinite of merit at all. The pope has called it a banal on the spot creation.Composed by experts at desks, not by saints.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The O.F., properly done, is equal to the E.F., properly done.

I totally agree with you. I would go one step further. The mass in either form when compared to the other, regardless of the abuse of the priest, is still infinite in merit. The priest is the one who will be answerable for the abuses. If not to the bishop, then to the One who is the ultimate authority for us all.

Option B is trickier. There are some abuses which are so critical --for example, changing the words of consecration–that it would invalidate the Eucharist. That would certainly need to be addressed and not just ‘suffered in silence.’ .

I could not agree with you more. I personally do not know of, nor have I heard of priests changing the words of the consecration so as to render the consecration invalid. . I can only pray that you have not either. This would indeed have to be something addressed immediately with the bishop and with corroborating witnesses.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The form is not infinite of merit at all. The pope has called it a banal on the spot creation.Composed by experts at desks, not by saints.

This is not saying that that mass is not infinite in merit. Do not confuse the two.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[eelpis]

Dear brother eelpis,

I cannot agree with the highlighed portion above. Let’s take, for instance, a priest who leaves the altar and greets people during the Sign of Peace.

1. THAT ACTION is not going to reduce the grace of the Mass itself. If my interior disposition is correct, I will receive all the graces that Mass is intended to have.
2. The only time such an action will reduce my reception of grace is if I look at it and let it bother me. For at that point, I am no longer focused on Christ (what’s going on internally between Him and me during the Mass), but I am instead focusing on the priest’s actions. If he is doing something wrong, and according to the rubrics he is, THAT IS BETWEEN HIM AND GOD (i.e., his own conscience). I just need to focus during Mass what is going on between ME AND GOD.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk, Irreverence does not lessen the objective grace of the mass, it’s infinite. It does however lessen the graces we can recieve. The priest act as an intermediary at the threashold of heaven, begging graces from God. If he don’t follow the rubrics he commits sin and he won’t be able to ask for blessings .
In the old testament people were killed by God for breaking the rubrics.

 

[JReducation]

Dear Marduk, Irreverence does not lessen the objective grace of the mass, it’s infinite. It does however lessen the graces we can recieve. The priest act as an intermediary at the threashold of heaven, begging graces from God. **If he don’t follow the rubrics he commits sin and he won’t be able to ask for blessings **.
In the old testament people were killed by God for breaking the rubrics.

Bold is mine

We have to be careful here.

1. Violating the rubrics is not always materially sinful. For example, shaking the congregation’s hand at the kiss of peace is not a meterial sin. You are breaking the rules, but you have not committed a sinful act. At most you may have commited a venial sin of disobedience and even that is very difficult to prove objectively.
2. The state of the priest’s soul does not influence his ability to ask for the graces that flow from the Liturgy. The priest’s sins are never superior to infinite power of the liturgy.

Even a person in a state of mortal sin can celebrate the liturgy and the state of his soul has no effect on the merits of grace, because those merits flow from the liturgy, not the priest.

JR

 

[JReducation]

These are good questions and they apply to all of us. I’ll try to give you some very brief responses as you have many.

This ought to be true of any Catholic. St. Alphonsus certainly wouldn’t disagree with that hierarchy of importance. However, any Catholic ought also to see that the externals of the liturgy should by nature align in reverence with the theology of the Eucharist. If this alignment is lacking, that is very bad for the faithful.

This is true. This is why liturgy in any form must be celebrate with propriety.

Are you implying that St. Francis would say that the objective attributes of a liturgy are not channels through which grace travels?

This was exactly what he taught his friars. The channels through which grace is distributed comes from the liturgy itself. This was not an endorsement for irreverant celebration of the liturgy.

What do you think St. Francis would have said if the external qualities of a liturgy did not effectively prepare the faithful for receiving the transubstantiated Host?

So you can get an insight into his theology of the liturgy here is something that you can find in his writings.

“If I met an angel and the most sinful priest in the world. I would reverence the priest first and foremost. For only through him do we have the presence of Christ in a visible form in this world.”

He is not promoting sin or disrespect for the liturgy. He is teaching his friars that the sinfulness of the priest or other surrounding the liturgy does not take away from the most solemn grace of all, that which comes from the real presence. His focus was on his reverence toward the Eucharist, not the priest’s.

