Liturgical Abuses - So what's the big deal?

[Orionthehunter]

Friends, this is where I’ve been coming from. I know there are problems in different dioceses and parishes. I also recognize some of them are of a serious matter and some less serious (even trivial or unintentional). But I think we have to be careful to make sure that the cure isn’t worse than the disease.

Realities followed by comment:

1. Pope Benedict is a Pope that has indicated that an emphasis of his pontificate is to “reform the reform.” As YingYang said, we need to be patient and trusting. God is in charge here.
2. Execution of the “reform of the reform” requires discipline. I find a disconnect when those desiring a change that will require submission and obedience to authority advocating positions of dismissal, disregard, disrespect or disobedience of legitimate authority.
3. As Joysong above provided us that in addition to a common universal Profession of Faith and the Sacraments, Catholicism requires a submission and obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities. Granted there are extreme cases like the French excommunicated archbishop that require disobedience but equating hand holding or orans or other matters to overt schism does minimizes schism and fosters disunity.
4. Bishops have an obligation to administer their Dioceses in matters of Liturgy, Teachings and Morals diligently to bring more people to Christ. Just as our Priests are accountable, Bishops will have to account for all the things they did that hindered peoples aspirations to find Christ. Concurrently, as Joysong said above, “if someone obeys lawful authority, even though that authority be wrong, these are not held responsible.” This instruction is an indication that chaos and disunity is a greater evil calling us to use extreme caution when advocating disregard or disobedience for our ecclesiastical authorities.
5. With regard to Teachings and to some degree Morals, Bishops primary “flexibility” is regard to focus (ie in Africa the focus might be abstinence because of the AIDS crisis while in the U.S. the focus is abortion). But with regards to Liturgy there is more flexibility for accommodation of local culture and local custom. With flexibility comes opportunity for misinterpretation. While not condoning the institutionalization of misinterpretation or advocating silence in the face of abuses, I think that it is critical that the vehicle for expressing oneself must be appropriate (go thru proper channels), respectful in tone, and accepting of the decisions of higher legitimate authorities.
6. Catholics are called to look to their Priest, Bishop, the Catechism, and Pope/Magisterium on matters of Scripture, Teachings, and Morals. We recognize that the proper interpretation of these matters requires the fullness of the Holy Spirit and only in the Church can we trust what interpretation is authentic. I’m at a loss to understand why laity of greater limited capacity and expertise on “administrative matters” would claim to have a greater understanding of the letter and spirit of liturgical norms than our Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals. Furthermore, we would execute a poor business decision of limited and manageable import under the direction of our boss but won’t do so on whether or not holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is proper. Just as such a poor business decision is not a life/death matter for which we’d make a stand resulting in getting fired, neither is this issue of such import that we should disregard, dismiss or disrespect a Bishop.

 

[Quaere_Verum]

theMutant:

However, it is just as easy (more in my opinion) to be a completel follower and not know the why behind it all with the current liturgy. It is also just as easy to know the why behind it all with the old liturgy. My point is, that it is not the variations available in the liturgy that help us to understand the “why” behind it all. Indeed, Rome is clear in that, even were variation is allowed, every i is dotted and every t is crossed! It is in catechesis, both in and outside of the liturgy, that we learn the why.

Agreed!

 

[Quaere_Verum]

This thread has been most enlightening. I have read all the posts, but must confess I didn’t understand them all as I am neither an intellectual or a theologian. So, unable to follow the content, I tried to follow the emotion, and the one thing that was evident to me is that despite the differing views all the posters seemed to have a deep love for the Lord and His Church. Is it possible that, even though they may be misguided, that our Church leaders also have this deep love? This realization is important for me in order to put my attitude right before attending Mass and receiving the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

[netmilsmom]

Orionthehunter:

Friends, this is where I’ve been coming from. I know there are problems in different dioceses and parishes. I also recognize some of them are of a serious matter and some less serious (even trivial or unintentional). But I think we have to be careful to make sure that the cure isn’t worse than the disease.

