AmericanPapist Comments
As long as Niedbauer has Levada as his buddy he has nothing to worry about. Niedbauer other buddy Soto is headed for Sacramento even after helping a pedophile
I guess the question that comes to mind for me is; if these two characters had knocked at the door to the upper room on Holy Thursday, would they have been turned away, or invited to join the meal?
What's the right answer to that question?
The Archbishop stands in the place of ten of the chaps who were there that evening . . . did he act as they would have?
Maybe I'm being simple-minded, but as I've followed the discussion on this blog, this question keeps coming up in my mind.
I leave it to those more learned than I to answer these questions with a certainty that seems to have eluded the Archbishop.
Well, let's take a look at the gospel narrative. Did he call sinners to repentance? Continually. When he sat with them at table did he have anything to say about their lifestyle? All the time. Did he preach the kingdom of God without ceasing? Yes.
I think we tend to consider the witness of Christ rather unilaterally on this issue....
. . . but He did dine with them, no?
It appears as if the Archbishop doesn't like active participation in the life of the Church, particularly from his critics on the internet. This is liberalism fatal flaw (whether in the Church or in the world), you can't demand freedom for all and impose tolerance on those who disagree.
I think you're equivocating upon "dine", brassband. When Jesus dined with sinners he was teaching them. At the last supper he gave communion to his chosen apostles. *No one* is disputing that these poor souls need to be taught. Indeed, that is what I'm constantly calling for. The question about Jesus giving his body and blood to a soul unprepared to receive it is different, and the clear teaching of His church throughout the ages has been that one must be in a state of spiritual grace to receive it. Is this reasonable?
AP --
Thanks for your explanation.
Why would they be admitted to the upper room on Holy Thuesday? Didn't Jesus choose the Twelve for this special occasion? Do we have any indication that anything of the sort happened? No...If it were God's will to give us that example as suggested by brassband, would He not have ordained it so?
Brassband,
Would He have dined with them? Yes. But it would not be to their credit, as Our Lord pointed out in all three synoptic accounts that the one who dined with Him, and even shared the dipped morsel of bread with Him, and who would in a few moments betray Him, would have been better off not being born [let alone dining with Him in that Last Supper]. Judas did attend the Last Supper, but he had a different agenda than the others who attended. I think that it is self-evident that the men in drag had an agenda that differed from the others in the congregation who dressed modestly and appropriately.
Paul has an instruction concerning the proper reception of the Eucharist in his first letter to the Corinthians, in the eleventh chapter, beginning at the 27th verse:
"Whoever, therefored, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself and drinks judgment upon himself."
Just my observation, but a man who dresses as a woman, including make-up and flowers on one's head, has not, in my humble opinion, discerned his own body enough. Men who dress as women and present themselves for the Eucharist are not only inviting comment from others, but calling God's judgment upon themselves. Perhaps I'm even more simple-minded than you, but the thought struck me: shouldn't men dress as men, and women dress as women?
It behooves pastors to point out the consequence to which St. Paul refers, so that profanation of the Eucharist does not occur. It is more than merely regrettable that neither the pastor nor the archbishop pointed this out to the men dressed as women. It is to the credit of the videographer that this incident has been recorded, so as to serve, as Fr. Jungmann writes of the celebration of the Eucharist, as a "teachable moment." What is ironic [and not just a little sad] is that the pastor and the archbishop are the ones being taught.
Excellent points, Father. I've transferred your comment to the post proper.
*I'm acting like a troll.*
"As long as Niedbauer [sic] has Levada as his buddy he has nothing to worry about. Niedbauer [sic] other buddy Soto is headed for Sacramento even after helping a pedophile"
and who, pray tell, is Levada's "buddy"?
ah . . . that's right.
*AP responds: Aside from pointing out obvious spelling errors, your attempt to justify the missteps of bishops because of their appointment by Pope Benedict holds about as much water as a sieve.... acting like a troll won't get you anywhere on these comment threads. Thanks.*
"Perhaps I'm even more simple-minded than you, but the thought struck me: shouldn't men dress as men, and women dress as women?"
Ummm ... back in the day wasn't everyone pretty much dressed in flowing robes?
