Not just another CITH Thread...

[Tantum_ergo]

Mind you this is only my opinion, but it strikes me that CITH simply ‘fits’ more with today’s Western, ‘rugged individual type’ Catholics with their ‘me-n-Jesus’ outlook which has ‘crept in’ from use by Protestants. (and I am not saying that we should not have a relationship with Jesus!)

Compare the CITH Catholic who comes striding down purposefully, “takes” in his OWN hands the Body of the Lord, takes in his OWN hands the Chalice of the Blood, takes his own ‘time’, makes his ‘own decisions’, and is all ‘modern’ yet 'harking back to the ‘older, truer’ (sometimes claimed) times. . .

To the COTT Catholic who often kneels (a SUBMISSIVE posture), who has to ACCEPT the Body from somebody ELSE. Often he is perceived as being ‘disruptive’, pretentious, anachronistic, medieval. . .or ‘showing off piety.’

Many Catholics under the age of 50 literally don’t remember ‘any other way’ than CITH, were never taught of the Universal Norm, and culturally and societally have been subtly conditioned to think that far from the two being ‘choices’, the one (CITH) is the ‘real deal’ for ‘intelligent modern Catholics’ and the other is some lame holdover from ‘the past’ trying to be ‘forced’ by nasty OLD people who will then jam hats onto women, take away all ‘choice’, and just drag people back into miserable, illiteral slavery. . .

Now I’ll be fair. I received CITH for several years because it had been presented as ‘the norm’. I don’t think I was any less reverent in my ‘feelings’ though I may have projected a more casual 'attitude. I think many people who receive this way have the type of love and honor and respect for the procedure that they have for any ‘tradition’ and thus, see questioning of the practice not simply as an academic question but an attack on THEM, personally. . .and they resent it. So I don’t want to attack any persons or indeed even the practice per se. . .but I just want to make people aware that there is much more to the eye than many of us ever realized. There are a lot of subtle biases and coloring of information that have been given and absorbed by the U.S. Church in the last 40 years, all the more for us to consider in that we really don’t think of there having been any such ‘undercurrents’ at all. . .

 

[Miss_Linda]

If every parish celebrated the NO Mass like EWTN does, there would be orders of magnitude less confusion and disorder in the Church today, at least in regards to the Mass.

CITH already has as much place as it should have in the Church, and peoples’ perceptions of it need to be severely corrected. This is the big issue with CITH as I see it; the practice does need to be reined in and highly curtailed, though it is certainly not invalid in and of itself, and a traditional understanding of the Eucharist hammered upon until it is driven into every thick modernist skull.

There certainly are good reasons to have CITH as an exception to the rule, as a rare practice used only when needed, but in no way should CITH ever rival or supplant COTT, as per the Church’s own instructions on the matter.

Amen!!!

 

[ProVobis]

Many Catholics under the age of 50 literally don’t remember ‘any other way’ than CITH, were never taught of the Universal Norm, and culturally and societally have been subtly conditioned to think that far from the two being ‘choices’, the one (CITH) is the ‘real deal’ for ‘intelligent modern Catholics’ and the other is some lame holdover from ‘the past’ trying to be ‘forced’ by nasty OLD people who will then jam hats onto women, take away all ‘choice’, and just drag people back into miserable, illiteral slavery. . .

You may be onto something here. We probably shouldn’t be punished for what we’ve been taught. However we should look into why we’re continuing to teach it, though. A lot of things happened in the 60’s and a lot of misinformation was disseminated and Catholics got very confused. Pope Paul VI issued a document about using your “conscience” in matters of birth control (Progressio Populorum) and that’s what was passed onto Catholics who then passed it onto their kids and so on. Similar thing with Friday penance. Where are the documents for standing to receive? And when the CITH was passed, who remembered the conditions for more than a month? CITH has become so commonplace today. Yet the arguments still continue to linger and to such a degree the whole meaning of communion seems to have gone by the wayside.

 

[Lycorth]

Mind you this is only my opinion, but it strikes me that CITH simply ‘fits’ more with today’s Western, ‘rugged individual type’ Catholics with their ‘me-n-Jesus’ outlook which has ‘crept in’ from use by Protestants. (and I am not saying that we should not have a relationship with Jesus!)

Compare the CITH Catholic who comes striding down purposefully, “takes” in his OWN hands the Body of the Lord, takes in his OWN hands the Chalice of the Blood, takes his own ‘time’, makes his ‘own decisions’, and is all ‘modern’ yet 'harking back to the ‘older, truer’ (sometimes claimed) times. . .

