There has been a lot of discussion about the FLDS polygamist group in Texas. From the date of the article on the link, it looks like this group moved to Texas in July of 2004.
ELDORADO, Texas — Folks around here couldn't be more dumbfounded if a flying saucer buzzed the county courthouse and spooked all the sheep this side of Abilene. Polygamists?
A colony of secretive Arizona and Utah men with two, three or more wives apiece wearing ankle-length, gingham pioneer dresses while working the fields under a scorching West Texas sun?
Ooooohhh... "Secretive" men with their gingham clad wives. Looking at this with perfect 20/20 hindsight, it seems that the folks in this group were right to be secretive.
Now as a Catholic, I am more sensitive than others with regards to child abuse (having been required to take Virtus training before I was allowed to be part of a church ministry involving children) and the meaning of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life. But we live in a country with a plurality of religious beliefs.
Back to Texas. So the State of Texas has decided that these girls are being sexually abused. Federal and State laws prohibit multiple marriages and intercourse with a minor. But this is part of their religion. If America has religious freedom, than these people have been discriminated against by the government.
"But Stacy, what if your religion commands you to kill and sacrifice animals and babies?" That is an entirely different field of play. Don't leave me a comment stating that.
The government has decided what is best for these children. This is the same government that has decided that it is okay to teach kindergartners that families come in all shapes and sizes. That some families have two mommies, some families have two daddies and that it's okay. This is the same government that has decided that boys in 6th grade need to know how to use a condom properly, so they demonstrate it in an sex education class. The same government who sets up birth control clinics in high schools and directs young girls (GIRLS) to Planned Parenthood to kill their baby that was CONCEIVED OUT OF WEDLOCK. The same government who tells our children that it's okay to be homosexual and allows gay/lesbian clubs to meet in public high schools, yet tells the religious kids they cannot have their clubs because it violates the separation of church and state.
Are the girls getting married in the FLDS case too young to get married? Yes, they are. But how many girls are having intercourse before the age of 15 in our society now anyway?
These are a respectable group of people and they raise their children to be polite and thoughtful. These children receive a better education than what the State has to offer. They don't use drugs, they don't drink alcohol, they don't have intercourse out of wedlock. They don't surf for porn on the Internet, they don't download violent music with questionable lyrics, they don't text message at the dinner table and they're not cutters. Crime is virtually non-existent and STD's do not run rampant.
Are they odd regarding the age they marry? Perhaps. Many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary was herself about 14 when she married Joseph. For thousands of years girls have been married off young and it is only in the 20th century that the change had been made. How many of you had grandparents, great grandparents that you know the female was 14 or 15 when she married your grandfather? This happens for the perpetuation of the species.
Back to Texas. The State of Texas (all states) has decided what is and isn't appropriate for our children. They say that the FLDS belief system is warped. In my humble opinion, I believe that State's belief system is warped.
I find myself in agreement with Stacy on this one. If the young ladies were being married to men against their will, then they need to be rescued. If pre-pubescent children of any kind were being touched sexually, the ones responsible need to be brought to justice.
However, with girls as young as 13 being allowed to have abortions without even having their parents notified, let alone requiring parental approval I find it really hard to condemn these Mormons. Logically, if a 13 year old girl can consent to have an abortion after consenting to a romp in the sack with her boyfriend, she can consent to marriage. If she can consent to marriage, then the state needs to stay the heck out of it.
If it's against the law to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry, then how can you discriminate against these women who all happen to want to marry the same man? Besides, since no sexual activity is verboten, all these folks need to do is cohabitate and state that they are married within their church. We have no laws against a man shacking up at the same time and having sex with multiple women.
We have to address the cognitive dissonance in our society between allowing (and even encouraging) young girls to have sex, with the horror of finding out that young girls were getting married.
Faced with aging nuns and few new vocations, the 175-year-old Sisters of Mercy religious order – with six communities in California -- has decided to undergo a major reorganization
Yes, this is a problem. But if you look at the picture on this page, the top 5 pictures are from the leadership of the Sisters of Mercy, while the bottom picture is of the founding sisters of the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist.
