We continue our series of looking at the icons of the Great Feasts of the Eastern Rite Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The angel Gabriel was at the beginning, at the Incarnation, when God took flesh of the Virgin Mary and became man. Angels filled the sky to announce His birth to shepherds. God humbled Himself and descended to earth and became flesh.

When the Lord ascended back to His Father at the end of His earthly mission, He took with Him His human body, now glorified.  Redemption was complete and, just like at the beginning, angels were present.

At the Incarnation the Lord -Divinity- descended into human flesh; in the Ascension He takes His flesh back to the Father. Like Jesus, we too will ascend to the Father, our flesh glorified.

“The Ascension of Christ is our elevation, and whither the glory of the Head has preceded by anticipation, the hope of the body too is called.”¹

In the icon of the Ascension, Christ ascends to heaven in a round shape of glory, a mandorla or full body halo reserved for manifestations of divinity. The mandorla is by definition almond shaped but circular and star ones are not uncommon.  Flanking the mandorla are angels. They might be interpreted by some people as powering the mandorla  upward but, in fact, they extend their arms in praise, for Christ ascends of His own power and not by the aid of anyone or anything else. Other angels trumpet the return of the Son to Heaven.

“Today the hosts on high, beholding our nature in the heavens, marvel at the strange manner of its ascent, and, being perplexed, they said one to another: Who is this that comes? And when they saw that it was they Master, they commanded to lift up the heavenly gates. With them we ceaselessly praise you, who again shall come from thence in the flesh, as the Judge of all and Almighty God”²

In traditional iconography of the Ascension, the mandorla consists of concentric circles of blue tones that gradate from a dark center to a lighter perimeter. Often, golden streaks of light radiate out from the figure of Christ who is shown either in white or orange robes, the colors of Christ’s divinity in icons that manifest His glory. He blesses with His right hand and holds a scroll in His left, a symbol of the gospel that the apostles are charged with taking to the ends of the earth.

In the center of the icon at the bottom among the grouping of the apostles is Mary, the Mother of God. According to Tradition Mary was present at the Ascension although sacred scripture is silent about her being there. Likewise, St. Paul (on the right) is depicted as being present  but he, of course, could not have been there as he was not as yet converted to Christ. Whenever something appears in an icon that is not mentioned in scripture we look for a doctrinal explanation. Here, it is the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Mary’s figure is placed in the composition directly beneath the enthroned figure of Christ who is head of the Church. Mary and the original apostles and St. Paul, a later convert, form the core from which the Church will develop. Mary is the embodiment of the Church; personifying the body of the Church. She stands in the orans position of prayer, the symbol of the whole Church praying and seeking intercession with Christ, the Head.  In some icons she is depicted in the traditional martyr’s pose with hands in front of her breasts and palms facing forward. In still others, she has one hand raised with the palm facing forward and the other extended as if presenting the apostles, Church. Mary’s calm and confident stillness expresses the immutability of the revealed truth entrusted to the Church.³ The –often- more animated apostles suggest a variety of languages and means for expressing the truth.

"Last Judgment", (detail) tympanum, Church of St. Foy, Conques, France, 1107

Two angels stand among the apostles and caution them that as Christ ascended so He will return at the end of time. This eschatological aspect of the icon and the Gospel message leaves us with the hopeful expectation of the Second Coming. In fact, in icons of the Last Judgment Christ is depicted as arriving in the same mandorla type shape, accompanied by angels.

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Footnotes

¹ Saint Leo the Great, Discourse 73. First text on the Ascension. P.L. 54, col. 396

² The Ascension, Matins of the Eastern Rite

³ Solrunn Nes, The Mystical Language of Icons, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), p. 87

Picture Sources

Featured Icon (top):  http://philoski.blogspot.com/2010/07/icons-liv.html

Book Recommendations and Research Sources

Solrunn Nes, The Mystical Language of Icons, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing, 2004)

Leonid Ouspensky & Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, (Crestwood, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994)

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.

1.

A recent series on the New Liturgical Movement website caused me to revisit a little book by Russian philosopher, scientist, art historian, and theologian Pavel Florsnsky called, Iconostasis. While browsing through the pages, my eyes landed on a couple of paragraphs that seem to me to speak to the reasons why we need an abundance of imagery in our Catholic churches.

… once we open our spiritual eyes and raise them to the Throne of God, we contemplate heavenly visions: the cloud that covers the top of Mount Sinai, the cloud wherein the mystery of God’s presence is revealed by that which clouds it. This cloud is (in the Apostle’s phrase) “a cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1), it is the saints. They surround the altar, and they are the “living stones” that make up the living wall of the iconostasis for they dwell simultaneously in two worlds, combining within themselves the life here and the life there. And their upraised gaze bears witness to the operation of God’s mystery, for their holy countenances in themselves bear witness to the symbolic reality of their spiritual sight–and, in them, the empirical crust is completely pierced by light from above.

