I didn’t think much of this stunt when I heard about it over the weekend. Now that I see what the organizer said about Bishop Barron of all people I think even less of it.
Considering how old this chap is, he undoubtedly knew (or knew of) Barron when he was the rector at Mundelein, and Paprocki when he was a Chicago auxiliary. So there could be some deep seated jealousy or resentment that goes beyond just this issue.
It says he’s “retired in” the Archdiocese of Chicago but not where he served as a priest prior to his retirement. It’s possible he may not have been a priest in Chicago.
He is a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Many (probably not most) priests move out of the archdiocese when they retire, with Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin being popular destinations (or at least those are the ones that I know). I took “retired in” to mean that he hadn’t moved elsewhere, but then I already knew of him. I’ve never heard of a priest retiring from elsewhere and moving to Chicago, though it’s possible obviously.
> about 1,000 “Catholics and people of faith” attended a 1-mile walking Eucharistic procession
That's the kind of sentence that makes me ponder. Were the "people of faith" Orthodox or were they, in their own minds, joining a procession of idolaters in order to help out in a political protest? (Or had they just not thought hard about why everyone is following a piece of bread in a fancy gold case?) Only people who believe in the Real Presence are going to understand a Eucharistic procession as something *other than* a publicity stunt, as far as I know. Maybe the 1000 are 99% Catholics and it is a tacked-on phrase so that no one among their security detail is offended?
There is a real injustice that needs to be corrected, but I think the material way to do it is for someone who matters to him to tell the vice president to stand up for his faith. Tell him to read the book of Esther; what does he have political influence over a figurative bedfellow for, if not to provide access to the wellspring of eternal life to his own people in their time of need?
I've personally known Protestants and non-religious people who were able to see a Catholic Eucharistic procession as something deeply spiritual and for them was the beginning of a long walk to eventual reception into the Church. There is a reason our Processions are done in the streets and in public rather than inside a church for only those who we think understand it.
Yes, but that's different than a Protestant choosing to participate in a procession.
They - at least should given their intellectual commitments - view a Eucharistic procession as idolatry.
The comment above I take it to be about concerns for a political co-opting of a procession by those who do not believe, not about the public nature of the procession which as you point out are necessarily public.
Yeah, that's what I want in life... human interest articles from the "why are you here" angle (not necessarily this event, but the Pillar has had a number of them for anticipated events and it's always interesting to hear from different kinds of people: why did you show up at this thing.)
It has become tiresome to say the least, but, when you're running short on ideas and tired of the hard work of making public policy, this is what we get.
Nothing brings people over to your way of thinking like calling them “white nationalists”. I’d like to sit down with the people who are all for incentivizing illegal immigration into our country and ask them if they have any care or concern for the thousands of people who lose their lives trying to get here, of the women and children who are abused, of the people who are then exploited after they get here because of their status. So many people do it the right way. I am honored to be able to witness naturalization ceremonies and celebrate with people who love and respect our country enough to obey her laws for entry and citizenship.
Back to the article - thinking that they can just waltz into the detention center and distribute communion is absolute folly. Have they stopped to think of the security implications - how many detainees are they going to have in a room at one time, how many security team members will be pulled away for this event, verifying that the hosts are not contraband, if they allow distribution of communion for Catholics what doors does that open for other religious communities to bring in what they want to distribute to their members. I just don’t think they thought this through, they definitely didn’t coordinate in good faith with anyone and it just looks like a stunt which is just awful for them to utilize the Blessed Sacrament for such a purpose.
They put in the request a week ago. Either these folks have the right to access the sacraments of their Church or not. A week without a response is unacceptable and a denial of religious freedom.
You know absolutely nothing about what is required to visit a federal facility. It's better to remain silent and to be though a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
One week is not a reasonable lead time for the security considerations that would need to be put in place. What would be more helpful to the detainees would be for local priests to reach out to form a chaplaincy at the facility - obtain security clearances, develop a protocol for administering the sacraments (reconciliation, the sacrifice of the Mass). They could contact the US bureau of prisons to find out how it is done with their custodial populations. Relationships are always better than performative protests.
It seems that the "sacraments" are limited, in this case, to the Eucharist, and do not include confession. Do they have access to that before communion? Or is it just the opportunity to Adore the Blessed Sacrament?