*AP responds: check your basic historical facts. St. Paul also talks at length about the fact that some women in the early gatherings aren't wearing their proper clothing and it's causing problems of scandal .... acting like a troll won't get you anywhere on these comment threads. Thanks.*
Gee, and here I am, way over in little Hawaii trying to get my brand new catechumens to understand appropriate dress for Mass, espcially since they are publicly dismissed each Sunday.
I ought to have them view the video and add that to my list of "do not wear" items!
Just wanted to inject a little levity into a very serious conversation.
Re the issues, I think the Archbishop knows he shouldn't have done what he did but in the nanosecond of confrontation, he caved. Now, it's painful to watch the squirming and even more painful to watch the reaction of the Pastor of MHR ..
The remark about the blogs is part of the anger and pain of being caught not doing the right thing, of course, and time will bring the issue to a close, I think in one way or another. As you said, there are superiors to answer to.
Please keep posting on the facts, but can we at least use a more charitable and less heavy hammer?
Aloha Ke Akua
God Bless You
I liked my husband's comments when I was telling him about this incident. After I read him "where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want." he began laughing and said, "says the guy who used to have the only big bullhorn."
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/mute.html
don't you mean "moot point"?
"Ummm ... back in the day wasn't everyone pretty much dressed in flowing robes?"
Yes. But we are not "back in the day." We are in the 21st Century, and there are clear distinctions in modern dress for the congregation, and clear distinctions for liturgical dress for the ordained clergy offering the Mass. You never really answered my question: shouldn't men dress as men, and women dress as women? Or is this really your point: that such a notion as modern dress has become so relative as to render such gender distinctions as antiquated and even irrelevant? Genesis: male and female He created them. The distinction is important morally, spiritually, scripturally, biologically, socially, etc. It would seem that the alleged irrelevance of gender distinction was an agenda item being pushed by the men in drag: they wanted to make some statement, rather than make an offering that does not draw attention to themselves.
It begs a question for Anonymous: from your perspective, where does profanation of the Eucharist begin? Or is it not possible anymore to profane the Eucharist, in this post-modern world of relative "sensibilities"?
Yah, Archbishop Neiderauer is a regular John the Baptist or St. John Chrysostom. "Mommy, they're being mean to me!" Tom
"It is to the credit of the videographer that this incident has been recorded ..."
No, Fr Stanley, it is not and you are plain wrong. The videographer went to the parish, taped without permission, apparently causing a distraction to parishioners.
It is possible that good things can arise from bad or sinful acts. It is also possible for well-intended acts may be misguided in execution or purpose. In other words, the ends do not justify the means.
Many Catholic bloggers have permitted their comboxes to become seething dens of anger over this incident. This is unseemly, uncharitable, and for bloggers who are aware enough to know their commentariats will get trussed up over these items, it might even be an occasion of scandal in itself.
"Please keep posting on the facts, but can we at least use a more charitable and less heavy hammer?"
When the only tool in your box is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
The video, parish bulletin, publicized parish activities current and past, and content/lack of in the bishop's and pastor's virtual press releases all show the picture of a parish and diocese in trouble. I do not see a need for AmPap to defend or explain his charitable and I would think obligatory revelation of the facts.
Hey Todd, that's a cute slogan - typical of the left - repeat slogan after slogan after slogan and you don't really have to say anything of substance.
Sometimes the problem *is* a nail and sometimes it needs a hammer.
Had the videographer not been there, would anything have been done differently? No. Therefore, the videographer did not cause anything to happen, but simply let the world in on the reality of what happened. Good for him or her.
As to Niederhauer complaining about the complaints from the blogosphere, wake up - this is what an empowered laity looks like. This is what people who take responsibility for their Church look like. This is what fraternal correction should be - nothing was taken out of context, or edited away or glossed over.
Being charitable does not mean the same thing as "being nice." Charity sometimes - perhaps even oftentimes - calls for a bit of stridency. It was charitable when Our Lord called the pharisees and sadducees "you brood of vipers." It was charitable when he cast the moneychangers out of the temple. It was charitable of the videographer to make this video public and call the world's attention to this scandal. That, apparently, is the only way to root out the blasphemous and inimical activities that are going on.
Cockroaches loathe the sunlight. But now, "The night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light."
