But while extremely sensitive as to the slightest approach to slander, you must also guard against an extreme into which some people fall, who, in their desire to speak evil of no one, actually uphold and speak well of vice. If you have to do with one who is unquestionably a slanderer, do not excuse him under the expressions of frank and free-spoken; do not call one who is notoriously vain, liberal and elegant; do not call dangerous levities mere simplicity; do not screen disobedience under the name of zeal, or arrogance of frankness, or evil intimacy of friendship. No, my child, we must never, in our wish to shun slander, foster or flatter vice in others; but we must call evil evil, and sin sin, and so doing we shall serve God’s Glory, always bearing in mind the following rules.

If you would be justified in condemning a neighbour’s sin, you must be sure that it is needful either for his good or that of others to do so.  For instance, if light, unseemly conduct is spoken of before young people in a way calculated to injure their purity, and you pass it over, or excuse it, they may be led to think lightly of evil, and to imitate it; and therefore you are bound to condemn all such things freely and at once, unless it is obvious that by reserving your charitable work of reprehension to a future time, you can do it more profitably.

Furthermore, on such occasions it is well to be sure that you are the most proper person among those present to express your opinion, and that your silence would seem in any way to condone the sin. If you are one of the least important persons present, it is probably not your place to censure; but supposing it to be your duty, be most carefully just in what you say,–let there not be a word too much or too little.  For instance, you censure the intimacy of certain people, as dangerous and indiscreet. Well, but you must hold the scales with the most exact justice, and not exaggerate in the smallest item. If there be only a slight appearance of evil, say no more than that; if it be a question of some trifling imprudence, do not make it out to be more; if there be really neither imprudence nor positive appearance of evil, but only such as affords a pretext for malicious slander, either say simply so much, or, better still, say nothing at all. When you speak of your neighbour, look upon your tongue as a sharp razor in the surgeon’s hand, about to cut nerves and tendons; it should be used so carefully, as to insure that no particle more or less than the truth be said. And finally, when you are called upon to blame sin, always strive as far as possible to spare the sinner.

Public, notorious sinners may be spoken of freely, provided always even then that a spirit of charity and compassion prevail, and that you do not speak of them with arrogance or presumption, or as though you took pleasure in the fall of others. To do this is the sure sign of a mean ungenerous mind. And, of course, you must speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics,–it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock. Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticising and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels. When you hear evil of any one, cast any doubt you fairly can upon the accusation; or if that is impossible, make any available excuse for the culprit; and where even that may not be, be yet pitiful and compassionate, and remind those with whom you are speaking that such as stand upright do so solely through God’s Grace. Do your best kindly to check the scandal-bearer, and if you know anything favourable to the person criticised, take pains to mention it.

With many issues tearing at the fabric of the Catholic Church’s foundation, Allen emphasized that Catholics can ill afford to be divided among themselves — but, he said, many ideologies compete with each other within the church and that in turn weakens our effectiveness. He called for Catholics to respect each other’s positions, adapt to changes taking place in their local and worldwide churches, and in doing so strive to positively influence the rest of the world.

I think most of us [ie right-wing nut jobs] would be completely fine with the above statement if you take it at face value.  However, I fear it is an attempt to gloss over the most significant problem in the western Catholic Church today – a lack of adherence to core, fundamental, Catholic beliefs.  This problem is especially evident in the Diocese of Rochester, NY.  What we have here is not one Catholic ideology competing with another Catholic ideology.  What we have is an anti-Catholic ideology competing with a Catholic ideology.  I’m not sure if Allen completely stands by the above paraphrasing and I appreciate Latona’s attempts to bring unity to our local Church (see previous attempts here).  The problem is, though, that unity cannot come at the price of compromising the Catholic faith.  When priests and bishops teach un-Catholic ideas and belief systems that are outside the bounds of Catholic teaching, then it is not the the fault of those who stick with the Magisterium for the division that is caused.  Once again, Allen and others seem to want to blame division in the Church on the boogeyman which is the right-wing conservative not willing to accept that his fellow Catholic sees things a little differently.  This is a red herring and only continues to perpetuate a myth.  When that boogeyman is found, I’ll be the first to tar and feather him.

Side question: What’s up with this term “Ministerium”?  Is that a legit term?  Or is it an attempt to pretend the local Church has some sort of authority above and beyond what it does?  See here and here.  I honestly don’t know and would appreciate any special insight you may have.