I hope this priest or another will work with the detention center to return in an organized manner that meets security standards so they can actually accomplish their stated intent. This does not seem an ideal way to have attempted to accomplish it, regardless of purity of intent.
I know. I’m hoping they will try again without bringing a procession of 1,000 people with them. They are likely to be denied again, but if the real aim is to bring the Eucharist to people inside the building, I hope they’ll try again anyway.
So do I. And if the purpose of the procession is just to show solidarity with the detainees, then they accomplished their goal. But the article said the hope was to bring the Eucharist to the detainees, implying to the detainees for reception. A procession didn’t do that. Hence, my hope that the organizing clergy will attempt again, without a procession, to bring the Eucharist to the detainees for reception. Whether the government will allow it is another question as you rightly point out. Nevertheless I still hope that these priests will try again.
I agree. But it is a shame we have to curtail beautiful devotional practices like Eucharistic Processions to comply with the directives of an anti-Catholic federal government. Side point -- at one time in Maryland it was a capital offense to hold a Eucharistic Procession.
I also remember recent-ish news that the Alaskan state government got in the way of prison Masses by way of disallowing the element of the wine. I think that was eventually resolved. The uphill climb to defend the religious liberties of inmates and detainees isn’t new.
They weren't preventing a Eucharistic procession. They were simply limiting it to the outside of the detention facility, probably for security reasons. A few unaccompanied priests might well have been allowed in to provide sacramental ministry to the inmates. But this doesn't look like it was about providing spiritual ministry but rather about getting headlines and trying to put those they disagree with in a bad light.
I suggest that instead of continuing to reply to him, simply block him (it is in the "..." menu on his profile), which is a kindness since it will eliminate a near occasion of sin for one or both of you. If you have not already done so.
"And so you can define it in any way you want, but politics is the action of the people."
Growing up I heard that Liturgy is "the work of the people." They are being a bit more honest now I guess.
I'm all for pastoral care of detainees, but it is not surprising to see that the security guidelines at the facility are extremely tight given the recent tendency of liberal activists to resort to extreme actions including murder.
You must not keep up with the news but there were at least two attempted assassinations of ICE agents just in Chicago just last week. And two in Dallas, with one sniper taking shots into an ICE facility and killing two migrants and wounding a third. This isn't a joke and the security measures are tight for a reason.
Religious freedom is a constitutional right. The federal government has neither the moral nor the legal right to simply refuse to respond to requests to bring the sacraments to people, no matter how much animus the Trump Administration has towards the Catholic faith.
Trump has no animus towards the Catholic faith. He does have animus towards those that attempt to murder federal agents. Do I really have to spell out for you why there is heightened security at ICE facilities that would cause issues when large crowds show up demanding to be let in? It's not a religious freedom issues, its a we don't want federal agents to be murdered issue.
Hey Mark, can we keep away from personal attacks? I don't agree with everything Kurt says and you certainly don't have to either, but he's a valuable part of this community, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity (even when I think he's wrong! :)
Did you ask Bishop Barron why he hasn't been more vocal in condemning the president's "inhuman treatment of immigrants to the United States," even when the Holy Father has explicitly asked the bishops to do so?
“It’s Barron, it’s Dolan, it’s Paprocki,” he said. “They’ve all had the opportunity to speak to the immigration issue, and there’s been nothing from their platforms. It’s been nothing but support or basically silence in regard to this stuff. And I’m sure that’s pandering to their closeness to the president, and it’s also pandering to the people who are their followers and all that kind of stuff. But for me, it’s sad.” AMEN, brother.
Bishop Rhoades has spoken in favor of migrants plenty of times, but most people don't read their diocesan newspapers so they don't know what their bishops are up to. And Bishop Paprocki has done a great deal to support immigrants, as he points out in the article.
A number of bishops, including my own (McElroy) have also been outspoken on behalf of immigrants. However, the folks on the religious liberty commission, referred to in the interview, have not used their proximity to power to influence on this issue which is craven and wrong. Given, in Barron's case, the preoccupation with “anti-wokeness” and anti-DEI, and in Dolan's case the Charlie Kirk comparisons to St. Paul, it's reasonable to infer certain priorities aligned with white Christian nationalism
Neither you nor I know what these bishops have done to try to influence the administration on this issue. In the case of Dolan, it's reasonable to compare Kirk to St
Paul in terms of his willingness to talk to those ignorant of Christ in order to draw his hearers to Jesus. I had never heard of him before he was killed but it does sound to me like that's what he was doing. I don't see what race has to do with letting people come argue with you about the faith in order to draw them to Jesus.
