Priest Praising Buddha in homily, no mention of Christ?!

[MagsM]

The Homily is not the Celebration of the Eucharist, but a preaching of the Word of God. That is why its part of the Liturgy of the Word, not of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Point taken. But for me, the reading of the Word is preparing to receive Christ. I do not separate the Word from the Eucharist.

the Buddha may have lived a more Christian life than most Christians without even knowing it. I think its more humbling for a Catholic to realize that a non-Catholic does better spiritually than they are.

Exactly. And an Evangelist or Mormon or Muslim would NEVER bring up any other teacher’s example in place of their God. This is shameful for a Catholic to do! We should learn from them in this respect!

And we boast that we have all the truths as revealed by Jesus Christ! So guess what, she made me want to become a better Catholic, despite being an Evangelical. The point of this is we can learn a lot from the lives of non-Catholics and even non-Christians that would help us become better persons. Truths are universal, the truth is the same whether its from a believer of Jesus Christ or not. The Buddha has shown that he has discovered some truths, why can’t we learn from that? Shouldn’t we feel that we should be better than the Buddha because Jesus himself revealed the truths to us?

LOL. After listening to this priest and to many of the posts on here who think it is ok to teach anything other than Christ in His church, I cannot agree that the Catholic church has the truth. No, truths are NOT universal. (I think of Pilate when he asked ‘what is truth?’) Good grief! Jesus said HE is the truth. I HAVE learned from the Muslims - they revere their teacher, and he isn’t even God!!!

Again, its not about revering the Buddha. Or perhaps it is. But we do not revere him for being the Buddha, but because he was a good human being. Bascially we revere him for what he has done, not what he is or made to be by Buddhists.

Again, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply Constantine, and I sincerely appreciate you (and others) advocating that we should learn from others and to recognize their value and worth. I whole-heartedly agree. Completely. But this has its time and place, and it is utterly inappropriate to reverence anyone but Jesus Christ in His worship service, while we prepare our hearts to receive His flesh and blood. It just goes against the basics of the purpose of the worship service to begin with. And no - we would not see this happening in a mosque or many fundamental churches. We should take that lesson to heart.

Maybe I ought to join the evangelicals because I cannot seem to agree with majority of Catholics on this one by any stretch of the imagination.

Apparently, Catholics, including the priests, think it is ok to follow anyone’s teaching, as long as they think it leads to happiness or sounds good. Seems rather unfaithful.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Point taken. But for me, the reading of the Word is preparing to receive Christ. I do not separate the Word from the Eucharist.

True, but the purpose of the Homily is to give teaching. You can’t deny that we cannot learn anything from non-Christians. As stated by Mark, the Good Samaritan is one good example where Christ admonished the Jews for living “lesser” lives while claiming to be God’s people but at the same time those who they see as “lesser” actually are living a life more in line with what God asks of us.

Exactly. And an Evangelist or Mormon or Muslim would NEVER bring up any other teacher’s example in place of their God. This is shameful for a Catholic to do! We should learn from them in this respect!

Why is it shameful that we recognize other people of living good lives? Do we think only Catholics are worthy of living good lives? That has never been a teaching of the Church.

LOL. After listening to this priest and to many of the posts on here who think it is ok to teach anything other than Christ in His church, I cannot agree that the Catholic church has the truth. No, truths are NOT universal. (I think of Pilate when he asked ‘what is truth?’) Good grief! Jesus said HE is the truth. I HAVE learned from the Muslims - they revere their teacher, and he isn’t even God!!!

I think you’re missing the whole point and just dismiss something because you have Buddha in there. Pardon me for saying this, but it seems that what is only going through is, “blah blah blah blah Buddha, blah blah blah blah.” In fact, you should see this the other way around. You should blank out Buddha as “blah” and everything else should be taken in and learned from. Don’t dismiss it just because its Buddha. Remember, Buddha never claimed to be God. Its very likely that Buddha discovered God through His creation, even though without the benefit of revelation he never recognized God the way we did.

Again, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply Constantine, and I sincerely appreciate you (and others) advocating that we should learn from others and to recognize their value and worth. I whole-heartedly agree. Completely. But this has its time and place, and it is utterly inappropriate to reverence anyone but Jesus Christ in His worship service, while we prepare our hearts to receive His flesh and blood. It just goes against the basics of the purpose of the worship service to begin with. And no - we would not see this happening in a mosque or many fundamental churches. We should take that lesson to heart.

