Finding a new parish

I suppose a charge of hypocrisy may be levelled against me.  A while back I had written how I found the whole concept of parish shopping to be dicey, and yet, even as I wrote those words, I and my family were in the middle of our own, albeit very reluctant, search for a new parish.

We had long had a growing dissatisfaction with the new priest at our old parish.  It began with seemingly small things, but then grew.  I noticed, almost immediately, that he never genuflected towards the tabernacle when processing to the altar.  When I asked him about this, he told me it was because, from the point of view in front of the altar, the tabernacle was out of sight and he would have been reverencing a statue, or a wall.  I accepted this answer, but it it occurred to us that he could have reverenced the tabernacle from some point in the procession where it was visible. 

I may have let that go, but other things began to creep in.  He never used the word "sacrifice" in the Mass, only "offering".  He changed other words throughout the Mass- all seemingly very minor, but all absolutely forbidden nonetheless.  He called the altar the table, the Mass was a meal.  He added a second Alleluia for after the gospel as well as before.  When I asked him about that one, he told me it was an option some places use.  When I told him it was not in the GIRM, and therefore not an option, he insisted it was, but added that if I did not feel comfortable singing the second alleluia, I could refrain.  The Holy Thursday service was almost entirely his invention, complete with drums and women sweeping the altar clean with broad, dramatic strokes.  At the conclusion of the service, the priests removed their ceremonial robes and threw them to the ground at the feet of the altar. 

He told us we were worthy to come right up to the table of the Lord, which is why he had those bearing the gifts come up and lay them on the altar.  On All Saints Day he preached that we were all saints by virtue of our baptism.He told an anecdote of his niece coming to visit him in the church, and she, in her childish innocence, said that she thought she may become a priest.  At this point the congregation broke out clapping, believing he just spoke in support of women's ordination,  He did not correct that opinion.

It was past time we left.  There was anew, younger priest at the parish who seemed to stick to the rubrics, but he was under the older priest's thumb in the end, and he could make no decisions of his own. We had him baptise our son, and we bid a sad and very reluctant adieu to our parish.  This was where our daughters had been baptised, received their first communion, and, in elder's case, been confirmed.  We had donated close to a thousand dollars of money I really did not have for the restoration of the church.  But we have children, and there is enough heresy and dissent in the world being poured upon them every day.  Puff and I decided they would not be getting it from the pulpit as well.

The churches closest to us eliminated themselves fairly rapidly.  The closest one has a priest who does an even worse Mass.  Another one not too far away we eliminated for more petty reasons.  I did not want architecture or music programs to be a factor in our decision, but in this case the building was so ugly and the music so very, very bad, it was a distraction from the Mass.  That church did, however, have a very nice gift shop, so I may go back there and do some Christmas shopping.

Puff and I decided to come up with some criteria for what we needed in a church.  First, and non negotiable, was that the Mass had to be done properly.  Second, it had to be easy to get to.  Thirdly, (and this is the odd one out) I had to have easily accessible washrooms, where we could change little Frodo, or warm up a bottle.  Sadly, it was on this criteria that the Cathedral, which was my first choice, failed.  It was on the outer edge of the accessibility issue, but it had only one bathroom, with only one toilet, at the back, serving two thousand bladders.  The other first choice, the Oratory, is outside our ease of access. Another church almost made it, good Mass, building was very nice, choir stank, also failed on the bathroom issue, when I found myself changing Frodo on the floor while someone pounded on the door to be let in, fast. Other criteria, like a beautiful, or at least, a not ugly building, and half decent music, were down the list, and would be discarded if the other, more important criteria, could be met. as a sort of "it would be nice if, but...".

So we spent a few months church hopping. The kids were getting antsy, going to a new church every week.  In the back of my mind I heard the words of an organist I know, who told me about his time working for the Anglican church in Montreal, and how a pastor had told him the churches are like boutiques, with everyone going to one that suited their tastes.  But I told myself, we are avoiding heresy, looking, if not for super orthodoxy, then simple orthodoxy.  We did not find the perfect parish, but we did find an acceptable one.  The Mass is done well, with no modifications.  Perhaps that is because none of the priests are native English speakers, and therefore they simply stick to the text rather than trying to improvise.  It is only on bus ride away, about a thirty to forty minute jaunt.  Not too bad, all things considered.  The bathrooms in the basement are large.  As a plus, the church is quite pretty, with the tabernacle in the center, where it should be, and the music is acceptable.

