Karl Keating's E-Letter of February 7, 2006

**Forum Admin** · #1 Feb 7, '06, 12:29 pm

Karl's E-Letter of February 7, 2006

Topics:

Will The Real Islam Please Stand Up?
So Many Years, So Many Liturgical Abuses
Theodoracopulos On Fleming On Johnson

==========
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_060207.asp

**fix** · #2 Feb 7, '06, 1:11 pm

Quote:

"If only my bishop knew!" Well, he does know, and his predecessors knew too. It's hardly credible that everyone except the bishop would know what's going on in his parishes. If there are persistent abuses, they persist because the bishop, for whatever reason, has chosen not to end them.

Well said. So, what is the solution?

**Karl Keating** · #3 Feb 7, '06, 1:16 pm

Suasion usually doesn't work. Retirement might.

Joe Kelley · #4 Feb 7, '06, 1:47 pm

The second item

- WHERE THE LITURGICAL BUCK STOPS

- could us the same led in sentence that Karl used for the first item -

Religions can be assessed by their official writings and by their public manifestations.

DaveBj · #5 Feb 7, '06, 2:35 pm

Quote:

Harry Truman knew where the buck stopped. It's disconcerting that so many Catholics still don't.

The buck stops at the Holy See. It is unfortunate that it seems the Holy Father must micro-manage Church affairs, but given the situation where individual bishops seem to think that they are popes, that is what he must do. We, the laity, in spite of having the GIRM, the canons, or whatever sourcebooks in our hands or in our minds, are not perceived by the aberrant clergy as having the authority to correct them because we do not.

The information about the abuses can and should flow from the bottom up. But if the sorry state of the Church in the United States is to be corrected, it will have to be corrected from the very top down.

DaveBj

P.S. I thank God every day for the reverant, orthodox parish here in Cullman. Mass by the rubrics--check. Central tabernacle--check. Eucharistic adoration--check. I could go on

Eileen T · #6 Feb 7, '06, 3:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix

Well said. So, what is the solution?

A while back, the Australian Bishops went for their Ad Limina visit to JP II and got a shock. The Holy Father addressed some abuses they had been allowing and told them to stop.

A group of Lay faithful, who had been ignored by their bishops, gathered evidence of abuses and sent the information to the appropriate Vatican Congregation.

Potato1 · #7 Feb 7, '06, 4:16 pm

Amen Karl, It is about time someone called a spade a spade.

Joe Kelley · #8 Feb 7, '06, 6:04 pm

Fleming " no longer believes in political parties or movements in the United States because they are unreliable, and their leaders will say or do anything in order to be elected.” is echoed in Senator McCain’s latest comment to Senator Obama

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. . . . "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss . . . "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness."

bretski · #9 Feb 7, '06, 9:22 pm

I can't say that I am surprised at all that there are still Liturgical abuses going on two generations after Vatican II. The Church is at once Divine and Human. There will be Liturgical abuses until Christ comes back. Not that we should not try and do something about them (we should), but to think they will just go away because Vatican II put before us the path we should take, that is a little short-sighted.

FightingFat · #10 Feb 8, '06, 2:11 am

With respect to the Islam thing, this is the best statement of the other side of the argument I've seen so far. I still disagree, but for what it's worth
http://weblog.burningbird.net/2006/0...responsibility
I agree with what Karl said in his e-letter, but there are many Muslims who do not express themselves in this way. Also, it has turned out that people like Abu Hamza and Omar Khayam are not very good Muslims in their lives in any case. Could they be violent people who will exploit any vehicle to spread dischord?

What I mean is, I worry about 'demonising' a specific faith, or 'generalising' about a specific 'type' of person (in fact, I started a thread on the subject here). Does anyone know what I mean?

**fix** · #11 Feb 8, '06, 5:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eileen T

A while back, the Australian Bishops went for their Ad Limina visit to JP II and got a shock. The Holy Father addressed some abuses they had been allowing and told them to stop.

