SSPX Update - Redux

[Lormar]

How are we to overcome these vices? St. Paul says: “With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love” (Eph 4:2).
According to Aquinas, humility, by recognizing the goodness in others and accurately acknowledging our own strengths and weaknesses, helps us to avoid contention in our interactions with others. Mildness “softens arguments and preserves peace” (Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians, §191). It helps us to avoid inordinate displays of anger by giving us the serenity to do what we are called to do in a spirit of equanimity and peace. Patience enables us to endure suffering when it is necessary for the sake of the good we seek, especially in the case of a difficult or arduous good or when external circumstances militate against the achievement of the goal. Charity casts out inordinate zeal by allowing us to support one another in charity, “mutually bearing with the defects of others out of charity” (ibid.). St. Thomas counsels: “When someone falls he should not be immediately corrected—unless it is the time and the place for it. With mercy these should be awaited since charity bears all things (1 Cor 13:7). Not that these things are tolerated out of negligence or consent, nor from familiarity or carnal friendship, but from charity. … Now, we that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom 15:1)” (ibid.).

The prudent counsel of St. Thomas may be of assistance to us if we can allow ourselves to be formed by his wisdom. In the past forty years, has there at times been a lack of humility, mildness, patience, and charity in our mutual relations?

Consider these words Pope Benedict wrote to his brother bishops to explain why he promulgated the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum: “Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew” (Letter of 7 July 2007).

How might the virtues of humility, mildness, patience, and charity shape our thoughts and actions? First, by humbly striving to recognize the goodness that exists in others with whom we may disagree, even on seemingly fundamental issues, we are able to approach contested issues in a spirit of openness and good faith. Secondly, by practicing true mildness we may maintain a spirit of serenity, avoiding the introduction of a divisive tone or imprudent statements that will offend rather than promote peace and mutual understanding. Thirdly, by true patience we will recognize that in our striving after the arduous good we seek, we must be willing, when necessary, to accept suffering while waiting. Finally, even when we still feel the need to correct our brothers it must be with charity, in the proper time and place.

In the life of the Church, all of these virtues are aimed at preserving “the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). If our interactions are marked by pride, anger, impatience, and inordinate zeal, our intemperate striving for the good of the Church will lead to nothing but bitterness. If, on the other hand, through the grace of God we grow in true humility, mildness, patience, and charity, our unity in the Spirit will be maintained and we will grow deeper in our love of God and of our neighbors, fulfilling the whole of God’s law for us.

We place such emphasis on the unity of the Church because it reflects and is constituted by the communion of the Holy Trinity. As we read in a sermon of St. Augustine: “Both the Father and the Son wished us to have communion both with them and among ourselves; by this gift which they both possess as one, they wished to gather us together and make us one, that is to say, by the Holy Spirit who is God and the gift of God” (Sermon 71.18).

The unity of the Church is not something that we grasp for ourselves by our own power, but is a gift of divine grace. It is in recognition of this gift that Augustine is able to say: “But one who is an enemy of unity has no share in the love of God.

Those, therefore, who are outside the Church do not have the Holy Spirit” (Epistle 185 §50). These are chilling words: one who is an enemy of unity becomes an enemy of God, for he rejects the gift that God has bestowed on us. “What proof is there that we love the brotherhood?” St. Augustine asks. “That we don’t sever its unity, because we maintain charity” (Homilies on the First Letter of John, 2.3). Hear what Augustine has to say to those who divide the Church: “You don’t have charity because, for the sake of your honor, you cause divisions in unity. Understand from this, then, that the spirit is from God. … You are removing yourself from the world’s unity, you are dividing the Church with schisms, you are tearing to pieces the body of Christ. He came in the flesh so as to bring it together; you are crying out so as to scatter it” (ibid. 6.13). How can we avoid becoming enemies of God? “Let each one question his heart. If a person loves his brother, the Spirit of God is abiding in him. Let him look, let him probe himself before God’s eyes. Let him see if there is in him a love of peace and unity, a love of the Church spread throughout the earth” (ibid. 6.10).