And I would argue that both wokeness and DEI are discriminatory. I think the real reason many white elites favor such things is because if everything was done according to ability they themselves would be in the minority, whereas racial quotas keep the Asians out and the white folks in.
I know what Rhoades has done from Today's Catholic and that he has spoken out against what is happening to no avail. Since I do not read the publications of other dioceses I have no idea what other bishops have done.
I meant Barron and Dolan, in this case, as they are appointees of the administration. And they are silent on this but not on issues pandering to MAGA .
Regarding the sign, I feel like it shouldn’t even say “la virgen migrante” but maybe “la virgen indígena” because Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared as an indigenous woman to St. Juan Diego. Which is so beautiful (she’s my favorite), but also kind of different than what the sign is saying.
Religious freedom and access to the sacraments is a political matter as it is a constitutional right. That adds to rather than negates the moral issue. This is virtuous in the same way that praying the rosary outside an abortion clinic is.
I’m referring to the dismissive way he described the religious practice. It makes it look very performative unfortunately. And I know people will be inclined to excuse that as a midwestern speech pattern which is why I mentioned that in my initial comment because I’m not unfamiliar with the “ya know” and “and all that” type tics. I still think phrasing it like that came off as unserious.
I actually agree with most of the points you’ve made here about Eucharistic processions & religious freedom in general but I don’t think this comes off as completely sincere unfortunately.
That’s actually what I thought of. This seemed to me (at first) to be just like praying outside a clinic. I don’t agree with how everything was handled and the priest went way over the line of how you speak about bishops (in terms of both respect and actual truths), the idea and sense of public procession like this as a witness and encouragement to those facing hardship and evil reminded of that too.
A couple thoughts: first, if this procession had happened anywhere else in the world, or for Catholics who had been unjustly imprisoned for any other reason, I think this would meet with much more widespread approval. Second, while I think that the bishops on the Religious Liberty Commission should be more outspoken regarding the treatment of migrants in this country, I don't think that their failure to do so makes them 'white Christian nationalists.' That said, I think that a Eucharistic procession was the right and uniquely Catholic way to bear witness to this situation and attempt to carry out the spiritual work of mercy of visiting the imprisoned, and while I disagree with Fr. Dowling's remarks, that doesn't change my assessment of the situation.
Beyond everything else, it just does not seem prudential. If the goal is truly sacramental access, you don't show up with 1000 people to a place that has recently seen violent clashes. You work methodically and collaboratively behind the scenes.
You also don't bring the Eucharist into a volitile situation that, given the history of the place, could easily devolve into violence. That is a fast-track to profanation.
The authorities have been uncooperative. Sitting on your hands waiting for the federal authorities to have a change of heart and allow people their religious rights is not a solution.
Going to court quickly over it is. I think the Thomas More Center which works through the courts for religious rights is in Chicago. There's also The Becket Fund and Alliance Defending Freedom, which both work to help people access their religious rights.
I don't think we are obligated to use that method. They are on the ground and can make some discernment. Also none of the groups mentioned have ever agreed to take a lawsuit hostile to the current Administration.
It was a beautiful event and hopefully these detainees will soon have their right to access the sacraments restored.
What is your evidence for this claim? The words of the priest who led the procession? It would be interesting to know what and how the request was made and whether or not the detainees also requested it. There is too little information here to judge properly.
I think I agree with you that the public nature of this procession & the risk of it being interpreted as a political protest probably undermines the long-term goal of access for sacramental ministry, compared to a deferential back-channels approach (not least because the current administration has certainly demonstrated a willingness to retaliate against any perceived "enemies")
But, if I were imprisoned and unable to access the sacraments, I think I would still find it very reassuring to know that Jesus had at least come close to the walls. At least during the COVID lockdowns, it felt that way - my pastor dragged the tabernacle into the hallway that was closest to the sidewalk and let people know that if they took their daily permitted, less-than-five-mile outdoor exercise along that route, they could at least pass nearby for a moment.