Maybe I ought to join the evangelicals because I cannot seem to agree with majority of Catholics on this one by any stretch of the imagination.

I wonder why you keep saying that this never is taught in fundamental churches where they readily accept Hindu concepts such as karma because of its mass acceptance in pop-culture.

 

[Elizabeth502]

While not having (obviously) heard the homily either, I can nevertheless understand the OP’s frustration/disappointment if the homily eliminated the mention of Jesus. Let’s just say that it might not have been necessary. I do know Catholic theologians well acquainted with Eastern religions, and some of these theologians are even rather friendly to Buddhism especially. The point is, that rather than see these traditions as competitive, it can easily be said that there are aspects, concepts to Buddhism that support our Catholic theology of the unity of the Godhead, and many aspects of our tradition of prayer & spirituality (loss of “self,” response to suffering, union with God, etc.). If anything, Buddha supports Jesus – in his words (gospels) and even in much of his actions while on earth. The life and journey of Buddha illumines (foreshadows) Jesus, not the other way around. It’s just that Buddha got off track.

 

[MagsM]

"ConstantineTG:

The Homily is not the Celebration of the Eucharist, but a preaching of the Word of God. That is why its part of the Liturgy of the Word, not of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I have a question on this…If the homily is the preaching of the Word of God, then why espouse buddha? I maintain even more that Jesus is our example to use, not buddha or krishna or mohammed, or daffy duck.

True, but the purpose of the Homily is to give teaching. You can’t deny that we cannot learn anything from non-Christians. As stated by Mark, the Good Samaritan is one good example where Christ admonished the Jews for living “lesser” lives while claiming to be God’s people but at the same time those who they see as “lesser” actually are living a life more in line with what God asks of us.

I have never denied that we cannot learn from non-christians. I just don’t see the need to use them when we have a perfect example in Jesus Christ.

Why is it shameful that we recognize other people of living good lives? Do we think only Catholics are worthy of living good lives? That has never been a teaching of the Church.

And what do you have against using Jesus as our example to follow – as He instructed us to do? He said “follow Me” and God said “this is my Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” If God had meant for us to listen to Buddha, do you not think He could’ve made this known? It IS shameful to ignore Jesus in HIS church, and I honestly cannot imagine how anyone would not see this. If the Catholic church is the ‘true church’ they would be faithful to Him and seek to glorify the name of Jesus Christ, not any other religion.

I think you’re missing the whole point and just dismiss something because you have Buddha in there. Pardon me for saying this, but it seems that what is only going through is, “blah blah blah blah Buddha, blah blah blah blah.” In fact, you should see this the other way around. You should blank out Buddha as “blah” and everything else should be taken in and learned from. Don’t dismiss it just because its Buddha. Remember, Buddha never claimed to be God. Its very likely that Buddha discovered God through His creation, even though without the benefit of revelation he never recognized God the way we did.

And I think you are missing the point too. I have nothing against buddha – I would have the same reaction if the priest had mentioned Krishna or Mohammed too. I have a perfect example to follow in Jesus Christ. And sorry, but the priest’s job is to guide us to Christ, not to buddha…

I wonder why you keep saying that this never is taught in fundamental churches where they readily accept Hindu concepts such as karma because of its mass acceptance in pop-culture.

I have not said it is “never taught” in fundamental churches. But I do say that I’ve never heard a Baptist preacher confuse buddha with Christ.

The more I’ve ‘discussed’ this with y’all (and I do appreciate you all taking the time to respond), the more preposterous it becomes to me that a priest would lead his flock to drink from the well of buddhism simply as a matter of principle.

Additionally, I cannot think it OK that as a married woman, I bring strange men to my home and flirt with them in front of my husband. It is a less than faithful act, and you bet my husband would not be happy! This is what we are doing to Jesus Christ by this act. And yes, I think it is shameful.

 

[GEddie]

Thanks GEddie…Did Jesus really teach that we should see where other religions are right?