The contrast is striking. On the top there is not a habit in sight. On the bottom, full habits. On the top, a shrinking base of sisters with an average age of 73 on the bottom, a veritable tsunami of vocations with the average age of the sisters being in the 20's.
We have a portrait of two vocational crises. On the one hand, we have sisters going to meet our Lord with nobody desiring to take their place, and on the other hand we numbers swelling so quickly that the order is running out of room to house them.
Sisters of Mercy are women who commit their lives to serving God's people, especially those who are sick, poor and uneducated. In the spirit of the Gospel, our mission is to help people to overcome the obstacles that keep them from living full and dignified lives. A life of prayer and community animates and supports us in our mission.
The focus seems not to be serving God, but serving God's people. This, to me, is bass-ackward. You are prompted to serve God's people by loving and serving God, Himself.
However, this is the mission statement of The Dominican Sisters of Mary:
"We are consecrated women first, and so our foremost model is Mary, the Mother of God. Inspired by the charism of St. Dominic, our prayer life comes first so that our apostolate overflows from a contemplation nourished before the Eucharist."
- Mother Assumpta Long, O.P.
Their apostolate overflows from their prayer life. This, in my opinion, is the proper ordering of the priorities.
The California Catholic article continues:
“The whole question of changes in religious life is huge, and there don’t seem to be any easy solutions," Dossa told the archdiocesan newspaper. "I think the Mercy community will be a smaller community targeted to needs that aren't being met in other ways."
This seems like a classic case of "lookin' for luv in all the wrong places". I'm not a sister. I'm not even a woman, but I would think that if I were concecrated as a bride of Christ, my first and foremost responsibility would be nurturing the relationship with my husband. This would mean talking to Him a lot, and receiving Him often physically into my body. The rest of the volunteer work would spring from those conversations.
The Sisters of Mercy seem to be spending so much time with the volunteer work, they rarely see their husband (at least from the text of the mission statement).
On the other hand the Dominican Sisters of Mary appear to have it ordered correctly. The results are easy to see.
And here is the money quote:
A "progressive" Catholic community, the Burlingame sisters were listed in Call to Action's 1999 "Church Renewal Directory," as among groups that "support the spirit of Call To Action's 1990 'Call for Reform in the Catholic Church.'" Call to Action, which calls for women's ordination and for Church acceptance of artificial birth control and the normalcy of homosexuality, has five regional chapters in Northern and Southern California. [ed.- Emphesis, mine]
Well, they appear to have tossed the vow of obedience and chastity (at least how it applies to others). They don't appear to be embracing poverty, so how again are these sisters considered professed religious? Ohhh... Because they say they are.
However, there is some good news:
In mid-August, 2007, Sr. Mary Michael, Sr. Ave Maria and Sr. Maximilian Marie set out as "homesteaders" on the community's first mission to the West Coast, staking their claim at our newly established Regina Caeli Convent in the Diocese of Sacramento, California.
These sisters have my (and I'm sure many other's) prayers for the success of their missionary work, and it is indeed missionary work. They are going to bring Christ to the pagans.
...For allowing his daughter to pose topless for Vanity Fair magazine. Well, let's be fair. You couldn't see any "naughty bits", but as Mike Church said on his radio show, "they 'bedroomed her up'".
Her father was with her on the shoot, and could be seen in some of the photos. What was he thinking? What dad in his right mind would allow his 15 year old daughter to be publicly sexualized in this way?
Vanity Fair defends their choice to shoot her this way. They call it "tasteful" and "artistic". I call it soft child porn.
What has happened to all the wholesome heroines for our young girls? First Zoey 101 (Jamie Lynn Spears) gets pregnant at 16, and now "Hannah Montana" poses topless.
Dads, guard your daughters. And do it better than Billy Ray Cyrus.
What is it about "faithful orthodox Catholics" that makes so many of them talk as though despair and anger are the first and only characteristics of the Truly Christian life?
I have found it easier to put aside my "despair and anger" since our new pastor arrived. Sure, there are things about the liturgy I'd like to see. A little more Latin, maybe. But each and every week, the Mass is celebrated joyfully, reverently and correctly.