In fact, if examine his life, there were some unsavory clerics who were Brothers in his order. One of them was his successor, Brother Elias. Francis obeyed him in all things and continued to allow him to celebrate the liturgy. History doesn’t give us many details of how Elias celebrated liturgy. But it gives us many details of his character, which was definitely morally lacking. But Francis bowed to his authority as superior general and to participated in Brother Elias celebration of the liturgy, because for him, the real presence of Christ and the communion with Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel in the liturgy were separate from Brother Elias’ sinfulness.

Of course. This goes without saying. But do you deny that the surrounding liturgy may work for or against Eucharistic fervency and reverence?

If I’m understanding the question correctly, no one denies that beauty and reverence must surround the liturgy in any form.

In what sense are you claiming their views to be different. So far, I’ve only seen the section you quoted of St. Francis emphasizing belief in the Real Presence. Surely this is not what you mean by “difference” between the saints.

The difference between them was that for the Franciscans the real presence was the only thing that really mattered for the liturgy to be fully efficatious. For the Redemptorists, they bring an added dimension which was the idea of a high and low liturgy, which the Franciscans never had and to do not have. Francis never allowed it. The Church accepts that these are two different spiritual paths that lead to the same place and do so very efficaciously.

Also, a question: in which situation would you find a more radical change: between any two medieval masses or between the TLM and the NO?

This is an interesting question, because today we would say that the differences between the extraordinary form (not TLM0 and the ordinary form (not NO) are radically different. But in the 1200s people felt that the intrdocution of the Gregorian mass by the Franciscans was a radical change. There were several things that were very radical to the people of that time.

1. The Francis moved the tabernacle to the main altar. Previously it had been on a side altar
2. The Francis consoladates these different texts that Innocent III had given him into one missal, which was later adapted and restructured for universal use. The missal that Francis organzied was not the missal in use.
3. He introduced music in the language of the people and reduced and almost eliminated all Gregorian chant from the liturgy.
4. He also introduced the sermon in the language of the people, instead of Latin.
5. He introduces the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament, instead of in choir, which has been the tradition for over a thousand years.
6. He takes out the Gregorian chant out of the Liturgy of the Hours and insists that it must be recited and not chanted. Which is still in practice to this day.
7. At that time the Liturgy of the Hours was an important part of the liturgical life of the Church and it was usually precided by a priest. Francis presides over the Liturgy of the Hours, with the faithful. He is a Brother and other non ordained brothers did too.
8. He introduced drama into the liturgy, such as the live nativity and the living stations of the cross, which we saw at World Youth Day. The live nativity was acted out during the reading of the Gospel at Christmas mass. This had never been done.
9. He wrote several liturgical hymns in Italian, which had never been done and some survive to this day: “All Creatures of Our God and King”, “Canticle of Brother Sun” written on his death bed, and “Queen of Heaven Rejoice”
10. He eliminates all distinctions between the friars who are ordained and those who have other ministries. Before the age of concelebration, one of the ordainend friars celebrated mass and the other friars ordained or other, attended mass with the congregation. The only day that the ordained friars celebrated mass was on Sundays. For weekdays, only one friar celebrated mass and the entire community attended.
11. He never had a high or low mass in the strict sense as the extraordinary form has it today. There were solemnities which were exactly that, very solemn, such as Christmas and Easter. After his death, his feast day was added to the Franciscan calendar of solemnities. On these days the mass was much more solemn and sitll is, even in the ordinary form. Maybe it can be said that this was their form of a high mass, though the term has never been used among the friars.

I would say that in the 1200s these differences must have been as remarkable to the Church as the extraordinary form and the ordinary form are to us today. The differences of that day were compared to the beautiful liturgies celebrated by the Benedictines who were masters of liturgy. Obviously the mass celebrated by the Friars Minor was no where near as externally remarkable as the Benedictine’s celebration.

I’m not sure if I undestood all of your questions correctly. But I have tried to answer them as I understood them.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

These are good questions and they apply to all of us. I’ll try to give you some very brief responses as you have many.

This is true. This is why liturgy in any form must be celebrate with propriety.

This was exactly what he taught his friars. The channels through which grace is distributed comes from the liturgy itself. This was not an endorsement for irreverant celebration of the liturgy.

So you can get an insight into his theology of the liturgy here is something that you can find in his writings.

“If I met an angel and the most sinful priest in the world. I would reverence the priest first and foremost. For only through him do we have the presence of Christ in a visible form in this world.”