 

[Lormar]

What about those with whom fellowship is difficult? Listen to St. Augustine: “Love your enemies in such a way that you wish them to be brothers; love your enemies in such a way that they are brought into your fellowship” (ibid. 1.9). For Augustine, this authentic form of love can only come as God’s gift: “Ask God that you may love one another. You should love all people, even your enemies, not because they are your brothers but so that they may become your brothers, so that you may always be aflame with brotherly love, whether towards one who has become your brother or towards your enemy, so that by loving him he may become your brother” (ibid.10.7).

The example for loving our enemies so that they might become our friends ultimately comes from Christ himself: “Let us love, because he loved us first (4:19). For how would we love if he had not loved us first? By his love we were made his friends, but he loved us as enemies so that we would become his friends. He loved us first and bestowed on us the means of loving him” (ibid. 9.9).

For St. Augustine, then, the unity of the Church flows from the communion of the Blessed Trinity and must be maintained if we are to remain in communion with God himself. Through God’s grace, we must preserve this unity with great determination, even if it involves suffering and patient endurance: “Let us endure the world, let us endure tribulations, let us endure the scandals of trials. Let us not turn aside from the way. Let us hold onto the unity of the Church, let us hold onto Christ, let us hold onto charity. Let us not be torn away from the members of his bride, let us not be torn away from the faith, so that we may glory in his presence, and we shall remain secure in him, now through faith and then through sight, the pledge of which we have as the gift of the Holy Spirit” (ibid. 9.11).

The Place for the Priestly Fraternity in the Church

What, then, is being asked of the Priestly Fraternity in the present situation? Not to abandon the zeal of your founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Far from it! Rather you are being asked to renew the flame of his ardent zeal to form men in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Surely, the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years.

That original charism entrusted to Archbishop Lefebvre must be recaptured, the charism of the formation of priests in the fullness of Catholic Tradition for the sake of undertaking an apostolate to the faithful that flows from this priestly formation. This was the charism the Church discerned when the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X was first approved in 1970. We recall Cardinal Gagnon’s favorable judgment of your seminary at Ecône in 1987.

The authentic charism of the Fraternity is to form priests for the service of the people of God, not the usurpation of the office of judging and correcting the theology or discipline of others within the Church. Your focus should be on the inculcation of sound philosophical, theological, pastoral, spiritual, and human formation for your candidates so that they may preach the word of Christ and act as instruments of God’s grace in the world, especially through the solemn celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Attention should certainly be paid to the passages of the Magisterium that seem difficult to reconcile with magisterial teaching, but these theological questions should not be the focus of your preaching or of your formation.

With respect to the competence to correct, we might well consider the example of St. Pius X and his interventions on the question of sacred music. In 1903, St. Pius promulgated the famous motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini, promoting throughout the Church a reform of ecclesiastical music. This document, however, was in a sense the culmination of two earlier initiatives of the then Giuseppe Sarto: a votum on sacred music written at the request of the Congregation of Sacred Rites in 1893, and a pastoral letter on the reform of sacred music to the Church of Venice published in 1895.

 

[Lormar]

These three documents essentially contained the same message, and yet the first was a suggestion for the Roman Curia, the next was an instruction for the faithful under his jurisdiction as Patriarch of Venice, and the third was a command for the universal Church. As Pope, St. Pius X had the authority to address abuses in ecclesiastical music throughout the world, whereas as bishop he could only intervene within his diocese. St. Pius X was able to address problems in the church on a universal level in his disciplinary and doctrinal prescriptions, precisely because of his universal authority.

Even if we are convinced that our perspective on a particular disputed question is the true one, we cannot usurp the office of the universal pontiff by presuming publicly to correct others within the Church. We may propose and seek to exert influence, but we must not disrespect or act against legitimate local authorities. We need to respect the proper fora of different types of issues: it is the faith that should be preached from our pulpits, not the latest interpretation of what we take to be problematic about a magisterial document.

It has been a mistake to make every difficult point in the theological interpretation of Vatican II a matter of public controversy, trying to sway those who are not theologically sophisticated into adopting one’s own point of view regarding subtle theological matters.

The Instruction Donum Veritatis on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1990) states that a theologian “may raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions” (§24), although “the willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.” But a theologian should “not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33). For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them” (§27).

If, after intense reflection on the part of a theologian, difficulties persist, he “has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth” (§30).

This part of the task of a theologian, acting with a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, can at times be a difficult trial. “It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail” (§31).