Why am I so concerned with correctness? Well, because an incorrect Mass is not The Mass™. Karen is on the same page with me with the following:
What exasperates and maddens me about liturgical abuses is that the Mass given to us by the Church is so supremely, eminently DOABLE. Almost any priest not in a concentration camp or on a battlefield can do what the Church asks him to do with perfect compliance. It's all there: wear this; say that; bow here; now elevate the host -- the dimmest clergyman in the poorest parish on earth can score 100% every time, and thereby offer a pleasing sacrifice to God.
There is a book on or near the altar called the GIRM, or "General Instruction for the Roman Missal". This is the "cook book" for the Mass that has the "Vatican Good Masskeep Seal of Approval". It has what you say, in black, and what you do in red. If you follow it, you will offer a correct sacrifice of the Mass each and every time.
The parts between "in the name of the Father..." and "... the Mass is ended, go in peace" are prescribed. You are only supposed to say what is written in black and do what is written in red in the order that it is written.
That means that the departures happen for a reason. The innovator wants to jack us around for motives of his own, which he does not "covenant" with us. We almost never hear complaints about inadvertent omissions by celebrants trying to do it right; it's the deliberate changes that infuriate.
I never complain about a mistake in the Mass. If a section is inadvertently missed during the consecration, it's not a problem for me, and I'm sure God understands.
If a female pronoun is used for God the Father to appease the feminists in the audience, I have a problem with that. If the priest throws in an extra Hail Mary after the prayer of the faithful, I have a problem with that. Mass occurs at the same moment, outside of time, as every other Mass that has ever or will ever be celebrated. It's important that it's done right.
I believe that the trend to celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the people) has been a major cause of these innovating priests. They have been taught that they ought to "engage" their congregations. Make the Mass "relevant" for them. As they face the people, they look out through the congregation, gauging the effect, and then go back to the rectory to "fine tune" the Mass for next week for greater appeal to the "audience".
During Mass at our church, with the exception of the homily (where you ought to be engaging the people) our priest's eyes are on the upper back of the church. He may be facing us, but he isn't watching us.
What if I told you that the creator of the universe will be appearing, in the flesh, to sign autographs at your local church this weekend? Would you worry about the "relevance" of the occasion, would you worry about how long the homily was, or what you were "getting out of it"? Or would you be the first in line to meet Him?
Well, He will be. And the autograph He'll be signing will be on your heart.
The more I observe Catholic churches, and the more I hear stories like the one related by Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report, the more I become sure that those who volunteer to teach our children about the faith (especially sacramental theology) do so because they have an agenda that they want to inflict on our children.
First off, let me say that I have yet to volunteer to teach either CCD or sacraments in our church, and I have to respect those who take the time to do so. However, I believe that before one teaches children, one must understand what the sacrament is all about.
Also, I'd like to place many deficiencies firmly in the laps of the parents. They are the primary educators of their children, and any CCD or sacrament teacher is subordinate to them. This means that if the parents do their jobs correctly, they will be able to discern when they are being taught wrong, and have the respect not to challenge the teacher publicly.
I heard a quote (and I wish I could remember who to attribute it to) that after Vatican II, CCD began to stand for "Cut, Color and Draw". This attitude is no more apparent than in Patrick's quote:
Then the children proceeded to the sanctuary right in front of the altar where they began a song that made the first little diddy seem like a Schubert composition. This song had more hand motions than a three day conference for the hearing impaired. Then they started a clappin'! Then they started a hootin' and hollerin' punching their fists Arsenio Hall style "Woo Woo! Jesus!" clap clap clap "Woo Woo! Jesus!"
"Oh No! Please make it stop!! Please" I pleaded inwardly while I squirmed ever more to the choir of giggles behind me. Finally, the song ended. Ah peace! Or so I thought.
See Shine On You Crazy Jesus for video proof of the hand motions from Hell.
