Outdoor Masses

Interesting topic, at least to me: the pastor of St. Ann's church, Fr. Joy Mampilly, recently celebrated the Mass at South Beach, with a small part of the congregation in attendance. The occasion was to mark the 1 year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, during which 1 of the parish's members was killed. There was really no reason to hold the Mass on the beach, except to excite emotion among the participants. In fact, the Redemptoris Sacramentum states explicitly:

Chapter V
CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING THE EUCHARIST

1. The Place for the Celebration of Holy Mass
[108.] The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place. The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.

There was no necessity to celebrate this Mass outdoors, such as the Pope does in the event of gigantic crowds, or as happens on the battlefield in wartime. This was done for mere dramatic effect and for sentimentality. And was permission given by the Cardinal? So what will be the result? Yet another blow against sacredness and sacramentality. Why have Mass in a church? Why even go to Mass? Let's worship God in His own great outdoors! Young women, already indoctrinated by wedding shows on basic cable to yearn for scenic outdoor weddings, will rightly ask why their priest cannot bless their marriage on the beach, or on a cruise ship, at the country club or on the top of Mount Moses, rather than in some stuffy church with all those grim statues and crucified Jesus. Will the pastor of St. Ann's church have a convincing answer?

Oddo hits back

So, the tone of this spat over Mount Manresa is starting to turn ugly and anti-clerical. Yes, the Rev. Hallinan's article in the Advance was rude and disingenuous, but Councilman Oddo, a man known for his temper, didn't have to respond with base insults. In a tweet, the Councilman called the priest arrogant, indifferent and disrespectful and accused him of "hiding behind his collar" because he hadn't returned the Councilman's phone call. Now, I agree that the Order and Father Hallinan are coming across as arrogant, indifferent and disrespectful, but 1. it's going too far to publicly describe them as such after a single phone call is not returned, and 2. I wouldn't say that anyone is hiding behind their collar. That accusation implies that Councilman Oddo would physically assault Father Hallinan if he weren't a priest. Oddo goes on to say ""It's curious why he's so invested in this sale", implying that Father Hallinan is going to benefit financially from the sale of Mount Manresa! While I think the Jesuits' actions regarding Mount Manresa can be criticized, Jim Oddo is starting to use language that sounds like Henry VIII when his annulment application was rejected. Is there more to Jim Oddo's anti-clericalism than just the Mount Manresa issue? Did some priest reprove Oddo for his immoral living arrangements?

Put up or shut up

A very public kerfuffle has arisen between Councilman Jim Oddo and a Jesuit priest over the issue of Mount Manresa. After repeated public criticism by Oddo and other politicians, the Jesuit order finally hit back in the form of a very strongly worded -even rude- opinion article in the Advance.

In it, the Rev. Mark Hallinan, S.J., the pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel/ Saint Benedicta church in West Brighton, justified the actions of the Order. In response to Oddo's criticism that the Jesuits weren't being "generous", Rev. Hallinan writes that the Order has been generous for 100 years by maintaining a large and beautiful property from which neighbors freely benefited. (Two points: 1. he seems to be acknowledging that by selling the property now, the property value of neighboring homes would be harmed, and 2. it's a bit much to claim that the Order was being generous by maintaining the property for 100 years. That was the whole purpose for which you were given donations in the first place: to purchase and maintain the land and the property for the use of the people donating the money and for the use of the Church as a whole. That's like saying that if a man pays me to paint his fence, I should be regarded as "generous" for beautifying the landscape. I'm starting to understand the meaning of the word "jesuitical".)

The Rev. continues to emphasize the Order's "generosity" by listing the various social services they performed, such as letting AA meet there and providing temporary housing to 9/11 workers and Sandy victims. I find it interesting that the accomplishments for which he is most proud have nothing to do with the retreat house's mission (i.e. Catholic renewal and evangelization) but are secular in nature, a distortion of values which lies at the heart of Mount Manresa's demise. He goes on to say that the Jesuits only decided to sell the property after a "careful and lengthy discernment process", an assertion which is pure bunk, as the spokesmen for Mount Manresa were lying about the property's future and raising funds up to the moment the sale was announced. Rev. Hallinan concludes by telling Oddo and his alllies to raise $15 million dollars and to "PUT UP OR SHUT UP", an inappropriate and vile thing for a priest to say, let alone write in a public newspaper.