We went there a few times, to get a feel for the place, and then, last week, we took the plunge and enrolled ourselves officially in the congregation.  It doesn't yet feel like home, but I am hoping in time it will.  I, for one, really don't want to start church hopping again.

Interesting Notes on Prayer Books

For Elder's Confirmation I gave her a prayer book- she has many "children's" prayer books, but I thought an older type prayer book would be more appropriate, after all she is an adult in the church - so anyway.

I noticed differences, one of which I would like to share with you and feel free to comment, ignore, or just ponder as you like:

Doesn't it appear that the new precepts did away with rule number six (Concerning marriage) and they split rule number one into two.

Now I know the Church does allow a Catholic to marry a non Catholic - with certain stipulations a dispensations, - I should mention that the new prayer book has a whole section on the "Church Laws concerning marriage"- so the laws are duly noted) but still shouldn't obedience to these Church laws on marriage be listed somewhere in the precepts- you know the six very basic things you have to do to be in "the church."

I suggest the following:

1. You shall keep holy Sundays and Holy days of Obligation by attending Mass and abstaining from labours and business.

and

6. You shall marry in accordance to Church laws.

What it's about

The lousy television specials have started up again. Most of the specials I used to see have fallen by the wayside. The only 'classic' ones left make no mention of babies in mangers. Now we're in a season which is all about some obese elf dressed up like a Coke can handing out stuff lovingly handcrafted by some five year old in a sweatshop in some far off Crapistan. Even when the Grinch gets the clue that maybe Christmas might mean something more, he has no idea what that more may be. Even as the season (whatever season the secular world holds this to be) encourages us to act according to the better angels of our nature we are encouraged to let our demons runs loose, and trample anyone who gets in our way as we buy, Buy, BUY! our way to happiness.

And then there's this:




Preach it, brother Linus. This is what we are preparing ourselves for.

As a side note, everyone involved in the making of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special hated it. It was too slow, no Santa, what was with the jazz music?, and then there was Linus' speech just dumped into the middle of it. Schultz himself insisted on leaving the speech in. "If we don't say, who will?" he said. Exactly. If we don't say it, who will?

Puff took a test here

Is this a good thing or a bad thing in 2008

Aging Irrelevant Hippie is Not Happy With The Catholic Church

Click here if you care.

First Canadians wish to Ban Abortions wins as top wish, now this from the US.

OPINION JOURNAL: FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION PAGE:

The Roe Effect, by the Numbers

Overbrook Research, an Illinois-based polling firm, has a fascinating
study out on public opinion and abortion. Authors Christopher Blunt and Fred
Steeper analyze opinon-poll data from the bellwether state of Missouri between
1992 and 2006, focusing on voters' answers to the question whether they regard
themselves as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

The finding: Public opinion has moved strongly in the "pro-life" direction. In 1992, 34% of Missouri voters described themselves as "strongly pro-choice"; by 2006 this figure had declined to 23%. The proportion describing themselves as "strongly pro-life" rose from 26% to 36%. When those describing themselves as "somewhat" pro-whatever are included, the "pro-life" rise is 11 percentage points (30% to 41%), and the "pro-choice" decline is 13 points (43% to 30%).

These, of course, are measures of general sentiment, not specific policy preferences. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are imprecise, even tendentious, terms. Not everyone describing himself as "pro-life" wants to outlaw all abortions, and not everyone describing himself as "pro-choice" opposes all regulation on abortion. It's even conceivable that one could be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (if one believes
abortion is immoral but shouldn't be illegal).

Still, a willingness to describe oneself as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" suggests a genuine sympathy with the anti- or pro-abortion side of the debate, respectively, since this is how they prefer to describe themselves. So what does this shift mean?

Blunt and Steeper argue that the debate has shifted profoundly, in a way that benefits the "pro-life" side:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, there were dozens of attacks against abortion clinics and the physicians who perform abortions. According to one official government count, between 1977 and 1993, there were at least 36 bombings, 81 arsons, 131 death threats, 84 assaults, 327 clinic invasions, 71 chemical attacks, and over 6,000 blockades of clinic entrances. In response, in 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. . . .

The law worked. Threatened by stiff new federal penalties, Operation Rescue and other vocal anti-abortion groups abruptly ceased their clinic blockades. Dramatic demonstrations and arrests gave way to peaceful prayer vigils and sidewalk counseling.