Realities followed by comment:

1. Pope Benedict is a Pope that has indicated that an emphasis of his pontificate is to “reform the reform.” As YingYang said, we need to be patient and trusting. God is in charge here.
2. Execution of the “reform of the reform” requires discipline. I find a disconnect when those desiring a change that will require submission and obedience to authority advocating positions of dismissal, disregard, disrespect or disobedience of legitimate authority.
3. As Joysong above provided us that in addition to a common universal Profession of Faith and the Sacraments, Catholicism requires a submission and obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities. Granted there are extreme cases like the French excommunicated archbishop that require disobedience but equating hand holding or orans or other matters to overt schism does minimizes schism and fosters disunity.
4. Bishops have an obligation to administer their Dioceses in matters of Liturgy, Teachings and Morals diligently to bring more people to Christ. Just as our Priests are accountable, Bishops will have to account for all the things they did that hindered peoples aspirations to find Christ. Concurrently, as Joysong said above, “if someone obeys lawful authority, even though that authority be wrong, these are not held responsible.” This instruction is an indication that chaos and disunity is a greater evil calling us to use extreme caution when advocating disregard or disobedience for our ecclesiastical authorities.
5. With regard to Teachings and to some degree Morals, Bishops primary “flexibility” is regard to focus (ie in Africa the focus might be abstinence because of the AIDS crisis while in the U.S. the focus is abortion). But with regards to Liturgy there is more flexibility for accommodation of local culture and local custom. With flexibility comes opportunity for misinterpretation. While not condoning the institutionalization of misinterpretation or advocating silence in the face of abuses, I think that it is critical that the vehicle for expressing oneself must be appropriate (go thru proper channels), respectful in tone, and accepting of the decisions of higher legitimate authorities.
6. Catholics are called to look to their Priest, Bishop, the Catechism, and Pope/Magisterium on matters of Scripture, Teachings, and Morals. We recognize that the proper interpretation of these matters requires the fullness of the Holy Spirit and only in the Church can we trust what interpretation is authentic. I’m at a loss to understand why laity of greater limited capacity and expertise on “administrative matters” would claim to have a greater understanding of the letter and spirit of liturgical norms than our Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals. Furthermore, we would execute a poor business decision of limited and manageable import under the direction of our boss but won’t do so on whether or not holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is proper. Just as such a poor business decision is not a life/death matter for which we’d make a stand resulting in getting fired, neither is this issue of such import that we should disregard, dismiss or disrespect a Bishop.

The biggest problem I see in all of this is that those who want a more traditional liturgy are disregarded.
When one is disregarded, that person can easily become militant, looking for any hint of abuse to validate one’s feelings.

If all of us would listen and validate each other’s feelings, we wouldn’t have people coming onto discussion forums yelling like banshees over the littlest things.

Have the innovative liturgies but give us a Historically Catholic liturgy as well. In this way we would all be happy. Why is this so hard for the DRE’s and Liturgical Commitees to understand?

No one wants to be disobedient to our Bishops. But some of this is the resentment built up over years to laity put in power and poor priests being caught in the middle. Sometimes yelling on a discussion forum is all we have.

 

[MrS]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

The biggest problem I see in all of this is that those who want a more traditional liturgy are disregarded.
** When one is disregarded, that person can easily become militant**, looking for any hint of abuse to validate one’s feelings.

If all of us would listen and validate each other’s feelings, we wouldn’t have people coming onto discussion forums yelling like banshees over the littlest things.

Have the innovative liturgies but give us a Historically Catholic liturgy as well. In this way we would all be happy. Why is this so hard for the DRE’s and Liturgical Commitees to understand?

No one wants to be disobedient to our Bishops. But some of this is the resentment built up over years to laity put in power and poor priests being caught in the middle. Sometimes yelling on a discussion forum is all we have.

**militant **We are, after all, the Church Militant are we not?

Innovative liturgies are the smoke that has entered the Church. I for one am NOt someone who “loves the smell of napalm in the morning”. And eventually the Catholic Church will be quite small, quite reverent, and quite at peace.

**power **The blind leading the blind… or rather the uncatechized leading the uncatechized… all overseen by too many bishops who need to retire, relearn, and repent.

 

[buffalo]

Quaere Verum:

I just finished saying a rosary and offered it up for discernment in this area. Prayer must be the simplest way to deal with what I am experiencing during Mass - distraction and loss of peace due to the possible abuses I am seeing. Could it be that simple?