Does Rev. Hallinan speak for the order? Does he speak for the Order in such a vulgar and non-Christian manner? Or is he yet another priest who shouldn't be allowed near a microphone or a word processing program?

Catholic concubinage

Just an observation: the Republican and Democratic candidates running for Staten Island Borough President are both "Catholic" and are both shacking up with concubines. To those who think I'm being "mean" by calling these women "concubines", I would direct their attention to the actual definition of the word:

 con•cu•bine [kong-kyuh-bahyn, kon-]
noun

1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English  (< Anglo-French ) < Latin concubīna,  equivalent to concub-  (variant stem of concumbere  to lie together; see con-, incumbent) + -īna  feminine suffix

Jim Oddo, the 47 year old Republican, is a product of Catholic education from elementary school to college (St. Dorothy's, Farrell and Fordham). It doesn't appear to have had any effect. He is currently shacking up with Kim Petersen, a city attorney and a long-time girlfriend who is described as a "fiancee", a term which is- I suppose- a polite but meaningless euphemism that modern society awards to concubines after a sufficient time has passed with a single man. Oddo, a conservative by reputation, attended the gay wedding of City Council speaker Christine Quinn, making his disdain for marriage quite public. Not surprising; if anyone could sympathize with the arguments of gay marriage advocates, it would be him. After all, he's a practitioner of the philosophy summed up by the motto: "If you love/lust someone enough, exchange bodily fluids with them!" If you really believe that, then there is no room in your mind or soul for Sacramental marriage.

The Democrat Louis Liedy, a 66 year old divorcé, went to public schools, but was baptized by Monsignor Joseph Farrell (the high school's namesake) and attended St. Peter's church with his family as a youth. He is currently shacking up with a Linda Schrader (and her son!) on Ward Hill. No mention of the wife he put away in the 90s.

There's a lot that can be said about this: the utter impermeability of the souls of these men- and the generations they represent- to any influence of Catholic sexual morality and teaching about marriage, despite their ostensible marination in Catholic schools and Catholic culture; the horrible catechesis they no doubt received; the disgusting fact that concubinage is so socially acceptable nowadays that it is flaunted even by aspiring politicians; the fact that these corrupt Peter Pans are seemingly unable to commit to a woman; but personally, my take on this situation is that I won't be voting for either of these moral reprobates, neither of whom deserve to be elected dog catcher. I will not choose to be represented by such men as these. Bugs Bunny will be getting at least one write-in vote for Borough President this year.

The Coming Persecution...

In a scene straight out of the Spanish Civil War, a Staten Island convent full of nuns was set on fire and one Sister is currently in the hospital after jumping from a window to escape. The convent chapel was heavily damaged, as well as a hallway. A different convent building for the same order was the target of $15,000 in damage back in August. In that earlier incident, teenagers from a local, Jewish-run group home for juvenile delinquents were discovered to be the culprits. Who it was that perpetrated this more recent crime is yet to be discovered.

 

In my experience, when a statue is vandalized, a deranged Protestant iconoclast is usually behind it. When a church experiences senseless property damage, such as when Holy Family's large parish sign was laboriously removed and dumped in someone's yard recently, you will usually find that your run-of-the-mill lowlifes are

behind it, and you'll inevitably discover that some and perhaps all of the culprits are nominally Catholic. These kinds of attacks are nothing new. I remember having to remove swastikas and obscene stickers from my church's doors when I was a teenager. But to have someone set fire to a building full of nuns and then specifically target the altar area of the chapel leads me to wonder if the militant popular atheism and anti-clericalism of the past decade is bearing fruit and we are seeing a new era of martyrdom where the faithful will be squeezed between the official legal persecution by the Democratic 1-party regime and the physical persecution by the rage-filled and ideologized mob. Martrys of the Spanish Civil War, pray for us.