Good question. There’s nothing in the Gospels concerning HIS thoughts on foreign religion. In HIS place and time (i.e. Roman Israel ca. AD31) people were Jewish, Samaritan, followers of the Roman state religion, and a few other faiths. Basically, our LORD took everybody to HIMself without regard to their religion, but used what they said about faith to lead them to HIMself. Consider what HE read to the faithful in the temple, and HIS conversation with the woman at the well in Samaria, and a few others.

As someone pointed out, we can admire positive traits in others and see where they as individuals are right, but I just don’t think reverence for it has any place in worship OF Jesus, while we receive His flesh and blood. It is just beyond me. :nope:

I’d say you are right. I’d still let this one pass, though. Priests have so much on their mind that creating new homilies on a daily basis is a strain. Clearly this teaching of Buddha’s meant something to this Fr., and he did not feel it conflicted with the faith.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MarkThompson]

I have never denied that we cannot learn from non-christians. I just don’t see the need to use them when we have a perfect example in Jesus Christ.

You’re kind of overselling Jesus, aren’t you? I mean, if he is in fact the “perfect example” in the sense you seem to intend, then why would a priest ever want to give a homily extolling virtues using Mother Theresa as an example, or Jean-Marie Vianney, or Katherine Drexel? It wouldn’t make sense – who could possibly want to hear about an imperfect example when they could be hearing about the Perfect Example instead?

And what do you have against using Jesus as our example to follow – as He instructed us to do? He said “follow Me” and God said “this is my Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” If God had meant for us to listen to Buddha, do you not think He could’ve made this known?

Awesome – we’ll just have every homily be 100% about Jesus, problem solved. If God had meant for us to listen to Mother Theresa or Padre Pio, wouldn’t they be mentioned in the Bible?

We’re not Protestants, Mags. We’re allowed to talk about other things than All Jesus, All The Time. I wonder how Catholic theology would have turned out if none of our Doctors had bothered reading Plato, Aristotle, or Marcus Aurelius because “Jesus is all you need to know, darnit!”

And sorry, but the priest’s job is to guide us to Christ, not to buddha…

Yeah, make sure you sternly inform him of what his job is. Preferably with your finger pointing into his chest, and using your epithets “disgusted” and “shameful.”

 

[MagsM]

You’re kind of overselling Jesus, aren’t you?

Not really.

I mean, if he is in fact the “perfect example” in the sense you seem to intend, then why would a priest ever want to give a homily extolling virtues using Mother Theresa as an example, or Jean-Marie Vianney, or Katherine Drexel? It wouldn’t make sense – who could possibly want to hear about an imperfect example when they could be hearing about the Perfect Example instead?

Awesome – we’ll just have every homily be 100% about Jesus, problem solved. If God had meant for us to listen to Mother Theresa or Padre Pio, wouldn’t they be mentioned in the Bible?

I think the saints are of the same well as Jesus, but that buddha is not. buddhism is a different religion Mark, so I don’t think the analogy fits well in this case.

We’re not Protestants, Mags. We’re allowed to talk about other things than All Jesus, All The Time. I wonder how Catholic theology would have turned out if none of our Doctors had bothered reading Plato, Aristotle, or Marcus Aurelius because “Jesus is all you need to know, darnit!”

Being a protestant has very little to do with it and I am a Catholic, thanks. Mark, I agree that there are times and places for all these things. take a course in philosophy or in buddhist teachings or even try a Unitarian church – they all provide these things in ample supply. But Jesus’ altar is neither the time nor the place.

Yeah, make sure you sternly inform him of what his job is. Preferably with your finger pointing into his chest, and using your epithets “disgusted” and “shameful.”

Mark, I feel that at this point you are just bullying me. If you are going to continue to twist the context of what I am saying and be sarcastic and condescending to me, please don’t reply to this thread any more, OK? Thanks.

 

[MagsM]

GEddie:

Basically, our LORD took everybody to HIMself without regard to their religion, but used what they said about faith to lead them to HIMself. Consider what HE read to the faithful in the temple, and HIS conversation with the woman at the well in Samaria, and a few others

This is true, thanks. It is good to hear.

I’d still let this one pass, though. Priests have so much on their mind that creating new homilies on a daily basis is a strain.

I see your point. I think a couple of people have raised similarly good points in that it might be an isolated incident. The priest is new to the parish, so if it happens more often I will ask him about it.