The show link is here. Ralph Martin’s organization Renewal Ministries is here. And the link to Pope Paul VI’s EVANGELII NUNTIANDI is here. The relevant passage that Dominick refers to is approximately this:

It would be useful if every Christian and every evangelizer were to pray about the following thought: men can gain salvation also in other ways, by God’s mercy, even though we do not preach the Gospel to them; but as for us, can we gain salvation if through negligence or fear or shame- what St. Paul called “blushing for the Gospel”[134] – or as a result of false ideas we fail to preach it? For that would be to betray the call of God, who wishes the seed to bear fruit through the voice of the ministers of the Gospel; and it will depend on us whether this grows into trees and produces its full fruit.

His work — like that of every good teacher — puts me in touch with and helps me to learn from my own experience. Bill also in his commitment to this work reinforces in me the deep conviction that every day that we live — no matter the number of our years — is a call to new life. If you have a chance to read this book — and I hope that you will — I believe that his sense of life’s daily richness will touch you deeply.

We should certainly pray for his soul and I in no way intend to judge the man, however I think it’s only right to put out a caution if you decide to read his works. You can read about particular areas of concern in a couple articles by James Likoudis:

ROCHESTER DISSENTER NOW UNDERMINES CHRIST’s RESURRECTION

THE DISGRACE OF ROCHESTER’S DIOCESAN PAPER

side note: my now deceased grandfather’s name was also William [Charles] Shannon. He was a farmer and a feed salesman. He wasn’t a Catholic, but was from about the same generation. Please say a prayer for the monsignor and if you feel so inclined, please say one for my grandfather as well.

There is indisputable consensus among trained musicians, liturgists, and informed laity that Sacred Liturgy in our parishes is conspicuous by its poor and impoverished celebration, and that Sacred Music which ought to accompany Mass (the “heavenly liturgy”)  is deplorably absent. Only those wedded to what Dr. Peter Kwasniewski of Wyoming College has termed “the invasion of profane secular music that has descended on most Western parishes today” will continue to blind themselves to the harm done the worship of God in our churches. Such profane music with guitars,  piano, and drums establishing the dumned-down spiritual tone of the parish is the legacy of post-conciliar disorders. They constitute :

“nothing other than a conforming of our minds to our secularized age, to the artistic, psychological, and spiritual degeneracy of our times….[Such music that remains] stylistically at the level of sensuality or ‘everyday’ emotions…is not music fit for worship because it does not help the soul to mature in spiritual dignity, it does not purify the passions and elevate the mind to a more heavenly plane of existence. Indeed, it would seem that a casual, talkative style of celebrating Mass coupled with a popular musical idiom could almost guarantee, or at any rate allow, a stunted psychological growth, an artificially prolonged adolescence of the emotions, out of keeping with the increasing spiritual perfection the Lord intends to impart through the sacred rites and mystic sacraments of the Church.” ( see his masterful “Contemporary music in Church?”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, October 2006).

            But there is more to be concerned about, namely, the popular songs sung as hymns  which are frankly heretical or doctrinally ambiguous when touching upon essential doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Papal biographer George Weigel has noted that Hymns are not intended to be “”liturgical filler”. They are “distinct forms of confessing the Church’s faith”. In one of his columns he lamented how Catholics “settle for hymns musically indistinguishable  from ‘Les Mis’ and hymns of saccharine textual sentimentality. Moreover, some hymn texts in today’s ‘worship resources’ are, to put it bluntly, heretical.”  He singles out the hymns “ Ashes” and “For the Healing of the Nations” as “teaching heresy and have no business in the liturgy”.

“Ashes” teaches Catholics, “We rise again from ashes to create ourselves anew”. “No, we don’t”, Weigel responds: “Christ creates us anew  (Unless Augustine was wrong and Pelagius right)”. 

Particularly grievous are hymns/ songs which fail to profess clearly the  faith of the Catholic Church in the real substantial Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In parishes across the nation one finds priests, deacons, and congregation singing with gusto the opening verse of the stanzas of “The Supper of the Lord” that proclaims: “Precious body, precious blood, here in bread and wine.” Is this Catholic teaching concerning the Eucharist? Any orthodox Lutheran could happily join in its singing as he would find it a perfect expression of  Luther’s eucharistic doctrine of consubstantiation which held that  bread and wine co-exist with the body and blood of Christ.  Certainly, there should be no hymn casting into doubt or ambiguity Catholic doctrine regarding “the substantial Presence whereby Christ, the God-man, is wholly and entirely present” in the Holy Eucharist by Transubstantiation. (cf. Paul VI’s encyclical Letter, Mysterium Fidei).  As Pope Paul VI insisted, only harm to the faith of the People of God can result from the inappropriate and defective use of language other than that approved in the doctrinal formulations of the Magisterium. To do so inevitably results in confusing the faithful, precipitates a loss of faith, and is, in effect, blasphemous towards Christ’s substantial Presence under the appearance of bread and wine- the substance of bread and wine having totally ceased to be present. A letter to the Editor in a Catholic paper some years ago only reflected what should be alarm over false teaching concerning the Eucharist that has spread in parishes:

“…There are many unworthy receptions of the Eucharist taking place every weekend as if it’s no big deal. We have lost our respect for the Eucharist. Some people even refer to it as ‘taking bread and wine’ instead of ‘ Body and Blood’. We really need a wake-up call. Paragraphs 1373-1390 and 2120 of ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church” leave no doubt concerning the sacred meaning of the Eucharist and that unworthy reception is sacrilegious. How long can God be expected to tolerate this outrageous insult?”

          As to “The Supper of the Lord” found in the Today’s Missal-large Print Edition published by Oregon Catholic Press with its profession of faith: “Precious body, precious blood, here in bread and wine”, whereas some priests and laity express befuddlement at its failure to express clearly and unequivocally that ordinary bread and wine no longer exist after the consecration in the Holy Sacrifice, there are priests, deacons, and lay people in the diocese of Rochester, NY,  who see nothing wrong with that hymn. They have no problem with it. It continues to be sung at the time of Communion during the greatest Feasts of the Year, and  priests have been heard delivering Homilies referring to the Presence of Christ “in the bread and wine”.

Here are examples of other questionable hymns found in the same Music Missal  published by Oregon Catholic Press which serve as popular ditties to be sung at Mass. “The Supper of the Lord” is not the only problematic hymn that could be sung by any Protestant:

“#334- Let Us Break Bread Together (Protestant spiritual)

“Let us break bread together on our knees…

Let us drink wine together on our knees…

Let us praise God together on our knees.”

#341- To Be Your Bread (David Haas)
“To be your bread now, be your wine now, Lord,

come and change us to be a sign of your love.

Blest and broken, poured and flowing,

gift that you gave us, to be your body again…

Give us the bread and wine that brings us to life.

Feed us, and we’ll never hunger, never thirst again.”

#345-  You Are Our Living Bread (Michael Joncas)

You are our living bread; you are our holy wine, Jesus Christ.

I feed my people on the finest of bread, on my body broken for them.

I feed my people on the finest of wine, on my blood of suffering and shame.

Where two or three have gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

#347-  Bread of Life (Rory Cooney)

“I myself am the bread of life.

You and I are the bread of life, taken and blessed, broken

and Shared by Christ that the world may live, live,

That the world might live. That the world might live.

This bread is spirit, gift of the Maker’s love,

and we who share it know that we can be one:

Here is God’s kingdom given to us as food.

This is our body, this is our blood”

Lives broken open, stories shared aloud, become a banquet,

a shelter for the world;

a living sign of God in Christ.”

#315-  Now As We Gather (Eugene Castillo)

“Here we shall break the bread of our promise,

here we shall share the sign of God’s grace;

here we shall feed from God’s holy table,

here we shall see our God face to face.

God be among us as we draw near,

Sharing the sign of love and of promise.

Wine of our sorrow, bread of our joy,

Lord, God, be among us now.”

There are more such “hymns” that can be quoted that betray doctrinal confusion but perhaps it suffices to repeat that great injury has been done the faithful by mischievous tampering with the Church’s traditional language concerning the Holy Eucharist. The actual plain meaning and intention of lyrics need to be intelligible and not subject to being doctrinally ambiguous or flagrantly heretical, especially in today’s unbelieving climate. It may be recalled how the priest Arius and his followers in the early Church popularized hymns with problematic wording that undermined the divinity of Christ. Catholics have always believed that the Holy Eucharist was no longer “bread and wine”. Rather, the Lord Jesus Himself  is rendered  “truly present in the Eucharist as He is in heaven…To believe this is especially meritorious.” (St Bonaventure) “Hymns” that weaken the Church’s dogmatic teaching on the Holy Eucharist, to  repeat the words of George Weigel, have “no business in the Church’s liturgy”.