He is not promoting sin or disrespect for the liturgy. He is teaching his friars that the sinfulness of the priest or other surrounding the liturgy does not take away from the most solemn grace of all, that which comes from the real presence. His focus was on his reverence toward the Eucharist, not the priest’s.

In fact, if examine his life, there were some unsavory clerics who were Brothers in his order. One of them was his successor, Brother Elias. Francis obeyed him in all things and continued to allow him to celebrate the liturgy. History doesn’t give us many details of how Elias celebrated liturgy. But it gives us many details of his character, which was definitely morally lacking. But Francis bowed to his authority as superior general and to participated in Brother Elias celebration of the liturgy, because for him, the real presence of Christ and the communion with Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel in the liturgy were separate from Brother Elias’ sinfulness.

If I’m understanding the question correctly, no one denies that beauty and reverence must surround the liturgy in any form.

The difference between them was that for the Franciscans the real presence was the only thing that really mattered for the liturgy to be fully efficatious. For the Redemptorists, they bring an added dimension which was the idea of a high and low liturgy, which the Franciscans never had and to do not have. Francis never allowed it. The Church accepts that these are two different spiritual paths that lead to the same place and do so very efficaciously.

This is an interesting question, because today we would say that the differences between the extraordinary form (not TLM0 and the ordinary form (not NO) are radically different. But in the 1200s people felt that the intrdocution of the Gregorian mass by the Franciscans was a radical change. There were several things that were very radical to the people of that time.

1. The Francis moved the tabernacle to the main altar. Previously it had been on a side altar
2. The Francis consoladates these different texts that Innocent III had given him into one missal, which was later adapted and restructured for universal use. The missal that Francis organzied was not the missal in use.
3. He introduced music in the language of the people and reduced and almost eliminated all Gregorian chant from the liturgy.
4. He also introduced the sermon in the language of the people, instead of Latin.
5. He introduces the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament, instead of in choir, which has been the tradition for over a thousand years.
6. He takes out the Gregorian chant out of the Liturgy of the Hours and insists that it must be recited and not chanted. Which is still in practice to this day.
7. At that time the Liturgy of the Hours was an important part of the liturgical life of the Church and it was usually precided by a priest. Francis presides over the Liturgy of the Hours, with the faithful. He is a Brother and other non ordained brothers did too.
8. He introduced drama into the liturgy, such as the live nativity and the living stations of the cross, which we saw at World Youth Day. The live nativity was acted out during the reading of the Gospel at Christmas mass. This had never been done.
9. He wrote several liturgical hymns in Italian, which had never been done and some survive to this day: “All Creatures of Our God and King”, “Canticle of Brother Sun” written on his death bed, and “Queen of Heaven Rejoice”
10. He eliminates all distinctions between the friars who are ordained and those who have other ministries. Before the age of concelebration, one of the ordainend friars celebrated mass and the other friars ordained or other, attended mass with the congregation. The only day that the ordained friars celebrated mass was on Sundays. For weekdays, only one friar celebrated mass and the entire community attended.
11. He never had a high or low mass in the strict sense as the extraordinary form has it today. There were solemnities which were exactly that, very solemn, such as Christmas and Easter. After his death, his feast day was added to the Franciscan calendar of solemnities. On these days the mass was much more solemn and sitll is, even in the ordinary form. Maybe it can be said that this was their form of a high mass, though the term has never been used among the friars.

I would say that in the 1200s these differences must have been as remarkable to the Church as the extraordinary form and the ordinary form are to us today. The differences of that day were compared to the beautiful liturgies celebrated by the Benedictines who were masters of liturgy. Obviously the mass celebrated by the Friars Minor was no where near as externally remarkable as the Benedictine’s celebration.

I’m not sure if I undestood all of your questions correctly. But I have tried to answer them as I understood them.

Fraternally,

JR

Hi JR,

It seems that the changes made by St. Francis were not all that radical, and some even seem to be an improvement (such as moving the tabernacle to the center.)

So doing things like preaching the sermon in the vernacular or not singing in Gregorian chant are not the same as completely reworking the liturgy where many prayers are dropped or altered, new Eucharistic prayers are made up, and we end up with a new rite of Mass. It would be interesting to go to a Franciscan liturgy in the old form, I do know of at least one approved group of Franciscans that celebrate it, but they are not near me.

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

It seems that the changes made by St. Francis were not all that radical, and some even seem to be an improvement (such as moving the tabernacle to the center.)