Thanks again for all y’alls (name removed by moderator)ut – it has really helped me narrow down what I felt so offended by: It is that I strongly feel that it is unfaithful because it is a different religion. I think the analogy of a wife bringing home strange men to flirt with in front of her husband best describes my perception. For those who don’t agree, well, hopefully we won’t be in the same parish.

 

[MagsM]

While not having (obviously) heard the homily either, I can nevertheless understand the OP’s frustration/disappointment if the homily eliminated the mention of Jesus. Let’s just say that it might not have been necessary. I do know Catholic theologians well acquainted with Eastern religions, and some of these theologians are even rather friendly to Buddhism especially. The point is, that rather than see these traditions as competitive, it can easily be said that there are aspects, concepts to Buddhism that support our Catholic theology of the unity of the Godhead, and many aspects of our tradition of prayer & spirituality (loss of “self,” response to suffering, union with God, etc.). If anything, Buddha supports Jesus – in his words (gospels) and even in much of his actions while on earth. The life and journey of Buddha illumines (foreshadows) Jesus, not the other way around. It’s just that Buddha got off track.

thanks Elizabeth. I can appreciate your points, but gosh, some of that sounds a lot like Unitarianism. There are many things about all religions that are common, but I did not think that was the principle of Christianity. Only one person died for our sins, you know? Anyway…I just wanted to say thanks for chiming in and clarify that no, Jesus was not mentioned in the homily.

LOL…on a side note, my son was a riot when we discussed Buddha’s ‘detachment’. He said “isn’t he the fattest person that ever lived? Clearly he did not detach from food” Cracked me up

 

[GEddie]

concepts to Buddhism that support our Catholic theology of the unity of the Godhead, and many aspects of our tradition of prayer & spirituality (loss of “self,” response to suffering, union with God, etc.)…It’s just that Buddha got off track.

The problem with that is that while we are to deny self, we are NOT to strive for “loss of self” in the sense of seeking the nothingness, union with nothingness, nirvana, etc. We lose ourself to death, but receive ourself back in Heaven; whereas in Buddhism the losing is the goal.

I agree with the OP in that by bringing foreign religions to the pulpit, the main ideas can get mixed up in the minds of some. In general, I would say that non-Christian sources should not be preached, lest the impression be gained by some that all religions are equivalent. Still, as I said, OP should let this instance pass, and not add to Fr.'s stress level.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The fact of the matter is, I believe (and I could be wrong) that Catholicism has more things in common with older non-Christian religions than modern day Christian sects. Buddhisim’s focus is detachment from the material world, which is also what God asks from us. So truly they have seen this truth in nature. Many modern day Christian sects doesn’t seek detachment from materialism, but would just justify everything as, “God will love us no matter what.” Which is true, but that doesn’t mean we get a free pass to sin. We won’t go to hell because God doesn’t love us, he will never stop loving us. We go to hell because we don’t love God back. And that is what materialism is, we love the creation more than the creator.

The “detachment from the material world” called for in Buddhism is a denial of a connection to it. God does not call us to this, but rather to a refusal to be mastered by materialism. There is a distinction between rejecting the material (i.e. physical) world and rejecting materialism (i.e. obsession with worldly goods). Although Buddhism may contain nuggets of the truth, the truth is limited.

Although it is not necessarily wrong, per se, to discuss Buddha in a homily, it is certainly inappropriate – especially to do so at the expense of Christ’s own teachings, which do not fall short.

Peace,
Dante

 

[angelic06]

Having not heard the priest’s homily, I’m not sure whether or not I agree with the priest, but…

Let me add another spin to this conversation. If we ignore the part about Buddha founding his own religion, maybe the point of Buddha is that he is a good example of detachment or whatever the priest was trying to say precisely because he was human…and no more than this. If we limit our example to Jesus only, then some people may object that Jesus was God (which, of course, is true) and consequently was capable of doing more than what we mere mortals are capable of doing. It’s just like the saints----they give us a saintly example while remaining purely human----and consequently show that it is possible for us mere humans (those of us who are not God or who are not pure spirits, such as angels) to attain, through earthly discipline, to the blessedness of everlasting life.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The “detachment from the material world” called for in Buddhism is a denial of a connection to it. God does not call us to this, but rather to a refusal to be mastered by materialism. There is a distinction between rejecting the material (i.e. physical) world and rejecting materialism (i.e. obsession with worldly goods). Although Buddhism may contain nuggets of the truth, the truth is limited.