To the COTT Catholic who often kneels (a SUBMISSIVE posture), who has to ACCEPT the Body from somebody ELSE. Often he is perceived as being ‘disruptive’, pretentious, anachronistic, medieval. . .or ‘showing off piety.’

Many Catholics under the age of 50 literally don’t remember ‘any other way’ than CITH, were never taught of the Universal Norm, and culturally and societally have been subtly conditioned to think that far from the two being ‘choices’, the one (CITH) is the ‘real deal’ for ‘intelligent modern Catholics’ and the other is some lame holdover from ‘the past’ trying to be ‘forced’ by nasty OLD people who will then jam hats onto women, take away all ‘choice’, and just drag people back into miserable, illiteral slavery. . .

Now I’ll be fair. I received CITH for several years because it had been presented as ‘the norm’. I don’t think I was any less reverent in my ‘feelings’ though I may have projected a more casual 'attitude. I think many people who receive this way have the type of love and honor and respect for the procedure that they have for any ‘tradition’ and thus, see questioning of the practice not simply as an academic question but an attack on THEM, personally. . .and they resent it. So I don’t want to attack any persons or indeed even the practice per se. . .but I just want to make people aware that there is much more to the eye than many of us ever realized. There are a lot of subtle biases and coloring of information that have been given and absorbed by the U.S. Church in the last 40 years, all the more for us to consider in that we really don’t think of there having been any such ‘undercurrents’ at all. . .

That post is worth quoting in its entirety - amen and amen again!

The miserable self-centeredness that has crept into Catholicism since the 1970s needs to go - maybe then people will remember that there’s something special in front of them and not just a cracker.

 

[nice2000]

4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=3839

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord… For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord” - 1 Corinthians 11:27,28
Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only
Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.
The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)
According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)
The pope’s action is in accord with the Church’s 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing the spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.
Kneeling also coincides with the Church’s centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. “To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (Council of Trent) This teaching is beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica: “Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.”
It is for reason that Pope Paul VI in his May 1969 pastoral letter to the world’s bishops reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the reception of Communion, stating that: “This method on the tongue must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini) This came in response to the bishops of Holland who started Communion in the hand in defiance of the centuries old decree from the Council of Rouen (650 A.D.) where this practice was condemned as sacrilegious. “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths.” To date this prohibition has never been overturned legally.

Today Communion in the hand is carried on illegally and has become a major tool of the enemy to destory the Faith throughout the world. For this practice serves no other purpose than to warp our conception of Jesus Christ and nourish a contempt for the sacred mysteries. It’s no wonder St. Basil referred to Communion in the hand as “a grave fault.”

That is to say, Communion in the hand is not tied with Catholic tradition. This practice was first introduced to the Church by the heretical Arians of the 4th century as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have ‘abuse’ problems today it is because we’re abusing the Sacrament - it’s backfiring on us!
Thanks to Communion in the hand, members of satanic cults are now given easy access to come into the Church and take the Host so that they bring it back to their covens where it is abused and brutalized in the ritualistic Black Mass to Satan. They crush the Host under their shoes as a mockery to the living God, and we assist it with our casual practice? Amongst themselves the satanists declare that Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, and we do nothing to stop it?

Hence, the Holy Father is doing his part to try to purge the Church of abuse etc.

 

[Cristiano]

…The miserable self-centeredness that has crept into Catholicism since the 1970s needs to go - …

What are implying? Are you saying that it is not only about me?

 

[gospel_life]

Not just another CITH Thread…
Seriously?? In what way?

ProVobis:

Yet the arguments still continue to linger and to such a degree the whole meaning of communion seems to have gone by the wayside.

I’m curious what you base this opinion on. I personally don’t see any more people looking oblivious to the whole thing than before Vatican II. Was the whole meaning of communion already gone then also? For the record, I would opine that the majority have never been much in touch with either the liturgy or reception of communion and that which way it is received really doesn’t have anything to do with it. There are always those there for true worship and they will receive reverently whichever way they receive. I think unfortunately that most are, and were before, there to fill their “Sunday obligation” and don’t really give it much thought one way or another.

nice2000:

http://www.4marks.com/articles/detai...rticle_id=3839

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

This article is so full of misinformation and personal “spin” on what the Pope and his spokesman have said as to be totally worthless.

And for what it’s worth, I am not a CITH “promoter”. If it’s truly wrong I hope the Church gets rid of it tomorrow. All the handwringing and hyperbole don’t make for valid arguments though when the majority of the bishops, at least in countries where it was given, asked for the indult. Using the “they’re trying to destroy the church” argument falls along the same line as the revisionist arguments that claim that Vatican II was “hijacked” when all but a small handful approved every single document.