The spiritual ancestors of modern anti-Catholics express themselves.

UPDATE: 3 young men have been arrested for the crime, at least two of whom attended Catholic grade schools and high schools. 

Contrasts

American Catholic bishops are pledging to "pull out all the stops" in support of Obama's "immigration reform", i.e. amnesty, open borders and the end of the United States as we know it. How odd it is to see these constitutionally weak, timid and lazy men suddenly turn into lions when it comes to pushing amnesty. It's amazing how the approval of the liberal media acts like a magic potion upon our bishops, infusing them with the courage and energy they lack when it comes to defending the Faith, evangelizing, standing up for marriage, or disciplining heretical priests and apostate politicians. Contrast this with how they responded to gay marriage. I didn't hear anything from the pulpit about that issue or hear anything about a nationwide push to fight for marriage in the legislatures. Recall how Cardinal Dolan, the leader of our local and national Church, limited his activism on the gay marriage issue to writing a blog post and phoning in to an Albany radio show when it was already too late. Contrasts, contrasts.

Desecration of the Pulpit

As we noted in our previous post, the bishops are so passionate about giving away our country to the Third World that they are ordering priests in two dozen specially targeted dioceses to preach support for Obama's immigration reform (amnesty and open borders) on September 8th. At least one Staten Island church started the ball rolling early. On August 25th, the lily-White South Shore parish I sometimes attend witnessed a sneak preview of the bishops' upcoming nationwide indoctrination day.

On this day, the American deacon gave the homily, instead of the foreign pastor with the indecipherable accent; apparently, this message was so important that the powers-that-be really wanted to make sure we understood it (as opposed to the run-of-the-mill God stuff, which is dealt with perfunctorily in a dialect we can't comprehend). He explained that we as Catholics must support the euphemistically named "immigration reform" because 1. Pope John Paul II's Catechism declares that we must be nice to immigrants, even to "undocumented" migrants, which is what he calls illegal aliens; 2. About 50% of immigrants are Catholics; and 3. Immigrants are just great folks, who start businesses and are all-around fine people.

No one said anything. No one reacted. I imagine that the deacon could have preached the virtues of Satanism and no one in this congregation of supine, slack-jawed and practically comatose Catholics would have stirred an inch. I can't imagine that they really believed in what he said, that is, if they were forced to take a stand on it. After all, a good 90% of these people had probably fled Brooklyn and the North Shore with their tails between their legs specifically to avoid living among dark-skinned newcomers. However, it's equally as true that they'd never admit it, which is why they'd probably voice support for "immigration reform" and then flee to New Jersey or upstate NY the moment the first wave of amnestied Mexicans start moving into Tottenville.

However, one angry man did say something to the deacon afterwards. All I heard was "Preach the Gospel, not the Democratic Party platform." Took the words right out of my mouth. This issue has nothing to do with Catholicism. The Bible tells us not to mistreat the sojourner, which by no stretch of the imagination could be interpreted to mean we are obligated to legalize 20 million illegal invaders and throw open the borders for their extended families. The new Catechism enjoins "the more prosperous nations" to welcome the foreigner "to the extent they are able". To that I would say:

1. with our economy the way it is, and with the social disruption attendant with mass Third World immigration, we are not able to accommodate any more people. Sorry- the country's full and we have millions of our own unemployed and underemployed to worry about.

2. I seriously doubt that previous generations of Catholics regarded this as a moral issue. Was this mentioned in the Baltimore Catechism? The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent? Is "maintaining borders" mentioned as a sin in any Confessor's Manual that we know of?  Remember, the ancient test of doctrine was whether it was believed always, everywhere and by everyone. Did the Catholic Church, before 1985 or so, believe that the "prosperous nations" have a duty to give citizenship to whoever hopped a fence or stayed illegally?  I think not. This is a newly invented moral crusade by leftist-influenced clerics and can be dismissed as politically motivated nonsense.