I am reluctant to participate in this discussion, because I think the matter is over. The Archbishop publicly apologized, the parishoners evidently were not scandalized (they live in the Castro District of San Francisco, not exactly the haute coutre center of the world), the pastor is being pastoral. Why, one asks, is this even a matter that would rise to the level of the CDF, much less the Holy Father? I live in a rural mountain resort area and people come to Mass dressed in shorts, flip flops and such not. I would prefer they wore suits and ties and decent dresses. But they don't. I think they are inappropriate in their dress, but not sinful.
I saw the video. The two individuals in question were rather pathetic and sad. They received communion respectfully. How do so many know what is in their hearts and if this wasn't a moment of conversion? Some people are being very judgmental about them and the Archbishop. A close reading of the New Testament will show that these self-appointed judges are not the first in the Kingdom.
Just as a parting thought, John the Baptist wouldn't get into too many churches today, yet look at the icons and statues of his clothes.
Much ado about a lot of projection going on here.
Mr. Fraser,
It's not that they were simply dressed "inappropriately," these men were wearing a uniform that stands diametrically opposed to what the Church stands for. They were, in effect, wearing clothes that proclaim "The Church is wrong about homosexuality; the Church's teaching on marriage is wrong; the Church's teaching about consecrated life is wrong..."
If the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer were not scandalized, that's an additional problem. Scandal has an objective definition, it is not the mere subjective shock or discomfort caused by seeing something unusual.
"Just as a parting thought, John the Baptist wouldn't get into too many churches today, yet look at the icons and statues of his clothes."
Neither would Abraham Lincoln or Louis XIV for that matter. So your point is that proper dress out of reverence for God doesn't matter? I would suggest that the pastor of your church apply standards of dress required at least in many misdemeanor courts. Which is what he would have done, say, about forty years ago before looking like a bum or a hooker became stylish.
Thanks for proving my point. Our Church has become a reflection of the mean spirited self-righteous society in which we live.
I can't stand the "Sisters," but I can't stand even more the busy-bodies watching and judging everyone else's non-violent behavior.
How on earth did the Dali Lama ever get into the Capitol of the US dressed like he was?
but I can't stand even more the busy-bodies watching and judging everyone else's non-violent behavior.
Great, so long as the "sisters" aren't killing anyone, it's okay if they mock our religion and profance the holy Eucharist. It's good to set the bar low, I guess.
I can't stand even more than anything else the folks who run around shouting out "intolerance!" whenever someone decides to criticize anyone else's actions.
What exactly would you take a stand for, don? Is the proper attitude about the homosexual lifestyle complete silence? A lifestyle that drastically reduces the lifespan of its practitioners, if we want to get technical? I'm not even touching the theology involved.
...and the Dali Lama?! Is that a serious comparison? Geez, I hope not. The Dali Lama is wearing appropriate dress for his culture. It's these kind of superficial comparisons that wouldn't even pass a basic test in critical thinking skills.
I think we need to go back to the days of respect and forbid ANY photography during sacred ceremonies. That includes weddings, ordinations, first commuions, et.al.
And may I respectfully suggest that everyone take a deep breath.
And, perhaps Mr. Thomas might benefit from a nap after lunch. This is way out of hand and I think you are being disrepectful to the Archbishop of San Francisco, over whom you have no jurisdiction in matters that pertain to his archdiocese.
I think you have crossed the boundary of respect and have denigrated the reputation not only of His Excellency, but also of the legal pastor and of the community, of which you have no first hand knowlege or experience.
i have met the Archbishop and from my experience, he is as orthodox and pastoral and self-giving a Shepherd this Church enjoys.
"i have met the Archbishop and from my experience, he is as orthodox and pastoral and self-giving a Shepherd this Church enjoys."
Which is why His Excellency praised the homosexual film “Brokeback Mountain,” opposed a Utah ballot initiative in 2004 banning same-sex marriage because it included a ban on civil unions and, as bishop of Salt Lake city, helped start a coalition to oppose the ban on high-school gay-straight alliances that had been proposed by the Utah legislature.
In the scheme of things, the "my, his or her" experiences don't count, Sir. Facts do.
One can, however, wonder what such esteemed prelates as Roger Cardinal Mahony and his protege, His Excellency, George Niederauer, would do had they held such posts under Henry VIII?
This Catholics with cameras phenomenom is going to start a whole new thing: Priests Gone Wild!