Nevertheless, critical engagement with the acts of the Magisterium must never become a sort of “parallel magisterium” of theologians (cf. §34), for it must be submitted to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, who has “the duty to safeguard the unity of the Church with concern to offer help to all in order to respond appropriately to this vocation and divine grace” (Apostolic Letter, Ecclesiae Unitatem, §1).

Thus we can see that for those within the Church who have the canonical mandate or mission to teach, there is room for a truly theological and non-polemical engagement with the Magisterium. Intellectually speaking, however, we cannot be satisfied merely with generating and sustaining controversy. Difficult theological problems can only be adequately dealt with through the analogy of faith, that is, the synthesis of all that the Lord has revealed to us. We must see each doctrine and article of faith as supporting the others, and learn to understand the inner connections between each element of our faith.

To engage in the study of theology, we must have adequate cultural, biblical, and philosophical training. I think for instance of a passage from the 1917 Code of Canon Law that is printed in the introduction to the 1947 Benziger English edition of the Summa Theologiae: “Religious who have already studied their humanities should devote themselves for two years at least to philosophy, and four years to theology, following the teaching of St. Thomas in accordance with the instructions of the Holy See” (CIC 1917, can. 589). Consider the wisdom embodied in this directive: theology is to be undertaken only by those who have been adequately formed both in the humanities and philosophy. Recently, the Congregation for Catholic Education has required that the study of philosophy continue for three years during priestly formation. Without this breadth of learning, our theological inquiry will not have the rich soil of culture in which the faith took root and which is indispensable for fully understanding both the philosophical concepts and terms that underlie the doctrinal formulations of the Church.

 

[Lormar]

If we concentrate only on the most difficult and most controversial questions—which, by all means, need to receive careful attention—we might over time lose a sense of the analogy of faith and begin to see theology mainly as a sort of intellectual dialectic of competing claims, rather than as a sapiential engagement with the living God who has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ and who inspires our study, our preaching, our pastoral care through the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

Pope Benedict XVI, in his magnanimous exercise of the munus Petrinum, is striving to overcome the tensions that have existed between the Church and your Fraternity. Would a full ecclesial reconciliation bring about an immediate end to the suspicion and bad feeling we have experienced? Perhaps not so readily.
But what we are seeking is not a human work: we are seeking reconciliation and healing by God’s grace under the loving guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let us recall the effects of grace articulated by St. Thomas: to heal the soul, to desire good, to carry into effect the good proposed, to persevere in good, and finally, to reach glory (cf. Summa theologiae 1a.2ae, 111, 3).

Our souls need first to be healed, to be cleansed of the bitterness and resentment that comes from thirty years of suspicion and anguish on both sides. We need to pray that the Lord may heal us of any imperfections that have come about precisely because of the difficulties, especially the desire for an autonomy that is in fact outside the traditional forms of governance of the Church. The Lord gives us the grace to desire certain goods, in this case the good of full ecclesial unity and communion. This is a desire that many of us share humanly speaking, but what we need from the Lord is for him to let this desire suffuse our souls, so that we may desire with the same desire of Christ ut unum sint.

Only then does God’s grace allow us to carry into effect the good proposed. It is He who prompts us to seek reconciliation and brings it to completion.
This is a moment of tremendous grace: let us embrace it with our whole heart and mind. As we prepare for the coming of the Savior of the world during this Advent season of the Year of Faith, let us pray and hope boldly: may we not also anticipate the longed for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter?

The only imaginable future for the Priestly Fraternity lies along the path of full communion with the Holy See, with the acceptance of an unqualified profession of the faith in its fullness, and thus with a properly ordered ecclesial, sacramental and pastoral life.

Having received from the Successor of Peter this charge to be an instrument in the reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity, I dare to make my own the words of the Apostle Paul in urging us “to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

Sincerely yours in Christ,

• J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P.

 

[Lormar]

Note to our Brother Jay:

Brother Jay, Archbishop DiNoia sounds a lot like you!

Or should I say you sound a lot like him?

 

[AspiringServant]

I don’t blame SSPX and SSPX SO traditionalists whatsoever. The problem is that Rome is now duplicitous.

Note: I am a devout Catholic and not a member of SSPX. So be careful attacking my comments above because, if you do, be prepared for a fact based debate.

The condition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome is in a very fragile condition and its because of liberalism and modernism.