I just can’t imagine, after the Pope’s strong initial reluctance, that he would have been swayed without solid arguments from a solid group who believed it would be beneficial. Without proof that there was bad will involved somehow, making the argument that it was somehow fraudulently promulgated again just doesn’t fly.

It may well be that time has shown that it isn’t a good idea and that it is time to reconsider. If so then the arguments should be made on why that is the case. But those arguments need to be supported by facts that are incontrovertable enough to sway the bishops to withdraw their support for the indult. Even now, if I’m not mistaken, no bishop is required to allow it in his diocese, indult or no, but I don’t recall hearing of any stopping its use in this country or Canada at least, even the most conservative. Instead of all the heat why not work on coming up with the facts that will get at least some of them taking action and get the ball rolling.

 

[momor]

4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=3839

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)

Kneeling also coincides with the Church’s centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. “To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (Council of Trent)

Just taking two of the ideas expressed:

#1 Do all of you who agree that all communicants should kneel and receive COTT, kneel before the Eucharist the entire time you are at adoration? If not, why not?

#2 What do you propose should be done about taking communion to the sick and homebound parishioners. Do you think it can only be allowed if and when the priest has the time?

 

[estesbob]

One thing Ive learned in CAF is the quickest way to hell is to hold hands at the Our Father followed by Recieving Communin in the hands. i have often wondered why people are so obsessed with what i am doing with my hands during Mass?

 

[Ockham]

I’m curious what you base this opinion on. I personally don’t see any more people looking oblivious to the whole thing than before Vatican II. Was the whole meaning of communion already gone then also? For the record, I would opine that the majority have never been much in touch with either the liturgy or reception of communion and that which way it is received really doesn’t have anything to do with it.

What do you base this opinion on? The surveys suggest otherwise.
gospel life;6825067:

All the handwringing and hyperbole don’t make for valid arguments though when the majority of the bishops, at least in countries where it was given, asked for the indult.

The majority of bishops ruled against CITH. That’s why this is not just ‘another CITH thread’. I’m hoping for a more factual, historical discussion rather than emotional opinion.

I just can’t imagine, after the Pope’s strong initial reluctance, that he would have been swayed without solid arguments from a solid group who believed it would be beneficial. Without proof that there was bad will involved somehow, making the argument that it was somehow fraudulently promulgated again just doesn’t fly.

Really? What then is the reason Pope Paul VI acquiesed?

It may well be that time has shown that it isn’t a good idea and that it is time to reconsider. If so then the arguments should be made on why that is the case. But those arguments need to be supported by facts that are incontrovertable enough to sway the bishops to withdraw their support for the indult.

How about the numbers since V2 and CITH? Mass attendance down. Belief in the Real Presence down. Seminarians down. What more facts do you need?

[Even now, if I’m not mistaken, no bishop is required to allow it in his diocese, indult or no, but I don’t recall hearing of any stopping its use in this country or Canada at least, even the most conservative. Instead of all the heat why not work on coming up with the facts that will get at least some of them taking action and get the ball rolling.

There is a new generation of bishops coming up through the ranks who seem to have more intestinal fortitude and desire to follow Church teaching than the ‘spirit of V2’ gang.

[/quote]

 

[Ockham]

One thing Ive learned in CAF is the quickest way to hell is to hold hands at the Our Father followed by Recieving Communin in the hands. i have often wondered why people are so obsessed with what i am doing with my hands during Mass?

It’s not an obsession but rather a passionate desire for all to follow the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaching and help each other get to Heaven. How we worship is how we believe. God deserves our best worship, not narcistic fellowship customized from one parish to the next. That type of behaviour is better suited to the KC hall or church basement following Mass.

 

[estesbob]

It’s not an obsession but rather a passionate desire for all to follow the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaching and help each other get to Heaven. How we worship is how we believe. God deserves our best worship, not narcistic fellowship customized from one parish to the next. That type of behaviour is better suited to the KC hall or church basement following Mass.

I have a passionate desire to follow the One Holy Catholic Church also-which is why I depend upon the Magestrium to direct me as to what is proper and what is not. CITH is allowed in the US. If you are not comfortable with that then you are allowed to recieve it on the tongue. When I go to Mexico i recieve on the tongue as that is the norm there although i note lots of Americans take it in the hand and are accomodated by the Mexican Clergy.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I don’t think that any of my friends and other people my age (I am 15) really know how sacred and holy the eucharist is. I had to explain to my friend who goes to CATHOLIC school, what it was because he thought it was just blessed bread. CITH never strengthened my belief in the true presence, and until I started receiving COTT I didn’t really realize that this was really God. My younger cousins who are making there first communions only learn how to receive on the hand and they were told COTT was something only that “old people” do. It is very hard for kids my age to see what the eucharist really is, and I believe that if communion on the tongue comes back it would make them see how holy the eucharist is. Communion on the hand allows some people to just walk away with the host then put it in their mouth when they get to there pew. Eucharistic Ministers don’t strengthen people’s belief in the true presence either. Trust me on this one, CITH is defiantly causing people to not understand the sacrament, well at least people my age.