Sometimes I think it is until I remember the effects on children and teens faith formation. Then my sense of duty and responsibility kick in. There is a stern warning from Jesus for those that teach the faith incorrectly to children by word and deed.

 

[MrS]

buffalo:

Sometimes I think it is until I remember the effects on children and teens faith formation. Then my sense of duty and responsibility kick in. There is a stern warning from Jesus for those that teach the faith incorrectly to children by word and deed.

Luke 17:10 Why does the servant serve the Master… because it is his (our) JOB.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

Sometimes I think it is until I remember the effects on children and teens faith formation. Then my sense of duty and responsibility kick in. There is a stern warning from Jesus for those that teach the faith incorrectly to children by word and deed.

See, this is my point too. It would be one thing for those without children to “offer it up”, but those with young children may be concerned for their future. As has been said many times the mass is no one’s private property. Catholics have a right to a reverent, non abuse filled mass.

 

[Orionthehunter]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

The biggest problem I see in all of this is that those who want a more traditional liturgy are disregarded.
When one is disregarded, that person can easily become militant, looking for any hint of abuse to validate one’s feelings.

If all of us would listen and validate each other’s feelings, we wouldn’t have people coming onto discussion forums yelling like banshees over the littlest things.

Have the innovative liturgies but give us a Historically Catholic liturgy as well. In this way we would all be happy. Why is this so hard for the DRE’s and Liturgical Commitees to understand?

No one wants to be disobedient to our Bishops. But some of this is the resentment built up over years to laity put in power and poor priests being caught in the middle. Sometimes yelling on a discussion forum is all we have.

I totally agree with you here. Just as I don’t understand why one camp advocates that all Masses being traditional (chants w/ cantors, etc.) and another advocates that all Masses be contemporary. Charity should provide that there are legitimate accommodations to different age groups or dispositions without compromising Universality and Unity. One size doesn’t fit all.

If you were to find common themes of most of my posts, it shows an intolerance for intolerance and sympathy for our Priests and Bishops.

Intolerance for intolerance is mostly a perspective that intolerance begins with a lack of respect for the person on the other side or empathy.

Sympathy for Priests and Bishops is related to my deep respect for the difficulties, challenges and responsibility associated with their vocation. Unlike laity, they are responsible for the souls of their flock and they will have to answer for their failings in this regard. Daily they have to make decisions if the right approach is to be firm or gentle, patient or immediate, tolerant or intolerant etc. One of my most common prayers is not only for Priests but one of gratitude that my vocation is not of such great and grave consequence (for myself and others).

P.S. While I react strongly when faced w/ laity who don’t exhibit charity and respect for our clergy, I scream like a banshee when laity in positions of Church leadership exhibit these traits. They should know better and their failure is a great abuse of their leadership position. This applies to a DRE being disrespectful to a Priest whether he be advocating a more contemporary approach or a traditional approach. It is the Priest who has to answer for the approach. The DRE’s job is to execute.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

No one is calling for the laity to be overly suspecious, or jump the gun, but if one has seen a pattern and has tried to inform themselves as best they can what is the problem with pointing out difficulties?

We’re almost in agreement here. For you and me, that’s a big deal

I think you and I would agree that, according to the OPs question, with regard to ‘simple’ catholics, the 4th commandment principle would apply.

Where I differed with Joysong’s example is that tricky little part about ‘knowing’ it is wrong. Children are innocent. It takes quite a while for them to learn things outside their parent’s control. So if they have parents who direct them to do wrong things, they are to obey and by doing so they would not be culpable of the sin their parents led them into. Instead they would be rewarded for keeping the 4th commandment, even though their actions are wrong. Now, when the truth is finally revealed to the child (usually when they get to school or through a grandparent or aunt/uncle/cousin) then the next time the parent asks them to do something “they know” is wrong, that is when they are called to disobey in order to do the right thing.

Same for the ‘simple’ Catholic. If a Catholic does not know about the GIRM or other Church documents, and especially does not ‘know’ every step of the mass, then how could they possibly recognize when something is out of place? They can’t. Therefore, by obeying the priest in those matters - entrusting them with protecting their souls as they’ve been taught to do, and rightfully so, thus the reminder of RS - and that priest engages in abuses then the Catholic following the priest is not guilty of scandal or complicity or anything else. The guilt always rests on the priest who knowingly leads the trusting flock astray.

