The rights of the laity
By Diogenes (articles ) | Dec 05, 2004
Down under in Brisbane, Father Peter Kennedy-- he of the invalid baptisms-- has finally achieved a meeting of the minds with his archbishop.
They both agree that the really bad people are those mean-spirited Catholics who take notes about liturgical abuses, so that they can complain to the archbishop.
"People have no right to be doing this sort of thing....," Father Kennedy said.
But people do have a right to valid sacraments-- a right which Kennedy ignored. Do you suppose they're just trying to get even? And remember that if they're his parishioners, they cannot be expected to act like saints, since they may not be baptized!
Archbishop Bathersby said it would not be possible to report adversely on the content of a service while respecting what was taking place.
Beautiful. Perfect. If you complain about liturgical abuse, it's because you are irreverent. Don't even bother reporting the offense; you already know the answer. You are in the wrong; the priest is the victim. Thus even the logical possibility of liturgical abuse is dismissed.
Yet Archbishop Bathersby is not finished. He tells the Courier-Mail:
"I think it still is an act of worship, even though there is a great deal of unorthodoxy about it at St Mary's. It still is an act of worship and I don't think it's right to be a part of that and neglect the fact that worship is taking place."
Wait a minute! OK, it's an "act of worship." But what act of worship is it? Is it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Since we already know that Father Kennedy was routinely performing invalid baptisms, is it out of line to ask whether the parish Mass is invalid as well?
Oh, yeah. Sorry, I forgot. We don't have the right to ask that question. Even by asking, I have sinned. I need to go to Confession. Do you suppose that sacrament is validly administered in South Brisbane?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Dec. 10, 2004 7:51 AM ET USA
Let us review the bidding .... A heretic priest performs invalid baptisms and isn't fired. The bishop who didn't fire him isn't fired himself. Just who submitted the name of this genius for an episcopal appointment?
Posted by: -
Dec. 06, 2004 9:19 AM ET USA
Perfect examples of what is increasingly known as the "Idiot Clergy" - both of them.