———————————————————————————————

  The above article appeared in the May 3, 2012, issue of the national Catholic weekly newspaper, The Wanderer (($65 per year, 201 Ohio St., St. Paul, MN 55107)         

                                        (Tel. 651-224-5733)

REPORT ON THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK (August 1979)

This Report of a Meeting with Bishop Matthew H. Clark that took place in August, 1979, soon after his installation as Bishop, will be of historic and timely interest to all those faithful Catholics who have witnessed the disintegration of Catholic doctrine and liturgical and sacramental discipline in the years of Bishop Clark’s administration of the Diocese of Rochester. It was written by one of the lay people in attendance at the Meeting.

REPORT OF MEETING OF LAY PEOPLE WITH THE NEW BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, MOST REVEREND MATTHER H. CLARK (FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1979)

We arrived at the Bishop’s Office, After as few minutes he greeted us, tall, slim, handsome, and invited us smilingly into his Office. Chairs were set up facing a sofa on which two of us sat. We had an intimation his smile was a contrived one, feeling sure he had already received an unfavorable briefing concerning us. After an exchange of pleasantries, Fr. P. Magnier, a Redemptorist priest, and the members of our group introduced themselves and informed the Bishop that an Agenda had been prepared for discussion. The Bishop was handed a copy of Msgr. George Kelly’s “The Battle for the American Church” noting that there was nothing to be brought to his attention that was not already covered in the book. He seemed to be pleasantly surprised to be offered the book.

We opened the discussion to express our hope that he might consecrate the diocese to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and how inspiring it would be to Catholics of the diocese and in line with Pope John Paul II’s great love of Mary. One of our group remarked how the health and vitality of the Church always seemed to be linked with vigorous devotion to the Mother of God. It was evident that there had been a sharp decline in Marian devotion in the diocese. We already knew from one of the leaders of the Blue Army in the diocese that she had been told by the Bishop upon her plea that he consecrate the diocese to the Queenship of Mary that he did not believe in it and didn’t put much stock in private revelations like Fatima.

Noting that items #2 and #3 on our Items were particularly priestly concerns, Fr. Magnier was asked to continue. He spoke of the scandal of the Fr. Charles E. Curran Affair- how it had generated great confusion among priests and laity. He noted that Bishop Sullivan of Baton Rouge had forbade Fr. Curran to use Catholic facilities in his diocese, but in Rochester he freely spoke in the parishes and other places- without any public disavowal by Rochester church officials. In fact, Fr. Curran had received $30,000 from the former bishop, Bishop Joseph Hogan. At the beginning of his comments, Fr. Magnier expressed the gratitude of our group for allowing us to speak with him openly and frankly, and assured him that we were not there for any political motive or conspiratorial purpose, but simply to lay before him our concerns out of love for the Church and the diocese. One of our members added that it was known that Fr. Curran was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rochester, and that the failure to discipline him had had the effect of spreading Dissent in the Church, that such Dissent was now a formidable threat to the Unity of the Church, and that throughout the United States one increasingly heard reference to an “American Church”, i.e., one operating rather independently and autonomously, with only the loosest possible connection with Rome—that there was even a sort of incipient schism at work, as Msgr. Kelly had demonstrated in his book. Fr. Magnier then noted the recent troubles at St. Bernard’s Major Seminary, the resignations by Theology professors; and that Fr. Treacy and deacon McCluskey had openly professed themselves to be avowed Marxists. Then the Bishop interrupted, “Don’t say that unless you can document that, or you’ll be out of this diocese before you can repeat it.” The Bishop was really angry, he had lost his cool. It was a vicious attack on Fr. Magnier who himself was utterly shocked with the vehemence of an unexpected response. The Bishop kept repeating: “Don’t say such a thing (about McCluskey) unless you can document that- and no hearsay evidence”. Fr. Magnier said, “I’ve heard him myself about his Marxist views”. The Bishop dismissed that as “hearsay evidence”. At this point, it was obvious to our group (one priest and 7 laity) that our meeting had shattered on the shoals of the Bishop’s obvious animus toward Fr. Magnier and his clear defense of Tim McCluskey. One of our group, Joe Murray asked the Bishop quietly what he would consider adequate evidence- since “hearsay evidence” heard by those present was to be summarily dismissed. The Bishop went on to challenge Fr. Magnier that if he had any real evidence, to come to his Office with McCluskey and make his charges in McCluskey’s presence. The inference was clear that if Fr. Magnier could not do that, such charges were totally irresponsible.