The receipt of Holy communion is generally reserved for the celebration of the Mass. It can be administered to the homebound, the sick and the dying outside of Mass. To show up at a political demonstration and hand out the Holy Eucharist to anyone who wishes is clearly a violation and a very severe violation at that. Any priest should know that.
I didn’t think much of this stunt when I heard about it over the weekend. Now that I see what the organizer said about Bishop Barron of all people I think even less of it.
I was willing to give the priest-organizer the benefit of the doubt until he began unjustly slandering bishops…Lord have mercy
Considering how old this chap is, he undoubtedly knew (or knew of) Barron when he was the rector at Mundelein, and Paprocki when he was a Chicago auxiliary. So there could be some deep seated jealousy or resentment that goes beyond just this issue.
That’s fair
It says he’s “retired in” the Archdiocese of Chicago but not where he served as a priest prior to his retirement. It’s possible he may not have been a priest in Chicago.
He is a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Many (probably not most) priests move out of the archdiocese when they retire, with Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin being popular destinations (or at least those are the ones that I know). I took “retired in” to mean that he hadn’t moved elsewhere, but then I already knew of him. I’ve never heard of a priest retiring from elsewhere and moving to Chicago, though it’s possible obviously.
I was thinking maybe if he had family ties there or something he might. But in that case, he probably would know Bishop Barron then.
A quick google reveals that he was in fact a priest of the Archdiocese.
Father Dowling Mysteries - “The Case of the Controversy-Courting Clergyman”.
> about 1,000 “Catholics and people of faith” attended a 1-mile walking Eucharistic procession
That's the kind of sentence that makes me ponder. Were the "people of faith" Orthodox or were they, in their own minds, joining a procession of idolaters in order to help out in a political protest? (Or had they just not thought hard about why everyone is following a piece of bread in a fancy gold case?) Only people who believe in the Real Presence are going to understand a Eucharistic procession as something *other than* a publicity stunt, as far as I know. Maybe the 1000 are 99% Catholics and it is a tacked-on phrase so that no one among their security detail is offended?
There is a real injustice that needs to be corrected, but I think the material way to do it is for someone who matters to him to tell the vice president to stand up for his faith. Tell him to read the book of Esther; what does he have political influence over a figurative bedfellow for, if not to provide access to the wellspring of eternal life to his own people in their time of need?
I've personally known Protestants and non-religious people who were able to see a Catholic Eucharistic procession as something deeply spiritual and for them was the beginning of a long walk to eventual reception into the Church. There is a reason our Processions are done in the streets and in public rather than inside a church for only those who we think understand it.
Yes, but I'm not sure they would see this parade as deeply spiritual.
Yes, but that's different than a Protestant choosing to participate in a procession.
They - at least should given their intellectual commitments - view a Eucharistic procession as idolatry.
The comment above I take it to be about concerns for a political co-opting of a procession by those who do not believe, not about the public nature of the procession which as you point out are necessarily public.
I think you should let Protestants speak for themselves.
Surely you are a protestant?
Don't call me Surely.
Yeah, that's what I want in life... human interest articles from the "why are you here" angle (not necessarily this event, but the Pillar has had a number of them for anticipated events and it's always interesting to hear from different kinds of people: why did you show up at this thing.)
"White nationalist" is just a phrase liberals use when they're losing an argument.
It has become tiresome to say the least, but, when you're running short on ideas and tired of the hard work of making public policy, this is what we get.
I for one am tired of racism. So yeah, let's make policy about that. Hope we can count on your support.
Let the hate flow young Padawan.
Yep, I definitely hate racism. You got me!
Quite. Sad you can't see it yourself.
I don't understand what you're saying. Is it not easy and necessary to affirm that racism is wrong?
Nothing brings people over to your way of thinking like calling them “white nationalists”. I’d like to sit down with the people who are all for incentivizing illegal immigration into our country and ask them if they have any care or concern for the thousands of people who lose their lives trying to get here, of the women and children who are abused, of the people who are then exploited after they get here because of their status. So many people do it the right way. I am honored to be able to witness naturalization ceremonies and celebrate with people who love and respect our country enough to obey her laws for entry and citizenship.