Todd,
Practically speaking, when the bishop comes to celebrate a special Mass at a parish, photography and videography requires no special permission -- at least in my diocese. The bishop's visit is a significant event in the life of any parish, and with the prevalence of such technology [heck, I even have such in my cell phone], one should not be surprised or taken aback that someone has a camera. It was not clear to me that the camera was a distraction to anyone, until it became clear that the profanation would actually be recorded.
Now you seem to be quite sure about the intention of the videographer. But you can't quite bring yourself to the same categorical certitude about the intention of the men dressed as women. If you're willing to make the worst possible assumption about the videographer [who did not profane anything, but who merely recorded the profanation], where is your assumption about the men in drag, who actually committed the profanation?
Please show me where the recording of Mass is itself a profanation and to be prohibited? Please show me where the requirement for permission is published? Please help me to see where having and using photographic equipment during a liturgy is a bad thing? Is the broadcast of Catholic Mass a bad thing now? And when something bad happens and is captured on video or film, why is it a problem of the videographer, rather than those whose bad actions [or omissions of action] have been recorded?
Todd: do you honestly believe that the archbishop of San Francisco would have given an apology for his lack of proper supervision of this Eucharist if it had not been recorded? Like it or not, the video record in this case holds people accountable. I believe in accountability, for archbishops as well as priests and deacons and all the laity. To wit: I sign with my full name. And I stand by what I have written.
Why is it people who push "laity empowerment" get so upset when the laity take it upon themselves to, you know, do things? Is that not empowerment? Aren't videos and blogs a form of empowerment?
It reminds me of Martin Luther lamenting the chaos of Protestantism. It was a problem with his communication skills. If he meant for people to do only what he intended and not what his words meant, then he should have been more circumspect in his approach.
The same applies to our archbishop. The bottom line is: he has a job to do and he is failing.
Fr Brian, thanks for the response. Though I have to confess I'm a bit surprised at your easy morality on this one.
Cameras are indeed ubiquitous in modern society, which is probably one reason why phones and other similar recording devices are inappropriate for restrooms and other public facilities which provide a degree of privacy.
The Church also has regulations with regard to the broadcast of the liturgy. Then we have the factor of good manners--which are clearly lacking in this incident, not to mention others I've seen over the years at liturgy.
The pastor noted parishioners were bothered by the videographer, an admitted non-parishioner. I don't have a particular reason to doubt that statement.
I'm glad to read you believe in accountability, and I know you to be a man who is unafraid to sign his real name when speaking out. Your standard for others, however, seems to be weak. A person of integrity and accountability would have announced himself or herself and his or her video device to the pastor or appropriate staff person and after introducing, asked permission to take video. Absent such behavior, a person risks assessment as a boor. Maybe such a boor might give life-saving CPR to a person at an event crashed. That would be a laudable act, but it wouldn't justify ill intent.
I stand by my criticism of your willingness to let the ends justify the means. Sloppy moral theology, my friend.
Getting off the thread topic, as for my assessment of men dressed in women's clothing receiving Communion, it would be a distraction in my parish. The archbishop obviously had a conversation with the individuals and made a judgment. Personally, I find more fault with his apology.
If I'm looking for fault, I continue to stand by my criticism of the blogosphere in this. Bloggers who permit their comboxes to clog with a Jerry Springer angerfest do Catholicism no credit. Thomas, Gerald, and others have simply bought into the culture's indulgence for bile, while wrapping themselves and their blogs in nice pictures of the pope.
Let me ask you a question as a confessor and spiritual director: If someone under your tutelage brought you a post claiming publicly the archbishop to be a false shepherd and apostate, getting herlsef or himself riled up in passions to the point of distraction, what would be your reaction?
Todd: "I stand by my criticism of your willingness to let the ends justify the means. Sloppy moral theology, my friend."
Where is it stated that it is immoral to videotape a mass?
I realize there are rules as to decorum during a mass but in order for your "ends do not justify the means" assessment to work, we need to address some points:
1) It is not immoral to videotape a mass. If the means are not sinful, then you cannot accuse us of using the ends to justify the means. What if the videographer was taping the mass to CELEBRATE SPI's first communion?
We know it is not wrong to bring cameras to record weddings, funerals, baptisms, first communion, etc. How then can you make the broad claim that it is?