After this blow-up, the Bishop said time was running out and if we were to go through our Agenda, we had better do so. We ran through the Agenda swiftly- delicately but firmly. We noted regarding the diocesan paper that we could not understand why it should regularly carry the columns of dissenter Andrew Greeley who had just been quoted in the press as declaring the U.S. hierarchy was “morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt.” Fr. Louis Hohman (Episcopal Vicar for the “Courier-Journal”, the diocesan paper) and himself one of its regular columnists had written articles deviating from Catholic doctrine on original sin and Humanae Vitae. Fr. William Shannon, a prominent member of the diocesan Liturgical Commission, had even written a book against Humane Vitae. The very last issue of the “Courier-Journal” had even carried a letter by a certain Mr.Agnello decrying that “If all true believers had to do was follow Rome, then the Courier-Journal should merely serve as a paper of Papal reprints.”

One of our group spoke on the altar girls in the parishes which constituted an abuse clearly prohibited by the Church’s liturgical discipline. The Bishop was handed a recent parish bulletin from St.Augustine’s church where altar girls were specifically listed. We tried to stress the effect of liturgical abuses contributing heavily to the drying up of vocations to the priesthood and the religious life by our youth. Another member observed that our group indeed had a “litany of complaints” concerning liturgical abuses (including the massive use of women in the Liturgy- many giving Homilies at Mass) and that such might indeed seem to him unimportant, but that they were not such to many laity in the diocese. It was all too obvious that there was a “hemorraging from the Church” and that the declining statistics of Mass attendance in the diocese of Rochester (confirmed by Fr. Andrew Greeley’s statistics) provided ample evidence of said decline). As we proceeded through the other points on our Agenda, it did appear that the Bishop was listening patiently. However, the Bishop spoke to conclude our meeting by saying:

“There is no joy here. Among you I see only long faces. You are too negative. You have nothing good to say about the Church. Why don’t you talk about the Good Things happening in the Church. Pope John Paul II doesn’t have your kind of approach, and he radiates joy, and he is more aware than anyone of the
Church’s needs…”

This was a crushing finale. Afterward, we could not help thinking it was quite stupid of us to approach him with a serious Agenda for a serious discussion of serious matters. All he apparently desired was a pat on the back from sycophants, to be given gladsome tidings, to be told what a handsome Bishop and jogger he was (he had appeared prominently in the local press jogging with a Rosary in his hand), and to be reinforced concerning all the wonderful spiritual renewal going on in the diocese. He had been speaking to parents in our group whose children had lost their Faith, who had left the Church, and who had been scandalized by widespread liturgical abuses, by the heretical Catechetical texts in use in Catholic schools and parishes and by the corrupting sex education programs placed in Catholic schools. A pro-contraception physician (Dr. Gerard Guerinot who also performed tubal ligations) had been the chairman of the Diocesan Sex Education Committee. One of our members did attempt to reply that joy was something deeper than the superficial sentiments found in the Human Potential movement, that we did have a sense of joy- otherwise we would not have been active as Catholic laity in attempting to help solve serious problems in the diocese. But it was Fr. Magnier who replied trenchantly to the Bishop:

“You accuse us of having no joy. How do you expect these lay people to have joy when they are told that they can speak openly and frankly to their Bishop and then see you threaten to exile a priest for speaking openly and candidly ( not Fr. Curran who receives thousands of dollars from the diocese for fomenting rebellion against the Church)? How do you expect them to speak of the Good Things in the Church when you tell them there’s only so much time for them to get through a carefully prepared Agenda? How can they feel joy at the defection and loss of so many priests and religious from the diocese- and when they see what has happened to their children?

One of our mothers present personalized this last comment, speaking of one of her children being taught in a Catholic school that Christ did not know He was God. How can mothers and fathers who see their children being catechized out of the Catholic faith feel joy?

The Bishop said, “You must be referring to the question of the human consciousness of Christ.”, and this in a tone apparently quite respectful of the work of Modernist Scripture scholars.

Our time was up. The Bishop commented that the matters presented were of different degrees of importance (a remark which we took as discounting any urgency to correct them). Now we were all standing, and asked for his blessing. As more pleasantries were exchanged, the Bishop apologized to Fr. Magnier for his (the bishop’s) savage attack.

We left bloody but unbowed, feeling that despite his apparent openness to us – as to all groups in the diocese- he nevertheless was biased against us from the start. We came away with the impression that we had had a meeting with a Jadot-appointed liberal bishop devoted to the pastoral policies of the “American Church”.