Also, the 2 biggest documents of controversy for SSPX are Nostra Atatae and Dignitatis Humanae which together, open the door for ‘bad possibilities’.

 

[GloriaMaria]

*Questions and concerns have been raised following recent media reports about a statement that had been made in Canada by the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X that “the Jews” are the “enemies of the Church”. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops notes that such remarks are not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. As the spokesperson for the Holy See, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., has said when commenting on the statement, “It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the Church.”

The Second Vatican Council taught in Nostra Aetate, its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (no. 4): “God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; he does not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues – such is the witness of the Apostle [Paul]… [T]he Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." This teaching has been reiterated time and time again by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops denounces all forms of anti-Semitism, and rejects assertions such as those reported to have been made by the Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, which is a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church.

January 17, 2013
*
I guess this qualifies as news. So, if the Canadian Bishops say that the SSPX isn’t in communion and are schismatic, then are Canadians expected to not attend their Masses under any circumstances? Would it be different for, say, an American whose Bishop hasn’t made a recent declaration? Is this consistent with what is coming out of the Vatican? Brother? I need to know before Sunday

 

[jwinch2]

New Vatican move to rekindle dialogue with SSPX

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16856

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, the vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, has written to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), urging a resumption of talks aimed at reconciling the traditionalist group with the Holy See.

In his 8-page letter, Archbishop Di Noia outlines the current state of negotiations between the Vatican and the SSPX, and says that he remains “full of hope” that differences can be surmounted. The letter—which was sent before Christmas—was reportedly written with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI.

Archbishop Di Noia sent the letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX, with a request that it be circulated among all the priests of the order. In the letter the archbishop emphasizes that Pope Benedict is anxious to resolve the differences that have separated the traditionalist group from the Church. He makes an urgent plea for reconciliation, saying: “The only conceivable future for the [SSPX] lies along the path of full communion with the Holy See.”

Talks between the Vatican and the SSPX stalled last year, apparently because of an impasse over the traditionalist group’s objections to the teachings of Vatican II.

This may have already been reported on this thread, if so I apologize. The article was new today so I figured I would share it on the chance that it was a new turn of events.

 

[maltmom]

Brother? I need to know before Sunday

I just sent Br Jay an e-mail. He hasn’t been on the forum in several days. Hopefully he’ll be back soon.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I just sent Br Jay an e-mail. He hasn’t been on the forum in several days. Hopefully he’ll be back soon.

He also recently underwent a medical procedure - heart stent. He may be back with the doctors or under doctors orders to not fuss with us.

Praying for you Br. JR!!

 

[maltmom]

He also recently underwent a medical procedure - heart stent. He may be back with the doctors or under doctors orders to not fuss with us.

Praying for you Br. JR!!

Brother Bill may have him under lock and key. I’m sure he fell behind on things the couple of days that he was laid up. He may just be busy. I’ll let you know something when I hear back from him if he doesn’t come here first.

 

[Faithdancer]

New Vatican move to rekindle dialogue with SSPX

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16856

This may have already been reported on this thread, if so I apologize. The article was new today so I figured I would share it on the chance that it was a new turn of events.

I think you got the scoop, jwinch2! Here is another source for the same breaking news- and it does indeed seem generous, I pray it is accepted! romereports.com/palio/vatican-sends-proposal-letter-to-lefebvrians-english-8804.html

 

[Faithdancer]

Brother Bill may have him under lock and key. I’m sure he fell behind on things the couple of days that he was laid up. He may just be busy. I’ll let you know something when I hear back from him if he doesn’t come here first.

Yes, praying for Br. JR.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I just sent Br Jay an e-mail. He hasn’t been on the forum in several days. Hopefully he’ll be back soon.

I’m not really trying to put him on a timeline! I’ll wait for his crumbs of wisdom to fall when he is able. There are some of us that have been pulled back and forth for years with this issue. What’s another week? I’m ready for the Vatican to make a pronouncement one way or the other - but my time definitely isn’t God’s time - and this newly published letter of Archbishop DiNoia’s lends a whole new element to the process - re-inserting a spirituality to the legality.

But I do hope Brother will also address the question of if there is a difference in the wording that comes from the Vatican and that which comes from a local Bishop or Bishop’s conference - and what that means for me or any other Catholic.

