Thank you, Otjm for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am very aware of your politeness and considerate ways of responding. Thank you for helping. It is “different” having an “online discussion” because tones of voice, etc., are not there. If you could see my face, you would see smiles and thinking. Alas! This thing we are using here is limited!
Having had experience of someone bringing a dog to Mass ( and one that is not a service dog), it has been by observation that in that circumstance, the individual was someone who at best had emotional problems, and appeared, in conversation, to be mentally impaired.
I have no problem with that dog helping the person; the dog is serving its purpose (for which God created it) of helping the owner.
Perhaps we all could step back a bit and reflect on that. This is not to say that in all instances that is the case, but it very likely may be so in this case.
Understood
. One may not just take action unless authorized by the Pastor (or the Pastor requests it – which is
almost the same thing). If I do take an action in regards to another person, that I think is correct, without the Pastor’s permission, but as a Parishioner/Catholic, then I do so and report myself to the Pastor as to the action taken and why (am not writing about “normal things” like helping someone, etc.). He is the Pastor in charge of the pastoral care of those in the parish and the one responsible for what happens in that church-building.
Speaking with the pastor would be the first responsibility. If one cannot trust the pastor to respond appropriately (and very likely without our being aware of it), then one is in a very sad position.
Indeed.
I often see in threads herein the admonishment that one should go to the bishop. If one has not spoken with the pastor, then one has ignored the bishop’s primary delgate and representative - the pastor. In other words, one has made an end run around the pastor, which in the near future may not sit well with the pastor, and likely may not sit well with the bishop when he realizes you have not taken it up appropriately with his representative.
What could happen is that there are generally “offices or departments” in the arch/dioceses that are there to handle some of these matters and “it” might never get to the Bishop if that “office” is called.
I am not suggesting that one should ignore the matter, but unless you know the individual feeding Jesus to their dog, stepping in may create more problems than it soilves.
The above confuses me:blush:. What I am reading is: if the person giving Communion to the dog is someone you (I) know then do something, but if the person is a stranger do nothing. Is that what is intended? Am not a native speaker and some things just escape me. I am only trying to understand without assuming that I know what is meant :thankyou: :curtsey:. O what I wrote just does not “sound” right!
And as to the issue of sacrilege, If one is unaware that doing such is a sacrilege, that individual is not guilty - nor excommunicated. There is a vast difference between someone who is intending to profane the Sacrament, and someone who has no clue that their acts would do such, The comments in this thread notwithstanding.
You are very correct. It is very pastoral. That is one of many “. . . mitigating circumstances.” of Post 20.
Thank you again, otjm, for writing such insightful and kind post. :curtsey:
I am not referring now to Otjm or anyone who has posted.
One thing that I am aware of is that “a little knowledge is dangerous” which is true in any field. We can see that with Doctors (General Practitioners) who send their patients to Specialists, et al.
Thank you again for responding and for being so charitable in this thread so that we may each learn from each other. Thank you.
**Let Nothing Disturb You
Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience,
Obtains all things,
Whoever has God
Lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.
Santa Teresa de Jesús `
(Santa Teresa de Ávila
España: 1515—1582)**