Now it was time for the children to rehearse coming up for communion. The DRE had them proceed up to the front of the church, pretend to receive, and walk back to the pews. However, the children were not instructed to bow their heads as a sign of reverence before receiving holy communion. "Are you kidding me? After all the well rehearsed antics preceding this, she was not going to instruct them how to receive properly?" I couldn't take it any more, I walked up to the front and politely addressed the DRE.
"Ma'am, excuse me, but shouldn't the children be instructed to bow their heads before receiving communion?"
"Uh...Well...no one really does that! Hardly any of the adults tomorrow will do that."
"Perhaps," I said "but they are supposed to, right? Shouldn't we teach them correctly?"
She responded "Well, if that is your family custom, you can instruct your child at home to bow his or her head!"
"Ma'am, it is not my family custom. It is in the general instruction. When receiving standing, the communicant should bow their head as a sign of reverence. Again, it is not my family custom. It is what the church directs."
"Well, Ok. But the children have so much to remember already, this will be too much for them!"
"Ma'am. I have just watched you rehearse two songs with so many hand motions that it would take me a week to remember them. I watched you instruct the children during the Lord's prayer to hold hands and to raise them up. Way up. None of which they are supposed to do during the liturgy. Now the one thing that they should be instructed to do, a simple head bow, is too much for them to remember? With all due respect, Ma'am, that is nonsense."
She then barked at me loudly enough that all eyes in the church turned to us,"Sir, I am not going argue with you here in front of JESUS!"
"Ma'am, I am not arguing with you. This is what they are supposed to do. Teach them the right way!"
"FINE! Fine. Children, children, we need to rehearse communion again."
I turned and headed back to my pew. I spied the family that had been sitting behind me watching me squirm, standing and watching the whole scene - giggles aplenty.
I abhor having to be that guy, but I couldn't sit by and say nothing any longer. I hope I did the right thing.
God bless Patrick. In the past, I have witnessed this sort of spitting on Church Tradition and Church authority. I have seen violations of the GIRM, and violations of Canon Law, and all manner of liturgical abuse and I remained silent because I was a coward. I didn't want to make waves.
But people's souls are at stake, and especially in the case of first communion and confirmation, children's souls and the souls of young adults are at stake. Someone needs to stand up for them. Patrick did, and I will. I promise.
I disagree. I think you exaggerate. The bloggers and most of the commenters on this matter are mostly people who work in liturgy. They are musicians, liturgists and priests. It's natural that they critique. They are professionals.
Agreed. I'm simply pointing out, however, that, nonetheless, the hysteria that often infects such commentary has real effect on real people. My correspondent (a deeply devout convert) told me that if they really believed that Catholic fidelity meant a life focused on the anger and bitterness they see in combox liturgy wars, they'd be out of the Church like a shot. "I want to worship Jesus, not the liturgy", said my correspondent.
As a recovering Mass nit-picker, I have a dog in both fights. I have watched some of the commentary with regard to the Pope's Mass that some have criticized as "not Catholic enough". Since the Holy Father approved, I guess what these people are saying is that they are more Catholic than the Pope.
Unlike Apollo, God did not set forth a given musical style. Each culture brings its own to the Mass.
Exactly.
But one thing I do want to comment on is the dismissive sounding tone of Mark's commenter who said:
"I want to worship Jesus, not the liturgy"
Christ gave us the liturgy. We are supposed to do it the way He wants us to. There is a specific way he wants things done. He showed us how to do it. Each of the sacraments (and Holy Communion is one of them) is supposed to be done in a certain way, with certain matter and certain words.
However, there's a certain flexibility accorded the liturgy. Some of the things such as the black and red should be read and done accordingly exactly as laid down. Liberties should not be taken with those prayers, because we are not doing them in a vacuum, we are doing them at exactly the same moment, irrespective of time, with any gathering who has ever celebrated the Mass including Jesus at the last supper and the Communion of Saints in Heaven.
That having been said, there may very well be a Latin chant being sung at the opening, or a David Haas song, or even an exuberant Swahili hymn complete with native instrumentation possibly even including drums.
This is the beauty of our Catholic faith. It includes everyone at every time in every area of the world and in Heaven.