A group of Lay faithful, who had been ignored by their bishops, gathered evidence of abuses and sent the information to the appropriate Vatican Congregation.

Yes, those ideas coupled with prayer are a good answer. I, also, think that folks like Mr. Keating who write about these issues do a great service. They keep these topics out front and in the public's mind so opinions may be changed and perhaps greater action will be taken to improve the situation.

BigPaulie · #12 Feb 8, '06, 7:14 am

"If only my bishop knew!" Well, he does know, and his predecessors knew too. It's hardly credible that everyone except the bishop would know what's going on in his parishes. If there are persistent abuses, they persist because the bishop, for whatever reason, has chosen not to end them.

I've always suspected the Bishops were well aware of the liturgical abuses taking place, but I didn't want to believe it! The only reasonable "cure-all" I can see to this problem would be a return to the Tridentine Mass. If I were to propose this idea to my pastor and fellow parishioners, they would probably try to through me off the side of a cliff.

Best Whishes, Big Paulie

qmvsimp · #13 Feb 8, '06, 7:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightingFat

With respect to the Islam thing, this is the best statement of the other side of the argument I've seen so far. I still disagree, but for what it's worth
http://weblog.burningbird.net/2006/0...responsibility
I agree with what Karl said in his e-letter, but there are many Muslims who do not express themselves in this way. Also, it has turned out that people like Abu Hamza and Omar Khayam are not very good Muslims in their lives in any case. Could they be violent people who will exploit any vehicle to spread dischord?

What I mean is, I worry about 'demonising' a specific faith, or 'generalising' about a specific 'type' of person (in fact, I started a thread on the subject here). Does anyone know what I mean?

I know what you mean. The best thing is not to demonize Islam, but demonize the teachers, world leaders, and imams who encourage a violent interpretation of Islam. Unfortunately, they are the most vocal, most published, and perhaps even the most populated of the Muslims.

christine · #14 Feb 8, '06, 10:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admin

"We have not been denied the option of receiving on the tongue but have received much huffing from several extraordinary ministers."

This is a good example where the US Bishops give options on liturgical form that results in the more conservative parishoners being criticized.

We have quietly elected not to participate in the "washing of the feet" for about 4 years (since Catholic Answers educated me!) because our Pastor would be including women in the ritual (something deemed optional by the US Bishops). When our view became known this past Lent, my husband was called a chauvanistic pig by our DRE among other slights and insults!!!

I would much prefer the US Bishops did not promulgate liberties with the liturgy. If the Rome way was the only way, it would eliminate the impression that Americans seem to have that if one rule can go, then anything goes.

Crumpy · #15 Feb 8, '06, 11:11 am

Offended Muslims

I have mixed feelings about the outrage. Certainly the violence is absurd. Nothing shows how dull witted some Muslims are than the hair-trigger violent responses to the cartoons.

On the other hand, the Saginaw Diocese last year printed a cartoon that was captioned "blasphemous picture of Christ crucified" which depicted a crucified man with the head of a donkey. I have written a couple letters and an email objecting to that publication, and I have received no reply. The NT talks about "believers" whose consciences are "seared" (in one translation). This refers to people who have no sensitivity to something like the issue I raised about that cartoon.

So, I'd rather the Muslims keep on prodding our consciences, just for the change of heart it might cause locally. At least the Muslims have a clue that it's wrong to publish a blasphemous image of Jesus.

Abuses

Right. I won't paste it again. The bishops know what's going on. It's like the cartoon issue above. Does anybody really give a c-r-a-p? No, of course not.

My ex-pastor preaches against the catechism of the catholic church. I got a letter from USCCB that the CCC contains no errors and sent it to my Saginaw Diocese bishop with little reaction.

My ex-pastor is against parish bible study. He's for casino gambling trips.

Well, when the real catholic church comes back to Saginaw, I'll join up again. Until then, they can have their abuses and gambling trips as long as there are fools to pay for them.

Tell me I'm wrong for not going to church. Not true. If I wanted to attend a protestant church, I'd have many to choose from. I want the real Catholic Church, not the parody of it.