So doing things like preaching the sermon in the vernacular or not singing in Gregorian chant are not the same as completely reworking the liturgy where many prayers are dropped or altered, new Eucharistic prayers are made up, and we end up with a new rite of Mass. It would be interesting to go to a Franciscan liturgy in the old form, I do know of at least one approved group of Franciscans that celebrate it, but they are not near me.

Every house of the Friars Minor celebrates their conventual mass using this form. The use the ordinary form only for the faithful.

I don’t know about it being radical or not. I do know from the study of our history (Franciscan) that he took some flack from the secular clergy. I guess it was radical for those days. It was the Bishop of Assisi who came to the Friars’ protection.

JR

 

[moosears]

I attend daily mass (NO), although I prefer the EF that I attend on Sundays. I have come to a crossroads. I know that the OF is valid and that it can indeed be celebrated reverently, but somehow I cannot stomach the irreverence showed by some priests in the NO. It’s almost as if some priests make a political statement of being irreverent. I’m fed up with priests shaking hand with the whole congregation at the sign of peace. I’m fed up with EM at almost all masses. I long for the EF. I don’t know where to turn so I turn to Our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, O Lord, is this the worship we , your holy Church should give to you? You, who have loved us so much that you died on the cross for our redemption. Is this the way we should conduct ourselves in your most holy presence? Frankly I’m not into parish shopping, but I’m looking for a parish that exclusively celebrates the EF.

Could you give me some advice?
Would it be bad for me to give up daily mass?
Could this be the Lord testing my humility?

Dear eelpis, I wish it were not true that some priests do not follow proper protocols when offering the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Unfortunately that is the case in ou day and time. Correction of abuses within the Church come very slowly and in the meantime the faithful are taught that reverence at Mass is not so important. God, in His time will grow weary of these abuses and make the necessary corrections Himself. For right now I would suggest seeking out a good spiritual director to help you with this problem. there have been many good posts on this thread with some very helpful advice but unless you just want to vent frustration this forum is not going to give you what you need. With a spiritual director you could have one on one, face to face dialogue and he can help you to see where you are spiritually and get past any obstacles to help you get to where you really need to be. Maybe for now you could just go to the OF a little bit less every week but I would not stop going altogether. You need those graces and your attendance does have an impact on the whole Body of Christ. I hope this helps. I really hope and pray that your spiritual journey leads you into heights of our heavenly Fatherland.

 

[PrayforMallory]

bolding mine

I think you just summed up all our conversations. The Novus Ordo mass** IS NOT** a crisis. If you agree that it is not a crisis, it, would be and is, of its own merit, infinite in benefit. This is what I am saying. The only other alternative would be that is not. I do not believe, I cannot believe that is what you are saying.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon-

Let’s get back to my original point, which is that the prayers of the TLM are objectively superior to those of the Novus Ordo. Why won’t you just look at them and make an argument based on those?

Obviously, the Eucharist is the Eucharist, but there are other elements of liturgy that need to be examined, and it is in those elements that the superiority of the TLM is to be found.

Why not compare the two missals, instead of retreating into the status quo, which both of us know cannot last.

 

[PrayforMallory]

The only “perspective” that matters, is the perspective of the Church.

The Novus Ordo IS the “Ordinary Form” of the Mass. Period. It is equal to the EF in the eyes of the Church.

The rest is just background noise from dissidents.

The Church isn’t stagnant or monolithic. Due to the fact that we have a living tradition, there has to be growth, and growth can come from study and argument. The Novus Ordo will not stand the test in the end, because this artificial “equality” is in some ways a political position and not one based on clear analysis.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Why not compare the two missals, instead of retreating into the status quo, which both of us know cannot last.

This is your mistake. We do not both know this. I for one do not believe it. Further, I have enough to do without delving into something which on my part will not make any difference in what we are talking about. My going on what I personally would consider a head trip for myself of comparing liturgies would be for me a waste of time when I have my plate full on other things that must be done. I don’t want this to sound insulting, but that is where I am coming from.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[goofyjim]

I’m fed up with being told I am not reverent simply because I prefer the NO. STOP judging the heart. Revernece can be found in both the EF and the NO. It is not an exclusively owned thing by either proponents.

 

[PrayforMallory]

This is your mistake. We do not both know this. I for one do not believe it. Further, I have enough to do without delving into something which on my part will not make any difference in what we are talking about. My going on what I personally would consider a head trip for myself of comparing liturgies would be for me a waste of time when I have my plate full on other things that must be done. I don’t want this to sound insulting, but that is where I am coming from.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Well Deacon, I guess this is where our discussion ends, on this thread at least.