_________________________________________________
OUR AGENDA

1. Consecration of the Diocese to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
2. Scandal of Fr. Charles E. Curran’s Dissent
3. $30,000 given by Bishop Hogan to Fr. Curran
4. Lack of orthdox teaching at St. Bernard’s Seminary; resignation of theology professors; Fr. Tracey and deacon McCluskey publicly avowed Marxists.
5. First Communion before First Confession widespread
6. Corrupt Planned Parenthood and SIECUS-type Sex Education in Catholic schools (Dr. Gerard Guerinot’s “Education in Love”sex education program NOT an education in chastity).
7. Many liturgical abuses (altar girls, women reading the Gospel and giving Homilies, Self-service Holy Communion
8. Widespread dissent in doctrine and morals by priests and religious: Rejection of Humanae Vitae; promotion of “On-going Revelation”, “Fundamental Option”, “General Absolution”, and Women’s Ordination.
9. Erroneous teaching in Catechetical texts questioning the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of Original Sin, the Mass as a Sacrifice, and the literal physical resurrection of Christ.
10. Radicalization of the women’s religious orders, especially the Sisters of St. Joseph.

POSTSCRIPT (September 2004)

The above is a Memo of a meeting held with Bishop Matthew H. Clark on August 31, 1979, soon after his installation as Ordinary. Members of our Rochester Citizens for A Decent Community together with members of the Blue Army, Concerned Catholics of Rochester, and the St. Pius X Chapter of Catholics United for the Faith together with Fr. P. Magnier, C.S.S.R., were present.

RESULTS:

1. Redemptorist Fr. P. Magnier was removed from priestly service in the Diocese of Rochester soon after the meeting.
2. Bishop Clark proceeded to ordain Deacon Tim McCluskey to the priesthood. Within a short time afterwards he abandoned the priesthood, and was also revealed to be a homosexual.
3. Fr. Charles E. Curran remains “a priest in good standing”.
4. Leading dissenter Fr. Richard McBrien whose columns regularly bring into question Catholic teachings and relentlessly attack the Pope and the Roman Curia remains a protected columnist in the diocesan paper by Bishop Clark who is clearly in agreement with Fr. McBrien’s “theology”.
5. The diocesan paper “Catholic Courier” remains today an organ of theological neo-modernism and “social horizontalism” giving aid and comfort to the liberal priests, religious, and laity who do not support the teachings of the Magisterium and subordinate concern for Salvation to politicized “peace and justice” efforts.
6. A pro-homosexualist ethos permeates the diocese ever since the notorious NACDLM Conference hosted by Bishop Clark.
7. St. Bernard’s Institute which is Bishop Clark’s pride and joy is the source of much neo-Modernism and liturgical abuse in the Diocese. Its theological degrees given clergy and laity are not acknowledged by the Congregation for Catholic Education and have only civil accreditation.
8. The Holy See’s recent documents calculated to stop liturgical abuses (“The General Instruction on the Roman Missal”, “Eucharistia de Ecclesia”, and “Redemptionis Sacrosanctum”) have yet to be implemented and enforced in the Diocese. Most laity are not aware what is and what is not a liturgical abuse.
9. Churches and parishes continue to be closed or “clustered” (the step before closure).

In short, as many Letters of protest by laity submitted to Vatican Congregations over many years have noted concerning the history of Bishop Clark’s stewardship, the state of Catholicism in the diocese of Rochester remains deplorable, and has only gotten worse.

IT IS THE CONTINUITY OF THE PATTERNS OF DISSENT, DECAY AND DECLINE ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF CATHOLICS WHICH HAVE CHARACTERIZED THE ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOP MATTHEW H. CLARK SINCE HE BECAME ORDINARY.
____________________________________________________________

END_REPORT

Fast forward 32 years and Same Sex “Marriage” is now the law of the land in New York State.  It seems quite apparent to me that the Catholic Church in New York State (most especially the dioceses of Rochester and Albany) actually helped create an environment where such a bill would be passed and applauded.  I find it unconscionable that the national Catholic media failed to report the whole story (see Mike’s post).

In dioceses where there are few ordinations, such as New York’s Rochester and Albany, people know this [priest] shortage well.
…

This aging generation of progressives continues to lobby church leaders to change Catholic teachings on reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and women’s ordination. But it is being replaced by younger men and women who are attracted to the church because of the very timelessness of its teachings.

They are attracted to the philosophy, the art, the literature and the theology that make Catholicism countercultural. They are drawn to the beauty of the liturgy and the church’s commitment to the dignity of the individual. They want to be contributors to that commitment—alongside faithful and courageous bishops who ask them to make sacrifices. It is time for Catholics to celebrate their arrival.