Now, if the priest doesn’t know better, then that’s where people like you come into play. Certainly you are to approach the priest about the practice. You have a right and a duty to do so. Because you know better, you are called to protect your fellow parishioners from being led astray. We’re on the same page there.

Where I start differing from you is just how persistent do you need to be? If you go to the priest, and the bishop, the archbishop and Rome, then you’re done. You’ve done all that you can do and from that point forward you are called to pray. Patience would be the order of the day while you await a response from the higher ups. Certainly, if your complaints were indeed abuses, they would be stopped. But if the response is that they are not abuses, then humility and obedience come next (or, as noted you find another parish).

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

but as a general rule when a lower authority contradicts a higher authority one is bound to obey the higher authority. Do you agree?

We agree here. Where I am cautious is interpretation. I guess I need a definitive ruling from the higher authority before I disobey the lower authority.

People in your situation read Church documents written not for the end user, but for the ordained. While you understand the documents, you have to admit some of you tend to imply meaning to certain passages, so there’s quite a bit of personal interpretation going on. What is your authority to verify your interpretation is correct? You need to be certain about these matters if you are to accuse a priest of dereliction of duty otherwise you risk that ‘bearing false witness’ thing. While you have, in writing, passages which can be interpreted to present your conviction, you don’t really know for certain it does.

Me? Being the cautious one, would certainly bring it to the attention of the priest. You and I agree on that. If the priest explains away our concerns without providing his own written evidence to support his position, then you and I agree the next step should be to bring the matter to the bishop.

This is where the 4th commandment comes into play. You believe a particular practice is an abuse, you have evidence from a higher authority (written documents geared toward clergy), but your evidence could be incorrectly intepreted, so it isn’t ‘confirmed’ by a higher authority (yet). What do you do while you await that confirmation from the higher authority? You believe your interpretation is enough to demand your disobedience to the lower authority.

I would propose you obey the priest until you hear back from the bishop, just in case the priest is right and your interpretation is wrong (or incomplete, perhaps is more likely). If it turns out the action is an abuse (when the bishop or Rome confirms your suspicion) then your participation up to that point would not be sin on your part, only the priest’s, because you didn’t know it was wrong (though you suspected it was and therefore sought a ruling). After you get the decision, well, we’d expect the priest to be admonished and the action would cease. If you get the letter from the bishop and still see the action taking place then you must disobey the priest because you know it is wrong by ruling of the higher authority.

I guess the definition of “higher authority” is where we differ. You are comfortable with your interpretation of Church documents alone as ‘higher authority’ and I prefer a ruling from an actual official of higher authority confirming my suspicion based on my interpretation of Church documents as ‘higher authority’.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Fix,

Aren’t these your words in post #196?
“My reply was sarcasm. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.”

The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government

and communion.

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”

This is part of my point, Fix. It is sometimes apparent that you have a habit of using sarcasm and harsh words to others, myself included. The bond between us must be charity and communion. Without it, all the ecclesial knowledge in the world simply “puffeth up” and one becomes but a “clanging symbal.”

One may express personal views in an effort to learn, but to use the fora as a sounding board for beefs and gripes while expressing sarcasm to others, can make the Holy Spirit difficult to observe as resident within that person, not to mention the eruptions of needless wrangling.

If you feel my previous post was misdirected, so be it.

Carole

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

We’re almost in agreement here. For you and me, that’s a big deal

I think you and I would agree that, according to the OPs question, with regard to ‘simple’ catholics, the 4th commandment principle would apply.

Where I differed with Joysong’s example is that tricky little part about ‘knowing’ it is wrong. Children are innocent. It takes quite a while for them to learn things outside their parent’s control. So if they have parents who direct them to do wrong things, they are to obey and by doing so they would not be culpable of the sin their parents led them into. Instead they would be rewarded for keeping the 4th commandment, even though their actions are wrong. Now, when the truth is finally revealed to the child (usually when they get to school or through a grandparent or aunt/uncle/cousin) then the next time the parent asks them to do something “they know” is wrong, that is when they are called to disobey in order to do the right thing.