Although it is not necessarily wrong, per se, to discuss Buddha in a homily, it is certainly inappropriate – especially to do so at the expense of Christ’s own teachings, which do not fall short.

Peace,
Dante

Isn’t it the same thing? Detachment is not the same as rejection. Besides, I only look to someone like St. Francis to see the virture of not only detachment, but rejection of material wealth.

If we are not called to it by God, you’d have to wonder why so many (if not all) religous have vows of poverty. Of course its not enforced on everyone to reject all material possessions, but there is indeed greater good in doing so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have a question on this…If the homily is the preaching of the Word of God, then why espouse buddha? I maintain even more that Jesus is our example to use, not buddha or krishna or mohammed, or daffy duck.

Last week our priest was telling a story about a dying woman whom he visited and gave anointing of the sick to, as part of his homily. So by what you are saying should I go to my priest and say, “Father, I do not want to hear anything about you or the dying woman. Homilies should only be about Jesus”. Does that sound right to you?

I have never denied that we cannot learn from non-christians. I just don’t see the need to use them when we have a perfect example in Jesus Christ.

Why not? They are human beings (Buddha is) who has lived a good live. And this is despite not having the benefit of revelation that we do. He is in fact a better example that we can live a better life because we have that benefit of revelation.

And what do you have against using Jesus as our example to follow – as He instructed us to do? He said “follow Me” and God said “this is my Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” If God had meant for us to listen to Buddha, do you not think He could’ve made this known? It IS shameful to ignore Jesus in HIS church, and I honestly cannot imagine how anyone would not see this. If the Catholic church is the ‘true church’ they would be faithful to Him and seek to glorify the name of Jesus Christ, not any other religion.

Where did I say I was against using Jesus as an example? All I’m saying is that if used in the proper context, lives of non-Christians can be sources of inspiration as well.

And I think you are missing the point too. I have nothing against buddha – I would have the same reaction if the priest had mentioned Krishna or Mohammed too. I have a perfect example to follow in Jesus Christ. And sorry, but the priest’s job is to guide us to Christ, not to buddha.

Mohammed is a real person, like Buddha. Krishna is not.
Using them as examples is not guiding us to them. Homilies are about explanation, and the priest would use common knowledge or inspiring stories to help us understand the Word of God in today’s setting.

I have not said it is “never taught” in fundamental churches. But I do say that I’ve never heard a Baptist preacher confuse buddha with Christ.

Now you’re accusing the good priest of confusing Buddha with Christ?

The more I’ve ‘discussed’ this with y’all (and I do appreciate you all taking the time to respond), the more preposterous it becomes to me that a priest would lead his flock to drink from the well of buddhism simply as a matter of principle.

Additionally, I cannot think it OK that as a married woman, I bring strange men to my home and flirt with them in front of my husband. It is a less than faithful act, and you bet my husband would not be happy! This is what we are doing to Jesus Christ by this act. And yes, I think it is shameful.

You really should listen and understand what is being said by the priest. I think you just dismissed his entire homily the moment you heard “Buddha” and had none of it. I think your priest meant well.

 

[MarkThompson]

You really should listen and understand what is being said by the priest. I think you just dismissed his entire homily the moment you heard “Buddha” and had none of it. I think your priest meant well.

I agree. Reading this thread is like reading the parable of the Good Samaritan, except you get to Luke 10:37 and it says,
And he replied to him, “Back the truck up, bub, you said he was a Samaritan?! ”

 

[TimothyH]

There is nothing wrong with expressing the concern that mentioning Buddah at Mass could be taken as an equivocation of all religions by children or others who might be weak in their faith.

You can question his judgement without questioning devotion and holiness. A brother or sister in a religious community vows obedience to and does not question a superior. A parishoner does not.

Never do it in public though, nor in a way which compromises his dignity or good name with his parishoners.

Quiet, in private, express your concerns and then move on. That’s all. Did not St. Catherine of Siena rebuke a pope?