Back to the article - thinking that they can just waltz into the detention center and distribute communion is absolute folly. Have they stopped to think of the security implications - how many detainees are they going to have in a room at one time, how many security team members will be pulled away for this event, verifying that the hosts are not contraband, if they allow distribution of communion for Catholics what doors does that open for other religious communities to bring in what they want to distribute to their members. I just don’t think they thought this through, they definitely didn’t coordinate in good faith with anyone and it just looks like a stunt which is just awful for them to utilize the Blessed Sacrament for such a purpose.
They put in the request a week ago. Either these folks have the right to access the sacraments of their Church or not. A week without a response is unacceptable and a denial of religious freedom.
The article does not say that they put in a request a week before the procession....it says that they put in a request in advance.
You know absolutely nothing about what is required to visit a federal facility. It's better to remain silent and to be though a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
I work in federal law enforcement.
Janitor?
Which those who hate workers consider a put down.
not at all my father was one. Just hoping no agency was stupid enough to give a commy a gun and a badge.
One week is not a reasonable lead time for the security considerations that would need to be put in place. What would be more helpful to the detainees would be for local priests to reach out to form a chaplaincy at the facility - obtain security clearances, develop a protocol for administering the sacraments (reconciliation, the sacrifice of the Mass). They could contact the US bureau of prisons to find out how it is done with their custodial populations. Relationships are always better than performative protests.
They did and were not responded to. This is a denial of religious rights. But some people love Trump more than the Holy Eucharist.
Well there we go. And may God bless you too!!
Apparently most Pillar readers.
Ha! That’s similar to calling people bigots, racist, etc. not the most motivational rhetoric.
Sorta like calling others "babykillers"?
Bishop Paprocki and Archbishop Cordileone are spot on.
Deportation is not intrinsically evil, and governments should enforce immigration laws.
AND
The rights and dignity of immigrants must be protected, including their access to the sacraments.
This is the Catholic position.
It seems that the "sacraments" are limited, in this case, to the Eucharist, and do not include confession. Do they have access to that before communion? Or is it just the opportunity to Adore the Blessed Sacrament?
Appears to be using the Eucharist to window dress his own personal political views to try and block any criticism. That’s pretty disgusting.
Exactly. The minute his comments in this article got uncivil, I was thinking, "here's a quarter, go call someone who cares."
If he'd put forth his views by acting and speaking reasonably rather than acting like a whiny brat, I would listen to him.
Which is what “take the name of the Lord your God in vain” actually means.
I hope this priest or another will work with the detention center to return in an organized manner that meets security standards so they can actually accomplish their stated intent. This does not seem an ideal way to have attempted to accomplish it, regardless of purity of intent.
The detention center refuses to work with them.
I know. I’m hoping they will try again without bringing a procession of 1,000 people with them. They are likely to be denied again, but if the real aim is to bring the Eucharist to people inside the building, I hope they’ll try again anyway.
I think Eucharistic Processions are beautiful.
That may be, but they are not the normal way of bringing the Eucharist to those in prison, in nursing homes or hospitals, etc.
Yes, the normal way with be with the civil authorities fully respecting religious freedom and access to the Sacraments.
Well, it would usually be a priest having permission to come to the place to celebrate Mass. not to bring the already consecrated Host in a monstrance
So do I. And if the purpose of the procession is just to show solidarity with the detainees, then they accomplished their goal. But the article said the hope was to bring the Eucharist to the detainees, implying to the detainees for reception. A procession didn’t do that. Hence, my hope that the organizing clergy will attempt again, without a procession, to bring the Eucharist to the detainees for reception. Whether the government will allow it is another question as you rightly point out. Nevertheless I still hope that these priests will try again.
I agree. But it is a shame we have to curtail beautiful devotional practices like Eucharistic Processions to comply with the directives of an anti-Catholic federal government. Side point -- at one time in Maryland it was a capital offense to hold a Eucharistic Procession.
I also remember recent-ish news that the Alaskan state government got in the way of prison Masses by way of disallowing the element of the wine. I think that was eventually resolved. The uphill climb to defend the religious liberties of inmates and detainees isn’t new.
They weren't preventing a Eucharistic procession. They were simply limiting it to the outside of the detention facility, probably for security reasons. A few unaccompanied priests might well have been allowed in to provide sacramental ministry to the inmates. But this doesn't look like it was about providing spiritual ministry but rather about getting headlines and trying to put those they disagree with in a bad light.
Thats funny I have approved visits like this for 20+ years and we never refuse to work with any reasonable request.