The lack of knowledge/understanding of the Real Presence is not the result of CITH; it is the result of poor cathesis and that is the fault their parents and their teachers.

 

[gospel_life]

What do you base this opinion on? The surveys suggest otherwise.

Many, many years of personal experience, both before and after.

What surveys? Show me a statistically valid survey showing that most people aren’t at Mass out of Sunday obligation. Show me a statistically valid survey showing a difference in reverence between those who receive one way or another. That is exactly what I’m talking about when I suggest that if you actually want to accomplish something you come up with unshakeable facts instead of blowing smoke.

The majority of bishops ruled against CITH. That’s why this is not just ‘another CITH thread’. I’m hoping for a more factual, historical discussion rather than emotional opinion.

False.

The majority of the bishops polled initially opposed it, for various reasons. The statement made here was that the majority within an area requesting the indult approved. That is a necessary requirement to get the indult and is a fact, not an “emotional opinion.” Again, unless you can show bad will on the part of those requesting it, making claims that it was “fraudulently” enacted and that people are being “disobedient” just don’t hold water.

Really? What then is the reason Pope Paul VI acquiesed?

The only logical explanation is that he was swayed by those requesting it that it would be beneficial, just as the enacting document states. If you think it is something else the burden of proof would fall on you to show the Pope acting in bad faith.

How about the numbers since V2 and CITH? Mass attendance down. Belief in the Real Presence down. Seminarians down. What more facts do you need?

And again with uncorrelated statistics that get trotted out continually and make this, in fact, just another CITH thread. If you want these things to fly you have to show correlation and causation. I’m not arguing against them but I will say that there are unquestionably far more reasons, and far more valid reasons, for those occurrences than CITH. Again, if you think they are proof of your argument the burden is on you to show factually that there is a statistical correlation rather than just trotting out events without definitive causation.

There is a new generation of bishops coming up through the ranks who seem to have more intestinal fortitude and desire to follow Church teaching than the ‘spirit of V2’ gang.

Then as I said, it would be worthwhile coming up with statistically valid proof of your claims that would give them reason to act. Until then you’re unfortunately indulging in the very “emotional opinions” that you make accusations of.

Again, I am not a CITH promoter and have great sympathy with a lot of your position. I do get tired though of the emotionally-driven claims and the accusations that people are being disobedient when they are not disobeying anything at all.

 

[Ockham]

I have a passionate desire to follow the One Holy Catholic Church also-which is why I depend upon the Magestrium to direct me as to what is proper and what is not.

The Magisterium ruled agasint CITH for North America. The purpose of this thread is not to sheepishly utter “its approved” but rather delve into why it got approved and whether it should be.

Any ideas?

 

[giuseppeTO]

I don’t think that any of my friends and other people my age (I am 15) really know how sacred and holy the eucharist is. I had to explain to my friend who goes to CATHOLIC school, what it was because he thought it was just blessed bread. CITH never strengthened my belief in the true presence, and until I started receiving COTT I didn’t really realize that this was really God. My younger cousins who are making there first communions only learn how to receive on the hand and they were told COTT was something only that “old people” do. It is very hard for kids my age to see what the eucharist really is, and I believe that if communion on the tongue comes back it would make them see how holy the eucharist is. Communion on the hand allows some people to just walk away with the host then put it in their mouth when they get to there pew. Eucharistic Ministers don’t strengthen people’s belief in the true presence either. Trust me on this one, CITH is defiantly causing people to not understand the sacrament, well at least people my age.

Sage words out of the mouths of babes!

Don’t be offended Andrew - your young observations cut to the core of the question. Nice job.

Here is my perspective from a previous post.

I was catechised before the Council and prior to the modern changes of the 70’s, especially concerning the Blessed Sacrament. I was taught in Catholic grammar school that Holy Communion was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. It is the single most precious gift Christ could leave us. Because it is Christ, we were taught that once confected, it would only be kept in vessels of precious metal and could only be handled by the anointed fingers of a priest. We were taught that each individual speck of the Blessed Sacrament, down to the tiniest of crumbs that collect in the fingers of the priest, are preciously safeguarded so that the priest, once the host is consecrated, must hold the thumb and index finger together on both hands until the final ablutions after Communion. He must learn to perform the intricacies of the Mass, including opening the tabernacle with a key and removing the cover from a ciborium with those fingers together. The only part of our body the Blessed Sacrament should ever touch would be our tongues while we knelt with our tongues out and our head back and eyes closed. And if, by accident, the host touched anything else, like dropping on the Communion Rail or God forbid, the floor, there was a purification rite that priest must perform immediately after Mass with Holy Water and purificator while still vested in alb or surplice and stole.