-Tim-

 

[Elizabeth502]

Agree with Timothy’s good advice. If you take the priest aside and explain that if would have profited your spiritual understanding (frame it in a positive way) to have heard how he perceived the relevance of Buddha to the readings of the day, to the feast day, and/or to Jesus’ message, it would have been less disconcerting to you. If you also mention that his homily might have been confusing to those not fully informed about Buddhism, I think that will be constructive feedback for him. You might bring up that there are some superficial appropriations of non-Catholic influences among some lay faithful, which is why it would be so helpful for him to draw comparisons and contrasts.

(Some of those distinctions have already been discussed on this thread, which you may feel free to bring up with him – such as detachment and depersonalization, which is the opposite goal of what we as Christians are taught, which is the ultimate of intimacy and personal knowing.)

The measure of whether the priest is responding pastorally will be if he thanks you for bringing that to his attention, and thanks you for listening so carefully to his homily.

 

[MagsM]

There is nothing wrong with expressing the concern that mentioning Buddah at Mass could be taken as an equivocation of all religions by children or others who might be weak in their faith.

You can question his judgement without questioning devotion and holiness. A brother or sister in a religious community vows obedience to and does not question a superior. A parishoner does not.

Never do it in public though, nor in a way which compromises his dignity or good name with his parishoners.

Quiet, in private, express your concerns and then move on. That’s all. Did not St. Catherine of Siena rebuke a pope?

-Tim-

Thanks Tim. This is exactly the focus of the question intended. I did not want to be disrespectful of his authority, nor suggest he is not devoted. I appreciate your guidelines and reminders for using common sense. And yes, we hear a lot that “all paths are valid” and much advocacy for unity in religious faiths, etc. While inter-religious dialogs are good, I feel that a worship service is the wrong place for it.

As far as mentioning Buddha, I personally don’t consider the specifics to be important but rather the principle of the thing: In general, he said we should follow Buddha in his detachment to find happiness. He went on to describe Buddha’s detachment. He did not mention our Lord. At a 7:30AM weekday mass, you can be pretty sure people are there to worship our Lord and to grow in love and virtue for Christ - not to be told that <DOH!> it is buddha who we were supposed to be following, and he is the way to happiness. (what’s with this chase after happiness anyway? whatever happened to good old Christian suffering?) just kidding.

Elizabeth502:

Some of those distinctions have already been discussed on this thread, which you may feel free to bring up with him – such as detachment and depersonalization, which is the opposite goal of what we as Christians are taught, which is the ultimate of intimacy and personal knowing.

These are very good points as well. Thanks Elizabeth. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

BTW - there was a time when I studied buddhism for several months. I had the experience of the crown chakra opening when I did a meditation weekend with the group. It was quite a wonderful experience - but it can’t even come close or compare with the all encompassing love of Christ. One is limited to self and a lot of work, while Christ is Other and His love is all encompassing yet intimate and personal, and a free gift of Grace. They are totally and completely different. The goal of buddhism is enlightenment (not salvation) through intensive amounts of meditation, and not achieving enlightenment results in reincarnation. There’s no salvation or forgiveness of sins in buddhism. Jesus not only forgives, but cleanses us.

For all that He is, Christ alone is worthy our adoration and fidelity. The beauty and love of our Lord is indescribable.

 

[MagsM]

The “detachment from the material world” called for in Buddhism is a denial of a connection to it. God does not call us to this, but rather to a refusal to be mastered by materialism. There is a distinction between rejecting the material (i.e. physical) world and rejecting materialism (i.e. obsession with worldly goods). Although Buddhism may contain nuggets of the truth, the truth is limited.

Although it is not necessarily wrong, per se, to discuss Buddha in a homily, it is certainly inappropriate – especially to do so at the expense of Christ’s own teachings, which do not fall short.

Peace,
Dante

Dante, you explain things much better than I. Thanks.

 

[MagsM]

You really should listen and understand what is being said by the priest. I think you just dismissed his entire homily the moment you heard “Buddha” and had none of it. I think your priest meant well.

Hi Constantine. You’ve already suggested this theory, and I’ve already addressed it as not accurate. I really don’t want discuss “interpretations” of what the priest said because it is not the purpose of this thread. Furthermore, I agree with you: I also believe that the priest meant well. Peace to you.