Show you want jerks we are dealing with in the current Administration
Did your mother have an sons that lived?
Well, I live in Christ, in the grace of the sacraments and in my love for Mary.
I suggest that instead of continuing to reply to him, simply block him (it is in the "..." menu on his profile), which is a kindness since it will eliminate a near occasion of sin for one or both of you. If you have not already done so.
A thousand person Eucharistic Procession! That is glorious.
"And so you can define it in any way you want, but politics is the action of the people."
Growing up I heard that Liturgy is "the work of the people." They are being a bit more honest now I guess.
I'm all for pastoral care of detainees, but it is not surprising to see that the security guidelines at the facility are extremely tight given the recent tendency of liberal activists to resort to extreme actions including murder.
You really think it is okay to deny the sacraments to Catholics because people with guns are triggered by a guy in a frog costume?
You must not keep up with the news but there were at least two attempted assassinations of ICE agents just in Chicago just last week. And two in Dallas, with one sniper taking shots into an ICE facility and killing two migrants and wounding a third. This isn't a joke and the security measures are tight for a reason.
Religious freedom is a constitutional right. The federal government has neither the moral nor the legal right to simply refuse to respond to requests to bring the sacraments to people, no matter how much animus the Trump Administration has towards the Catholic faith.
Trump has no animus towards the Catholic faith. He does have animus towards those that attempt to murder federal agents. Do I really have to spell out for you why there is heightened security at ICE facilities that would cause issues when large crowds show up demanding to be let in? It's not a religious freedom issues, its a we don't want federal agents to be murdered issue.
Trump is wrong to say Chicago priests are a bunch of murders.
Can you point out to me where he said that? Or are you bearing false witness?
I doubt those thousand processors were all priests.
I propose that you be refered to as either Commrade Kurt or left-wing Kurt - because you are so far from Mainstream Catholism.
Well, I would disagree that mainstream Catholics are hateful bigots that think the Sacrament is only for white people.
Here you give yourself away. “Only for white people” ?
🙄
Hey Mark, can we keep away from personal attacks? I don't agree with everything Kurt says and you certainly don't have to either, but he's a valuable part of this community, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity (even when I think he's wrong! :)
Did you ask Bishop Barron why he hasn't been more vocal in condemning the president's "inhuman treatment of immigrants to the United States," even when the Holy Father has explicitly asked the bishops to do so?
“It’s Barron, it’s Dolan, it’s Paprocki,” he said. “They’ve all had the opportunity to speak to the immigration issue, and there’s been nothing from their platforms. It’s been nothing but support or basically silence in regard to this stuff. And I’m sure that’s pandering to their closeness to the president, and it’s also pandering to the people who are their followers and all that kind of stuff. But for me, it’s sad.” AMEN, brother.
Bishop Rhoades has spoken in favor of migrants plenty of times, but most people don't read their diocesan newspapers so they don't know what their bishops are up to. And Bishop Paprocki has done a great deal to support immigrants, as he points out in the article.
A number of bishops, including my own (McElroy) have also been outspoken on behalf of immigrants. However, the folks on the religious liberty commission, referred to in the interview, have not used their proximity to power to influence on this issue which is craven and wrong. Given, in Barron's case, the preoccupation with “anti-wokeness” and anti-DEI, and in Dolan's case the Charlie Kirk comparisons to St. Paul, it's reasonable to infer certain priorities aligned with white Christian nationalism
Neither you nor I know what these bishops have done to try to influence the administration on this issue. In the case of Dolan, it's reasonable to compare Kirk to St
Paul in terms of his willingness to talk to those ignorant of Christ in order to draw his hearers to Jesus. I had never heard of him before he was killed but it does sound to me like that's what he was doing. I don't see what race has to do with letting people come argue with you about the faith in order to draw them to Jesus.
And I would argue that both wokeness and DEI are discriminatory. I think the real reason many white elites favor such things is because if everything was done according to ability they themselves would be in the minority, whereas racial quotas keep the Asians out and the white folks in.
If neither you nor I know, and the results are what they are, the answer is either nothing, or nothing good.
I know what Rhoades has done from Today's Catholic and that he has spoken out against what is happening to no avail. Since I do not read the publications of other dioceses I have no idea what other bishops have done.