2) If an act is not objectively sinful, then we may scrutinize it through the intent of the videographer: to expose a gross abuse of the sacrament and a flagrant inability of a shepherd to lead his flock. Are either of these intentions wrong? No.
3) If the means and the intent are not sinful, then we can scrutinize the method. Was the videographer too intrusive and distracting? Here we really do not have enough data to assess. Perhaps at such a flamboyant parish, video records are common. Perhaps, as a sort of flagship pro-gay community they would even WELCOME or ENCOURAGE regular tapings and broadcasts of their masses. We know they do not have a standing rule against making video recordings (though that is bound to change) and we know that some people were more distracted, not just by SPI, but also by the camera.
Fine. But people have to put up with cameras at the mass all the time. What makes this mass so different that the very act of videotaping is sinful?
Could it possibly be that their main concern is that they have something to hide? If this is the case, then they do not have grounds for being angry at the videographer. The celebration of the mass is a public experience where all people, even those who do not belong to the Catholic Church, are invited to attend.
Not only that, but this particular parish shouts from the rooftops that it wants the whole world to know it is a WELCOMING parish.
If EVERYONE is invited to attend and indeed even to PARTAKE regardless of objective state. Why in the world would they object to video recording a mass and broadcasting it on the internet? Such an activity is actually in support of their expressly stated mission!
If you ask me, the videographer has more grounds to bill the parish for his services than the pastor does of complaining of the intrusiveness of the video-making.
Factor in the videographer's intentions, which are to correct an aberration, and he should even be commended for caring enough about his spiritual leaders to save them from the eternal flames of Hell.
Would the archbishop have apologized had this incident not been videotaped?
I'm sorry, I don't believe the pastor -- who has been public in his support for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in his parish, renting the parish hall for one of their gatherings -- when he says that the videographer was disruptive. Not buying it. So there have been no other videos made at his parish? Not buying it. The pastor has a track record, well known in the blogosphere. He has been caught again, and now he cries "foul" when it is publicized. If I were allowing some liturgical abuse to occur in my parish, I, too, would not want there to be any video record of said abuse: I would want to be able to claim "plausible deniability," to borrow a phrase from Henry Kissinger. No record, no foul. Come up with an excuse to keep the event from being recorded so that I cannot be held accountable for anything that may happen.
You say that I am promoting "ends justifying the means" -- not what I'm saying. You have been fairly clear in assessing the intention of the videographer -- who is merely recording the event. I stand by his right to record. It is not an evil act. That the video is being watched is not an evil act. The actual recorded event depicts the archbishop interacting with men dressed as nuns. The videographer is acting as a reporter: you can decide for yourself, watching the images [and in one instance, reading lips].
I've made no judgment on the archbishop -- others may have, I have not. I pointed out that the archbishop and the pastor are now learning something important, something I knew before I was ordained: clergy are leaders, and people watch their leaders, sometimes unconfortably closely. People hold their leaders accountable, and that is as is should be. Holding one's leader accountable is not an evil end. The means employed by the videographer are not intrinsically evil. I'm not the one with sloppy theology here. I taught ethics before I was ordained. I'd review what "means" means if I were you, Todd.
Sorry, Fr Brian, my assessment is still leaning toward sloppiness on your part on this matter. Even good teachers can trip up from time to time.
You argued from the "good" coming from the outing of the liturgy. I'm not convinced a whole lot of good came from this. The archbishop left, the videographer departed with the goods, and the pastor and parish seem to continue as they have been. The difference on the blogosphere is that another high-profile Catholic is on the receiving end of bile and anger. I also note you've side-stepped my question on the spiritual health of people who buy into the Culture of Complaint hook, line, and sinker. Are you claiming that all anger is righteous if it comes from a conservative Catholic with soul-saving intent? I don't think even saints get a pass on that.
I can appreciate your frustration with the SPI. Or anyone else's really. But your appeal to pass off the videotaping because it wasn't a grave sin strikes me as a bit hollow.
A child might pick her teeth at the dinner table. Not a sin by any ordinary assessment. As a thoughtless habit, it is a violation of good manners. But still something that needs correction. If done to provoke adults, it might be a bit more serious and require correction on a deeper level.