Now I was at a Mass this weekend where the priest injected a Hail Mary after the Prayer of the Faithful. I love the Blessed Mother, but that had no place at that point in the Mass. He also ad-libbed during the consecration. That stuff has to stop. He also said during the homily and I quote: "The Pope is not infallible". That is heresy.
They sang standard OCP fare, that I can live with. They also stood during the consecration (there are no kneelers in that church) which is allowed also. This means I can live with that too.
The reform of the reform crowd ought to concentrate on those aspects of the Mass which are either prescribed and not done, or proscribed and done anyway. They should leave the music alone for a while. Do the important stuff first, and I believe they'll be surprised to find out the music just might take care of itself.
I have been becoming more and more disillusioned with you over the last month or so. It wasn't bad enough that you advocate to leave just born infants to die in closets, or that your former pastor and spiritual adviser (who is expected to be the man who forms your conscience, at least that's what it means in Catholic circles) says things like: "(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.", now you're looking down on good, hard working, small-town Americans by saying:
"It's not surprising, then, that they get bitter -- they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".
My, Senator, it's like shooting feet in a barrel, isn't it... well... your own foot, anyway. This sort of sentiment probably played well in Sodom-by-the-bay, with your latte swilling elitist snob friends but it doesn't play too well here, or I would imagine in the small towns in Pennsylvania.
Once was a time you could have gotten away with those sorts of statements. Sometimes the mail took weeks to travel around the country.
Now communication happens at light speed in the blink of an eye. What you say your $1000 / plate liberal gatherings gets played for a million satellite dishes minutes later. So you have to take responsibility for your actions.
To quote a famous pastor: "Your CHICK-ens... are COMIN' home... ... ... to ROOST".
Do you feel sorry for me yet? Well, listen to this...
When I finally got Mary back to sleep after 6:30, I walked back in my room to find my stupid dog rolling and rubbing herself all over my pillows and sheets. I walked in and she stopped and looked at me as if to say "Phew, that was GREAT!" I half expected her to light up a cigarette.
ROFL!!!
The funniest part about this is that my dog used to do the same thing (she just turned 16 and has trouble jumping on the bed and I refuse to buy the doggie steps like my wife suggested). She'd be rubbing her face into my pillow making snorting noises and getting dog boogers all over my pillow. When I came in, she'd pop up and look at me as if to say: "What are you looking at?".
This lady is a great read. She's become a regular in my RSS reader.
Well, I'm being a little premature. My blogbuddy, Paul, The Regular Guy™ is getting off his political tush and doing something.
t's time to kick off this campaign in a serious way! I'm in the process of collecting the signatures I need for ballot access. If you live in my area, I'd be grateful for your help.
But most people who read this won't be able to help collect signatures. If you're willing, especially if you are pro-life, you can help in two ways. First, by your prayers. If you would say even one prayer for me, I'd be very grateful. If you'd add my campaign effort to your regular prayer list, I'd be even more grateful. And I'd like to ask that if you'll pray for the success of this campaign, you'll also leave a comment here to say so.
God is my campaign manager, and He's let me know that this campaign will go nowhere without your prayers.
For those who aren't familiar with Paul Mitchell, he's a blogger who pontificatesbloviates discusses political issues with a decidedly Catholic viewpoint. You can get a feel about his past posts at Thoughts of a Regular Guy.
Second, you can help materially. I have a brand-new PayPal donation link in the upper right. If you can donate any amount, even just $1, please do. If you can donate $5, or $10, or even $100, please do. No amount is too small. You know what you spend your money on, you know what you can spare. But I have to believe that the most important thing we can do for the pro-life cause today is to elect state legislators.
Indeedy. I am going to try and help Paul out as best I can. Paul is foursquare on the side of the babies. I don't believe they could get a better advocate in the Illinois legislature.
In my race, this is going to be the second election in a row in which Planned Parenthood has endorsed both the Republican and Democratic candidates. It's time for an alternative. I didn't want to be the alternative, but here I am.
If you believe you should be included in this list and are not, it's just an oversight. Please e-mail me and I'll get it corrected as soon as I'm able.