 

[jwinch2]

I think you got the scoop, jwinch2! Here is another source for the same breaking news- and it does indeed seem generous, I pray it is accepted! romereports.com/palio/vatican-sends-proposal-letter-to-lefebvrians-english-8804.html

And another article here which is a bit longer than the others we linked: vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-21496/

Agreed on the generosity. I hope it enables things to move forward. I had high hopes when Archbishop DiNola was put in his current position and continue to believe he is a good man for the job at hand.

 

[Faithdancer]

And another article here which is a bit longer than the others we linked: vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-21496/

Agreed on the generosity. I hope it enables things to move forward. I had high hopes when Archbishop DiNola was put in his current position and continue to believe he is a good man for the job at hand.

Interesting phraseology in the *Vatican Insider *article jwinch2, e.g. “scorching dossier” and “final attempt to break the deadlock.” Somehow I doubt it’s the final attempt, considering how much our Pope wants it and considering that he knows what is best for the Church…I pray he achieves it!

 

[maltmom]

I’m not really trying to put him on a timeline! I’ll wait for his crumbs of wisdom to fall when he is able. There are some of us that have been pulled back and forth for years with this issue. What’s another week? I’m ready for the Vatican to make a pronouncement one way or the other - but my time definitely isn’t God’s time - and this newly published letter of Archbishop DiNoia’s lends a whole new element to the process - re-inserting a spirituality to the legality.

But I do hope Brother will also address the question of if there is a difference in the wording that comes from the Vatican and that which comes from a local Bishop or Bishop’s conference - and what that means for me or any other Catholic.

I didn’t think you were. I had planned on e-mailing him earlier today. When I saw your post I stopped and did it then.

 

[Dee_S]

I’m not really trying to put him on a timeline! I’ll wait for his crumbs of wisdom to fall when he is able. There are some of us that have been pulled back and forth for years with this issue. What’s another week? I’m ready for the Vatican to make a pronouncement one way or the other - but my time definitely isn’t God’s time - and this newly published letter of Archbishop DiNoia’s lends a whole new element to the process - re-inserting a spirituality to the legality.

But I do hope Brother will also address the question of if there is a difference in the wording that comes from the Vatican and that which comes from a local Bishop or Bishop’s conference - and what that means for me or any other Catholic.

:coffeeread::hug1:hi GloriaMaria, i know I posted this link several times, but it is still relevant as far as the canonical status of the SSPX goes. Attending Mass at their chapels is still not permitted or condoned, and more importantly, their marriages & confessions are invalid

Moral impediment

In 1995, it declared it “morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these (the SSPX) Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing”, and added that “the fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.”[12] The Commission recognized the validity of the ordination of the SSPX priests, but added that they were prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because of not being properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See. It also said that the Masses they celebrated were valid but illicit, but the lack of proper faculties on the part of the SSPX priests meant that celebrations of Penance and Matrimony under their auspices were invalid. The Pontifical Commission reaffirmed various of these statements in 2003.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-12
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

hope this is of help til Br JR returns. So sad to hear he is not well…praying for him
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Sub Tuum Praesidium
*We fly to thy patronage, O Holy Mother of God **
*Despise not our petitions in our necessities **
*But deliver us always from all dangers *
*O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen *

 

[Dee_S]

Note to our Brother Jay:

Brother Jay, Archbishop DiNoia sounds a lot like you!

Or should I say you sound a lot like him?

:yup::yeah_me:

(thanks for posting the letter…very kind of you)

 

[GloriaMaria]

**The 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1248 says:

1. “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.”
   The Holy See has said repeatedly that attending Masses of the SSPX fulfills the obligation according to can 1248.**

The SSPX is in the situation of providing an* illicit* Mass but one that does fulfill the obligation strictly speaking - this is how I’ve understood the directives. With the caveat that a person attending does not have a schismatic mentality. I also remember reading that it is permissible to put in a modest donation. That was Msgr. Pearl some years ago, I believe, who stated that, but it was after the consecrations.
I am not arguing for anyone else to do this, but this is part of the argument that we’ve used to justify it for ourselves in the past.

What I want to know is: has this been modified? What I’m reading is that it is a moral impediment, but not disallowed.

I’m not much of a scholar. I read enough to make a decision. I’m pretty well convinced to throw in the towel completely and quit the Masses entirely, but I have to make a strong argument for my family.