As antiabortion violence abated, the violence of abortion itself took a higher profile. In 1996 Congress approved the first federal bill to outlaw partial-birth abortion--in which the abortionist partially delivers a baby before taking its life--but opponents of the bill had enough votes to sustain President Clinton's veto. Partial-birth abortion remained at the center of the debate for more than a decade. This past April the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

But there may also be a demographic component to the shift. Blunt and Steeper note that the most dramatic shift has come among the youngest voters:

Some have speculated that there is a self-interest component to abortion attitudes, and that the young--particularly young women--ought to be more supportive of legal abortion than those whose childbearing years have passed. That seems to have been true in 1992: those under age 30 (both women and men) were the most strongly pro-choice (39%), and the least strongly pro-life (23%). . . .

While this might be evidence for the self-interest hypothesis, something interesting happened to the newest voters entering the electorate. Today's 18-29 year olds are as strongly pro-life (36%) as older voters, and are less strongly pro-choice (18%) than their elders.

The authors offer several hypotheses for this shift:

This youngest cohort's passage into adulthood coincided with the ascendance of partial-birth abortion as the issue's dominant frame; for them, the "abortion wars" of the 1980s and early 1990s were a dim memory at best. This is also the generation for whom fetal ultrasound images (often of a very high quality) have become ubiquitous, which has doubtlessly increased the sensitivity of many to the possible humanity of the unborn child. Furthermore, these voters have come of age with legal abortion, perhaps with the realization that they themselves could have been aborted had their parents "chosen" differently. . . . Particularly for those who may have reflected on the narrowness with which they themselves escaped abortion, the whole notion of self-interest seems to have been stood on its head.

What they don't mention is the demographic consequences of abortion itself--that is, the Roe Effect. It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, found a "constitutional" right to abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide. By 1992 the oldest post-Roe babies were only 19. In 2006, by contrast, the entire 18- to 29-year-old cohort had been born after Roe.

If one makes the reasonable assumptions that "pro-life" women have a lower propensity to abort than "pro-choice" ones do, and that parents are a strong influence on their chlidren's moral attitudes, then one would expect the post-Roe cohort to be more "pro-life" than their elders.

As it happens, there has been a similar, though slightly less dramatic, shift, in the
attitudes of 30- to 49-year-olds. In 1992, 27% of women and 23% of men in this age group described themselves as "strongly pro-life"; in 2006, 38% and 34%, respectively. For "strongly pro-choice," the proportions declined from 38% to 26% of women and 34% to 21% of men.

The 30- to 49-year-old cohort in 2006 includes those who were 18 to 29 in 1992, so one may surmise that this group has moved in the "pro-life" direction. This would be consistent with the self-interest hypothesis: As young adults age, they tend to get married, and therefore to become less worried about unplanned pregnancy.

If both the self-interest and the Roe effect hypotheses are true, then one would expect, 15 years hence, that today's young adults--who will be in their 30s and 40s by then--will be even more "pro-life" than today.

This may be bad news for the Democratic Party. Blunt and Steeper find that the political parties have become more polarized around abortion: In 1992, 56% of "strongly pro-life" voters identified themselves as Republicans and 33% as Democrats; by 2006, the numbers were 62% and 25%. "Strongly pro-choice" voters have moved from 30% to 21% Republican and 58% to 68% Democratic. Given the electorate's overall "pro-life" shift, greater polarization is a net gain for the GOP.

Of course, the politics of abortion could change during that time, most notably if the Supreme Court overturns Roe. That could happen with a single change in the court's makeup: Currently the justices are split 5-2 in favor of sustaining the right to abort, but Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have not stated a position.

Overturning Roe would shift the debate away from the most brutal forms of abortion and toward the question of whether all or most abortion should be illegal--that is, from the "pro-choice" extremes to the "pro-life" ones. Such an outcome would likely benefit the Democrats, yet current politics oblige the Democrats to fight it with all their might.

Well, Let's keep praying the rosary, and lets plead with our Lady to intercede for the Unborn and obtain for us and the world the grace of banning abortion, most especially since the Korean Courts have just ruled that an unborn child at 42 weeks gestation is NOT human,until labour, in order to clear the charges against a midwife charged with negligent homicide.

But all is not lost around the world: In India, Mumbai Judges: The Foetus is a Human Being. (Well, they didn't say from Conception, but it is a start: "from the 13th to the 27th week, the embryo turns into a foetus and attains a recognisable human form." and "Hence in the case in point, the commission established that unborn child in the womb was living and therefore is considered a victim." ....

Read the full stories above, please.

Ave Maria, Dei Genetrix, ora pro eis.
Ave Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro eis.