Best wished for the birthday of your grandchild.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m fed up with being told I am not reverent simply because I prefer the NO. STOP judging the heart. Revernece can be found in both the EF and the NO. It is not an exclusively owned thing by either proponents.

It is about the prayers of either liturgy. It is not about you (or me). Thus no one is judging your heart (nor should they be).

 

[PrayforMallory]

It is about the prayers of either liturgy. It is not about you (or me). Thus no one is judging your heart (nor should they be).

Exactly. In terms of personal holiness, I’m sure I rank pretty low on the list here.

 

[ethelzguy]

Exactly. In terms of personal holiness, I’m sure I rank pretty low on the list here.

Agreed. Where are any of us on the ol’ totem pole, to be passing judgement on our clergy?

 

[coyotekate77]

Agreed. Where are any of us on the ol’ totem pole, to be passing judgement on our clergy?

Ummmm. . .there is a big difference between ‘passing judgment on the clergy’ and noting observations of actual incidents and actions that occurred.

I do not ‘pass judgment upon my clergy’ when I note an invalid or illicit action has occurred. Especially when I am careful to pray for not only all clergy, but all laity, to refrain from ‘inflammatory’ speech, speculation, etc.

There are (and have been) many instances in which some of us have had some really, really ‘wrong’ things done to us. Most of those things were not done maliciously, I hasten to add. But they were done, and no amount of obfuscation, or excuse, is going to change what was done. If you were lucky enough not to have experienced some terribly tragic wrongs that were (as I said, mostly unintentionally) done by clergy, God bless you. But please be careful that, in the (praiseworthy) interest of obedience and reverence to our clergy (may God protect them), you don’t ‘gloss over’ wrong actions as either: They weren’t wrong, you’re the wrong one for criticizing: or 'even if they were wrong, you shouldn’t criticize because you’re only a lay person and don’t know the whole story.

Sometimes priests, being human, can fail. We should never use those failures maliciously or to ‘attack’ the priest (or the Church) but we cannot excuse them ‘because after all, he is a priest and you’re not’. Priests are special because they are God’s servants and thus He holds them to a higher standard. The reverence that we should feel for a priest even if he is ‘personally’ in error should persist yet without the priesthood becoming an ‘excuse’ to let things ‘slide’ simply BECAUSE he is a priest.

Let’s take Cardinal Law for an example. A lot of people I know froth at the mouth over the Cardinal’s role in the sex scandals. Was he wrong? Definitely. But WHY he was wrong. . .well, I feel that the Cardinal’s errors came about because he trusted the medical profession (who at the time of the 70s and 80s said that abusive priests not only could be cured but should be returned to active ministry in a different parish to ‘give them a chance’) and also because he was ‘fatherly’ concerned about the abusive priests as well. His emphasis was skewed to ‘forgiveness of the abuser is paramount’. Now, unlike a lot of other people, I have sympathy for the Cardinal. I don’t think that the errors that most people attribute to him are, in fact, his real errors. Too many people forget that in 1980, we didn’t know what we know in 2008. So they judge by 2008 standards. They judge that the Cardinal "failed the abused’ and to an extent he did. . .but not because the Cardinal did not CARE about the abused. He did. But the way in which he chose to act turned out to be a failure–because the medical and the psychological people were WRONG. But how was the Cardinal to know? He honestly thought he was doing the right thing. But it did turn out to have been a wrong choice, in many situations.

Now, a lot of priests really ‘thought’ they were doing the right thing when they made some really, really awful errors. They thought, by telling us that contraception was all right “if your conscience tells you” would keep us from walking out of church and being ‘lost.’ They were, of course, wrong. . .and incidentally, denying Pope Paul VI’s own words. . .and so tragically contributing to the mentality that would elevate abortion into the holocaust it has been. . .but they were not for the most part doing so with malicious intent; they thought they were acting ‘for the best’. Many excused their actions as being more ‘spirit of Vatican 2" or "not being legalistic but being welcoming’ . . .again, tragically wrong in the actions but with ‘good intent’.

So, am I passing judgment on the clergy when I note specific actions that were done, and also acknowledging that the actions were not (for the most part) done so deliberately, maliciously, or with evil intent? I do not think so.