I meant Barron and Dolan, in this case, as they are appointees of the administration. And they are silent on this but not on issues pandering to MAGA .
Who paid for that fancy sign?
And when Dowling says it was not meant to be a protest, well, OK Boomer.
Regarding the sign, I feel like it shouldn’t even say “la virgen migrante” but maybe “la virgen indígena” because Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared as an indigenous woman to St. Juan Diego. Which is so beautiful (she’s my favorite), but also kind of different than what the sign is saying.
That is cool
“The intent was basically to do a Eucharistic procession — with the monstrance and prayer and song and praying the rosary and all that”
It’s the “and all that” that got me. Some people might be like, “Oh, that’s a midwestern thing, people just say that.”
But to me that really made his point—the faith being used as window dressing for a political protest.
Religious freedom and access to the sacraments is a political matter as it is a constitutional right. That adds to rather than negates the moral issue. This is virtuous in the same way that praying the rosary outside an abortion clinic is.
I’m referring to the dismissive way he described the religious practice. It makes it look very performative unfortunately. And I know people will be inclined to excuse that as a midwestern speech pattern which is why I mentioned that in my initial comment because I’m not unfamiliar with the “ya know” and “and all that” type tics. I still think phrasing it like that came off as unserious.
I actually agree with most of the points you’ve made here about Eucharistic processions & religious freedom in general but I don’t think this comes off as completely sincere unfortunately.
That’s actually what I thought of. This seemed to me (at first) to be just like praying outside a clinic. I don’t agree with how everything was handled and the priest went way over the line of how you speak about bishops (in terms of both respect and actual truths), the idea and sense of public procession like this as a witness and encouragement to those facing hardship and evil reminded of that too.
A couple thoughts: first, if this procession had happened anywhere else in the world, or for Catholics who had been unjustly imprisoned for any other reason, I think this would meet with much more widespread approval. Second, while I think that the bishops on the Religious Liberty Commission should be more outspoken regarding the treatment of migrants in this country, I don't think that their failure to do so makes them 'white Christian nationalists.' That said, I think that a Eucharistic procession was the right and uniquely Catholic way to bear witness to this situation and attempt to carry out the spiritual work of mercy of visiting the imprisoned, and while I disagree with Fr. Dowling's remarks, that doesn't change my assessment of the situation.
Beyond everything else, it just does not seem prudential. If the goal is truly sacramental access, you don't show up with 1000 people to a place that has recently seen violent clashes. You work methodically and collaboratively behind the scenes.
You also don't bring the Eucharist into a volitile situation that, given the history of the place, could easily devolve into violence. That is a fast-track to profanation.
The authorities have been uncooperative. Sitting on your hands waiting for the federal authorities to have a change of heart and allow people their religious rights is not a solution.
Going to court quickly over it is. I think the Thomas More Center which works through the courts for religious rights is in Chicago. There's also The Becket Fund and Alliance Defending Freedom, which both work to help people access their religious rights.
I don't think we are obligated to use that method. They are on the ground and can make some discernment. Also none of the groups mentioned have ever agreed to take a lawsuit hostile to the current Administration.
It was a beautiful event and hopefully these detainees will soon have their right to access the sacraments restored.
What is your evidence for this claim? The words of the priest who led the procession? It would be interesting to know what and how the request was made and whether or not the detainees also requested it. There is too little information here to judge properly.
> That is a fast-track to profanation.
This was on my mind also.
I think I agree with you that the public nature of this procession & the risk of it being interpreted as a political protest probably undermines the long-term goal of access for sacramental ministry, compared to a deferential back-channels approach (not least because the current administration has certainly demonstrated a willingness to retaliate against any perceived "enemies")
But, if I were imprisoned and unable to access the sacraments, I think I would still find it very reassuring to know that Jesus had at least come close to the walls. At least during the COVID lockdowns, it felt that way - my pastor dragged the tabernacle into the hallway that was closest to the sidewalk and let people know that if they took their daily permitted, less-than-five-mile outdoor exercise along that route, they could at least pass nearby for a moment.
The receipt of Holy communion is generally reserved for the celebration of the Mass. It can be administered to the homebound, the sick and the dying outside of Mass. To show up at a political demonstration and hand out the Holy Eucharist to anyone who wishes is clearly a violation and a very severe violation at that. Any priest should know that.