Same for the ‘simple’ Catholic. If a Catholic does not know about the GIRM or other Church documents, and especially does not ‘know’ every step of the mass, then how could they possibly recognize when something is out of place? They can’t. Therefore, by obeying the priest in those matters - entrusting them with protecting their souls as they’ve been taught to do, and rightfully so, thus the reminder of RS - and that priest engages in abuses then the Catholic following the priest is not guilty of scandal or complicity or anything else. The guilt always rests on the priest who knowingly leads the trusting flock astray.

Now, if the priest doesn’t know better, then that’s where people like you come into play. Certainly you are to approach the priest about the practice. You have a right and a duty to do so. Because you know better, you are called to protect your fellow parishioners from being led astray. We’re on the same page there.

Where I start differing from you is just how persistent do you need to be? If you go to the priest, and the bishop, the archbishop and Rome, then you’re done. You’ve done all that you can do and from that point forward you are called to pray. Patience would be the order of the day while you await a response from the higher ups. Certainly, if your complaints were indeed abuses, they would be stopped. But if the response is that they are not abuses, then humility and obedience come next (or, as noted you find another parish).

See, I agree with all this.

Where I get into trouble in this place is when I comment on a general tendency among bishops, or other groups, that show a history of “liberal” leaning or not following Rome in a way that publicly leads many to think Rome is just some bureaucracy far away that is less important then the bishop who is in communion with Her.

That is one reason why RS was given by JPII. Is it really a secret that there are problems in the country with liturgical abuse? Is it a secret the bishops have not corrected much of the problem? Is it a sin to speak about these issues? Is every criticism now the etiology of disunity?

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Where I start differing from you is just how persistent do you need to be? If you go to the priest, and the bishop, the archbishop and Rome, then you’re done. You’ve done all that you can do and from that point forward you are called to pray. Patience would be the order of the day while you await a response from the higher ups. Certainly, if your complaints were indeed abuses, they would be stopped. But if the response is that they are not abuses, then humility and obedience come next (or, as noted you find another parish).

Well YinYang I was really happy with your post until you stated - find another parish and certainly if they were abuses they would be stopped.
Not true - our Priest and Bishop have had legitimate abuses reported to them and they still continue.

At a point it crosses over into disobedience. That is hard to take form a leader of the flock.

 

[MrS]

fix:

Where I get into trouble in this place is when I comment on a general tendency among bishops, or other groups, that show a history of “liberal” leaning or not following Rome in a way that publicly leads many to think Rome is just some bureaucracy far away that is less important then the bishop who is in communion with Her.

That is one reason why RS was given by JPII. Is it really a secret that there are problems in the country with liturgical abuse? Is it a secret the bishops have not corrected much of the problem? Is it a sin to speak about these issues? Is every criticism now the etiology of disunity?

Right on fix.

It is no secret unless
you can’t hear the instructions because the music is too rowdy:yup:
or
you can’t see the liturgy because too many are standing or dancing:bounce:
or
you can’t pray well because time is taken with other fellowship things:clapping:

(sorry… I do agree but too much coffee makes me anxious)

 

[YinYangMom]

theMutant:

However, it is just as easy (more in my opinion) to be a completel follower and not know the why behind it all with the current liturgy. It is also just as easy to know the why behind it all with the old liturgy. My point is, that it is not the variations available in the liturgy that help us to understand the “why” behind it all. Indeed, Rome is clear in that, even were variation is allowed, every i is dotted and every t is crossed! It is in catechesis, both in and outside of the liturgy, that we learn the why.

Duly noted and I agree…both liturgies can bring us to the ‘why’.

I was trying to convey my ‘simple’ father’s preference to not know the ‘why’ though. The NO and other changes of Vatican II were intended to move the faithful to a fully understanding of the why of being Catholic. I guess my father resisted that as much as he could. For him, and I suspect for other ‘simple’ Catholics, they prefer to keep themselves at a distance from it all, I suppose out of the thinking that they are not worthy to know as much as a priest. For them it would be a matter of overstepping the boundaries even though we were encouraged to come into the new arena. Perhaps they did not trust the ruling. Who knows?