Given your explanation, it seems to be of a similar quality as the SPI folks themselves. It is not a sin to dress up in a costume. It is not a sin to approach a sacramental minister worthily to receive Communion. To combine the two might be either curious, thoughtless, or insulting depending on the setting. Doing so knowingly in front of a videographer might be seriously provocative.
I don't need to wrap myself in the mantle of "Savior" to keep up the criticism of the blogosphere. I certainly don't need to go name-calling, like Fr Brian is a meaniehead apologist for bad manners or StubbleSpark has a CapsLock key stuck up his nose.
I don't see the point of continuing this particular criticism of people who abuse their right and duty to speak out. In a typically modern style, conservative Catholics have embraced the right, and ignored the responsibility that comes with exercising a right. The archbishop is right: you're shouting so loud you have no sense of the need for correction. Why would anyone aspiring to grace or virtue bother with you?
Todd: "your appeal to pass off the videotaping because it wasn't a grave sin strikes me as a bit hollow."
It is not a GRAVE sin. It simply is not a sin to begin with. That is what "sloppy" thinking is.
Todd: "I certainly don't need to go name-calling, like Fr Brian is a meaniehead apologist for bad manners or StubbleSpark has a CapsLock key stuck up his nose. "
The restraint truly shows.
Todd: "Why would anyone aspiring to grace or virtue bother with you?"
36 posts into the thread, I think it is finally dawning on you: you are committing the very same "offense" you accuse us of. And yet you still play at holier-than-thou.
Sloppy thinking.
Boil down the facts and all the rhetoric and what stares me in the face is that I would not trust my children to be in alone company of His Excellency - the archbishop of SF nevermind the agit-proper heretics at this Castro district parish. How very sad for all of us. I pray for AB N that he may find his salt and protect the holy family through the Eucharist but leading the flock, he has allowed the wolves to dine on the body of CHrist and in fact our children. More plain speak about the wide road to hell is severely needed in the SF dicoese. Will we hear it anytime soon? Not unless the PC police (USF Jesuits)determine hell is real.
Qdomine.com has a new post that should put all doubt to rest about what goes on at Most Holy Redeemer
http://www.qdomine.com/Morality_..._pages/
MHR2.htm
"If someone under your tutelage brought you a post claiming publicly the archbishop to be a false shepherd and apostate, getting herlsef or himself riled up in passions to the point of distraction, what would be your reaction?"
Tutelage: no, not under tutelage. I'm not a tutor, I'm a pastor. Under my pastoral care -- curae animarum.
"a post claiming the archbishop to be a false shepherd": I would offer correction, and point out that blog posts such as these are people's opinions, and everyone has an opinion. The archbishop is indeed the archbishop; this position does not carry with it infallibility. We need to pray for him, and pray for his people, I would and do say. I would also add that he should be commended for offering an apology.
"riled up in passions to the point of distraction": I would point out the positive things that have come from this, to wit: the archbishop's apology and renewed effort to be more aware of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. One step at a time. I hold that profanation of the Holy Eucharist merits indignation or righteous anger, and I am inclined to understanding for those who are disturbed to the point of distraction. My experience with those who are disturbed about the liturgical abuses are also disturbed when the moral teachings of the Church are similarly ignored or watered down by various bishops and archbishops, and the occasional cardinal. Our response must not dwell upon anger, but must move to prayer for our bishops, archbishops, pastors, priests, to be men of firm and clear moral leadership, doing the right thing rather than the expedient thing. When a leader apologizes for a lapse in that firmness and clarity, he should be commended. I commend the archbishop for his apology, and look to his renewed stewardship of the liturgy which his apology implies, and which also implicitly invites us all to accountability.
"Why would anyone aspiring to grace or virtue bother with you?" A very good question, one that I know I am unworthy [and no doubt, from your assessment of me, incompetent] to answer. I leave such judgments to my betters, among which you have presented yourself to be.
I would add that my daily schedule has been full, nigh going on for eleven years now, with many people seeking to speak with me about their spiritual and moral lives. I'm not everyone's "cup of tea," but then, what priest is? I'm obviously not up to your standards, Todd. Mea culpa.
Note: anyone is free to videotape any liturgies in my parishes, St. Charles Borromeo in Coldwater, and Our Lady of Fatima in Union City.
Commenting by HaloScan