Mind you, we were not taught for how many hundreds of years the church had this practice, nor did the priests and nuns discuss with us whether early Christians did it any other way. It was sufficient to teach that this was Christ in Body and in Spirit and this is how we treat it.

Since the advent of CITH in which ever posture you choose, we have repeatedly reviewed the hows and whys, and that it is a form specified by the church and as such, is changeable at the discretion of the church.

What underlies the passion, I believe, probably comes primarily from those of us who learned at the the most tender age, the sublimity of the Blessed Sacrament and the way it was handled reflected that sublimity. The day that Eucharistic Ministers were introduced into the church, for me, was one of the days you remember like ‘Where were you when you heard that the Pope was shot’. I was a teenager myself and said “How could this be?”. It was absolutely inconsistent with everything I was taught concerning this most precious of gifts.

In our local diocesan church there is a Sunday evening teen (folk) Mass with teen eucharistic ministers. Of course, I now know the technical and legal answer to “How could this be”. But my heart, based on my Catholic upbringing still asks this question “How could this be?”

 

[Ockham]

Many, many years of personal experience, both before and after.

Ah, anctedotal evidence. So popular and common yet so shallow.

What surveys?

Georgetown’s CARA institute has several surveys showing Mass attendance and belief in Transubstantiation dropped after V2 and CITH.

Show me a statistically valid survey showing that most people aren’t at Mass out of Sunday obligation. Show me a statistically valid survey showing a difference in reverence between those who receive one way or another. That is exactly what I’m talking about when I suggest that if you actually want to accomplish something you come up with unshakeable facts instead of blowing smoke.

You are appealing to the absurd. Do you honestly thing surveys are conducted on such things? Check the CARA surveys for an idea of what’s been going on in the Church these past forty years.

False.

The majority of the bishops polled initially opposed it, for various reasons. The statement made here was that the majority within an area requesting the indult approved. That is a necessary requirement to get the indult and is a fact, not an “emotional opinion.” Again, unless you can show bad will on the part of those requesting it, making claims that it was “fraudulently” enacted and that people are being “disobedient” just don’t hold water.

If you are going to make such a statement please provide supporting documentation, not just opinion.

The only logical explanation is that he was swayed by those requesting it that it would be beneficial, just as the enacting document states. If you think it is something else the burden of proof would fall on you to show the Pope acting in bad faith.

False. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence we are better off with CITH.

And again with uncorrelated statistics that get trotted out continually and make this, in fact, just another CITH thread. If you want these things to fly you have to show correlation and causation.

The surveys speak for themselves.

I’m not arguing against them but I will say that there are unquestionably far more reasons, and far more valid reasons, for those occurrences than CITH.

Such as?

Again, if you think they are proof of your argument the burden is on you to show factually that there is a statistical correlation rather than just trotting out events without definitive causation.

Again, see the CARA numbers.

Again, I am not a CITH promoter and have great sympathy with a lot of your position. I do get tired though of the emotionally-driven claims and the accusations that people are being disobedient when they are not disobeying anything at all.

CITH is the only legalized liturgical abuse I know of in Church history. If you know of another I’d be happy to learn about it. If CITH was disobedient forty years ago, why is it legal now - other than “it’s approved”?

 

[estesbob]

The Magisterium ruled agasint CITH for North America. The purpose of this thread is not to sheepishly utter “its approved” but rather delve into why it got approved and whether it should be.

Any ideas?

It got approved becuase the Catholic Bishops of America wanted it. They could stop it overnight if they wanted to . As has been pointed out it is not correct to say the Magestrium is still against it-unless you are contending the Amercan Catholic Bishops are in open defiance of the Vatican.

As to whether it should have been approved? i could not care less whether one recieves communin in the Hand or in the Mouth. It is a minor issue and ranks very low on the list of issues facing the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

If you are not comfortable with that then you are allowed to recieve it on the tongue.

This type of attitude is precisely what makes CITH is illegal. Violates condition #1.

 

[estesbob]

This type of additude is precisely what makes CITH is illegal. Violates condition #1.

Then why have the Bishops not put a stop to it? Are you really contending that 10s of millions of American catholics and thousands of Catholic clergy are engaing in an illegal practice everyday?