This guy is part of Opus Dei, which has a reactionary reputation, but is overseeing some of the most umm, “non-reactionary” policies and activities showing up in the news. That’s interesting.
There has to be a serious catechetical problem in that diocese if anyone thinks that’s appropriate. We probably need catechesis here in the USA on that too because some people seem to see their pets as part of the family or as their “kids”. Pets are not people. I understand a lot of people have affection and emotional attachment to their pets, but that doesn’t make those pets human. This is something the Church, including in the USA, is going to have to grapple with how to respond to catechetically. Many of my Millennial peers seem obsessed with pets, and I don’t understand why. It seems bizarre to me. I don’t understand why.
I've been to that diocese and know a guy who lives there. The place is like ground zero for bad catechesis and liturgical abuse. Every week he has some other crazy story.
When I attended Sunday Mass there, they did no second reading. They just left it out. The organist played a tune instead.
Question: do we know what the relationship was between the parish and the individuals who did the feeding? Because it’s possible that they were just randos, in which case there’s really nothing that the parish could have done (except not giving communion in the hand, but that’s admittedly above an individual priest’s pay grade). But assuming these were members of the parish, I have some serious questions for the priest on his instruction (or lack thereof) to his flock.
To be fair, to be guilty of most crimes under almost any legal system, the accused has to have some level of knowledge. If you were to testify at trial that your friend’s birthday was January 1st, but it turns out he’s been lying to you for years and it’s actually January 2nd, you wouldn’t be guilty of perjury. The same is true for committing any type of sin.
The text of the canon mentions intent in the second and third clauses, but not the first. Wouldn't this indicate that intent is actually not considered in the first clause (of throwing away)?
The title of this article is perhaps not appropriate for the seriousness of its subject.
They need to be made to recite the Ecce Panis Angelorum 100 times
Ecce Panis Angelorum,
factus cibus viatorum:
vere panis filiorum,
non mittendus canibus.
But it’s the trads who are the problem . . .
This makes me barking mad.
This guy is part of Opus Dei, which has a reactionary reputation, but is overseeing some of the most umm, “non-reactionary” policies and activities showing up in the news. That’s interesting.
But regardless. ditch this guy already.
Yeah, this doesn’t like like an Opus Dei member at all.
So the SSPX has to be excommunicated, but feeding our Eucharistic Lord to dogs is ok and not a canonical crime.
The SSPX is at least granted the honor of not being treated as invincibly ignorant.
Oh don’t be a jerk. Nobody thinks it’s ok, and who are you to declare a crime over the internet?
There has to be a serious catechetical problem in that diocese if anyone thinks that’s appropriate. We probably need catechesis here in the USA on that too because some people seem to see their pets as part of the family or as their “kids”. Pets are not people. I understand a lot of people have affection and emotional attachment to their pets, but that doesn’t make those pets human. This is something the Church, including in the USA, is going to have to grapple with how to respond to catechetically. Many of my Millennial peers seem obsessed with pets, and I don’t understand why. It seems bizarre to me. I don’t understand why.
I've been to that diocese and know a guy who lives there. The place is like ground zero for bad catechesis and liturgical abuse. Every week he has some other crazy story.
When I attended Sunday Mass there, they did no second reading. They just left it out. The organist played a tune instead.
Question: do we know what the relationship was between the parish and the individuals who did the feeding? Because it’s possible that they were just randos, in which case there’s really nothing that the parish could have done (except not giving communion in the hand, but that’s admittedly above an individual priest’s pay grade). But assuming these were members of the parish, I have some serious questions for the priest on his instruction (or lack thereof) to his flock.
So it's basically the George Costanza defense: it's not a lie if you believe it's true.
To be fair, to be guilty of most crimes under almost any legal system, the accused has to have some level of knowledge. If you were to testify at trial that your friend’s birthday was January 1st, but it turns out he’s been lying to you for years and it’s actually January 2nd, you wouldn’t be guilty of perjury. The same is true for committing any type of sin.
O God, the nations have come into your inheritance;
they have defiled your holy temple;
they have laid Jerusalem in ruins.
They have given the bodies of your servants
to the birds of the air for food,
the flesh of your faithful to the wild animals of the earth.
I did not expect this to be about actual dogs…
(though I should probably know better by this point)
The text of the canon mentions intent in the second and third clauses, but not the first. Wouldn't this indicate that intent is actually not considered in the first clause (of throwing away)?
I'd advocate for more severe penalties here, but I suppose it's not my place to be Churlish about it.