… The iconostasis is a boundary between the visible and invisible worlds, and it functions as a boundary by being an obstacle to our seeing the altar, thereby making it accessible to

2.

our consciousness by means of its unified row of saints (i.e., by its cloud of witnesses) that surround the altar where God is, the sphere where heavenly glory dwells, thus proclaiming the Mystery. Iconostasis is vision. Iconostasis is a manifestation of saints and angels–angelophania–a manifest appearance of heavenly witnesses that includes, first of all, the Mother of God and Christ himself in the flesh, witnesses who proclaim that which is from the other side of mortal flesh. Iconostasis is the saints themselves. If everyone praying in a temple (church) were wholly spiritualized, if everyone praying were truly to see, then there would be no iconostasis other than standing before God Himself, witnessing to him by their holy countenances and proclaiming his terrifying glory by their sacred words.

But because our sight is weak and our prayers are feeble, the Church, in Her care for us, gave us a visual strength for our spiritual brokenness: the heavenly visions on the iconostasis, vivid, precise, and illumined, that articulate, materially cohere, an image into fixed colors. But this spiritual prop, this material iconostasis, does not conceal from the believer (as someone in ignorant self-absorption might imagine) some sharp mystery; on the contrary, the iconostasis points out to the half-blind the Mysteries of the altar, opens for them an entrance into a world closed to them by their own stuckness, cries into their deaf ears the voice of the Heavenly Kingdom, a voice made deafening to them by their having failed to take in the speech of ordinary voices. This heavenly cry is therefore stripped, of course, of all the subtly rich expressiveness of ordinary speech: but who commits the act of such stripping when it is we who fail to appreciate the heavenly cry because we failed first to recognize it in ordinary speech: what can be left except a deafening cry?

 

3.

 

Destroy the material iconostasis and the altar itself will, as such, wholly vanish from our consciousness as if covered over by an essentially impenetrable wall. But the material iconostasis does not, in itself, take the place of the living witnesses, existing instead of them; rather, it points toward them, concentrating the attention of those who pray upon them–a concentration of attention that is essential to the developing of spiritual sight. To speak figuratively, then, a temple without a material iconostasis erects a solid wall between altar and temple; the iconostasis opens windows in this wall, through whose glass we see (those of us who can see) what is permanently occurring beyond: the living witnesses to God. To destroy icons thus means to bock up the windows; it means smearing the glass and weakening the spiritual light for those of us who otherwise could see it directly, who could (you could figuratively say) behold it in a transparent space free of earthly air, a space where we could learn to breathe the pure ethereal air and to live in the light of God’s glory: and when this happens, the material iconostasis will self-destruct in that vast obliteration which will destroy the whole image of this world–and which will even destroy faith and hope–and then we will contemplate, in pure love, the immortal glory of God.

______________________________

Florsnsky, Pavel, Iconostasis, trans. by Donald Sheehan and Olga Andrejev, (Creastwood, St. Vladinir’s Seminary Press, 1996); “Orthodox Services and the Icon” pp. 61-63

Credits:

1. http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/the-iconostasis/

2. http://godschool.blog.co.uk/2010/12/22/snowy-romanian-christmas-10236368/

3. Bernie

Here are a few highlights:

“On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.” 

“Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to defend our most cherished freedom.”

“Fortnight For Freedom is ‘a great hymn of prayer for our country.’   Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”

The USCCB website has a section where Dioceses can post their activities for the Fortnight.  Only Bishop Loverde of the Arlington Diocese has anything posted at this time.  I believe we should happily yield to major coordination activities visibly sponsored by the Rochester Diocese.  However, since we have no information yet on any such activities, and since the laity also has the responsibility under our baptism to stand up for our Faith, it seems inevitable that planning should begin promptly, and may have already begun.  In lieu of any other website for visible coordination and dialogue, I’d like to suggest that we begin posting (and brainstorming) how we might each do our part.  It clearly begins with prayer, and here is the prayer suggested by the USCCB:

“Almighty God, Father of all nations, for freedom you have set us free in Christ Jesus. 

We praise and bless You for the gift of religious liberty, the foundation of human rights, justice, and the common good. 

Grant to our leaders the wisdom to protect and promote our liberties; by Your grace may we have the courage to defend them, for ourselves and for all those who live in this blessed land. 

We ask this through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, our patroness,  and in the name of Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,  in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with Whom You live and reign, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.” 

I hope that we might use this blogsite to communicate as much as possible what is planned anywhere in the diocese, but especially to share those areas of lay initiative, so that we might support each other.  Personally, I am particularly interested in anything being done to educate people, especially Catholics, on these issues.  The June 8th March is not that far away; is it to be a redo of March 23rd, or different?  Who is coordinating?  Will more individual parishes have events?  So many questions — so few answers.  What is the main center for our lay communications? 

This might also be a good opportunity to mention that many of the resources available are copyrighted in 2008, and given the enormous changes that have occurred and the proliferating threat to our Freedoms, most of the resources are sadly out of date and run the risk of being dismissed as “rehash.”  If anyone knows of updated resources, especially a compelling voting guide , please post the information.

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)

Rare warning comes as attendance, donations drop after traditionalist priests enforce dress code for Mass and stress orthodoxy

From the Wall Street Journal

By JACK NICAS

A Wisconsin bishop’s rebuke of Roman Catholics who bristled at the conservative practices of their parish priests has become another example of tension among U.S. Catholics over tradition’s role in the church.

The two priests are members of a Spanish group assigned two years ago to Platteville, a farming community 60 miles southwest of Madison. They have attracted new parishioners but driven away many others by banning females as altar servers, enforcing a dress code for Mass (no shorts or short skirts) and emphasizing …

Read the whole article here