 

[fix]

Joysong:

Dear Fix,

Aren’t these your words in post #196?
“My reply was sarcasm. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.”

That was to a poster that was making my argument, not yours. I was agreeing with her and pointing the silliness of your “camp”.

This is part of my point, Fix. It is sometimes apparent that you have a habit of using sarcasm and harsh words to others, myself included.

I rarely intend to use harsh words. Perhaps you are hyper sensitive?

The bond between us must be charity and communion. Without it, all the ecclesial knowledge in the world simply “puffeth up” and one becomes but a “clanging symbal.”

Perhaps it is more a matter of style? ? If I offended you I am sorry and it was unintentional.

One may express personal views in an effort to learn, but to use the fora as a sounding board for beefs and gripes while expressing sarcasm to others, can make the Holy Spirit difficult to observe as resident within that person, not to mention the eruptions of needless wrangling.

This is out of line. I explained my post above.

If you feel my previous post was misdirected, so be it.

Carole

Should I consider this to be sarcastic, uncharitable, or a gripe?

See, interpretation is important. Again, if you think I was unfair to you I apologize.

 

[fix]

MrS:

It is no secret unless
you can’t hear the instructions because the music is too rowdy:yup:
or
you can’t see the liturgy because too many are standing or dancing:bounce:
or
you can’t pray well because time is taken with other fellowship things:clapping:

(sorry… I do agree but too much coffee makes me anxious)

 

[YinYangMom]

Quaere Verum:

This thread has been most enlightening. I have read all the posts, but must confess I didn’t understand them all as I am neither an intellectual or a theologian. So, unable to follow the content, I tried to follow the emotion, and the one thing that was evident to me is that despite the differing views all the posters seemed to have a deep love for the Lord and His Church. Is it possible that, even though they may be misguided, that our Church leaders also have this deep love? This realization is important for me in order to put my attitude right before attending Mass and receiving the Most Holy Eucharist.

Oh I firmly believe every Church leader has this deep love.
I’m also very certain that their deep love is under constant attack by Satan in an attempt to bring the Church down.

When we witness the abuse scandal, blatant abuses to the liturgy, Parish Councils overrunning the pastor and his allowing it to happen - these are evidence of Satan’s determination. We must pray the rosary for our Church leaders and continue to offer Masses for them. They are our front line soldiers in this battle, of that I have no doubt.

Whenever you witness weakness in your priest, pray and pray some more. He needs your help.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Where I get into trouble in this place is when I comment on a general tendency among bishops, or other groups, that show a history of “liberal” leaning or not following Rome in a way that publicly leads many to think Rome is just some bureaucracy far away that is less important then the bishop who is in communion with Her.

That is one reason why RS was given by JPII. Is it really a secret that there are problems in the country with liturgical abuse? Is it a secret the bishops have not corrected much of the problem? Is it a sin to speak about these issues? Is every criticism now the etiology of disunity?

I see impatience on your part, which indicates a lack of faith.

Isn’t RS enough to prove that Rome, indeed, is aware of the trouble here in the US and that She is working to remedy the situation?

Trust Her. Be patient.

What you’re proposing is to keep the artillery flying in Her direction. You seem to be recruiting Catholics to read documents not designed for them and to use those documents as weapons to be flailed upon Rome to wake her up already.

She’s already awake and stirring in the right direction. When Pope Benedict was elected this was proof the Holy Spirit is indeed on the march in this regard.

Instead of seeking out abuses here and there, campaigning to flood Rome with letters of concern and disdain, let’s flood Rome with letters of our faith in her, our trust in her, our prayers for her, our support of her mission to redeem our liturgy. Let Her know we appreciate Her response to our cry for help.

The wheels are in motion thanks to the work already done by the faithful in alerting Rome of the problem. As She goes about remedying the situation the rest of the abuses will come to the surface and She’ll deal with those as well.

Rallying people to write to their bishops and Rome to complain can quickly turn into a form of rebellion, especially when the sincere call is misconstrued to be something else. This happens throughout history, it can happen here. While you can control the message sent, you cannot control how that message will be received or acted upon. Know with certainty that Satan is in the wings waiting for the vulnerable recipient in order to twist things around so more harm is done than good.