Thursday, 24 May 2018

Pray Hard For Ireland!

The Church in Ireland is asking our prayers to defeat the Culture of Death! Pray!!!

From Catholic News Agency

.- With a referendum vote that could legalize abortion in Ireland just days away, the country’s clergy and Church leaders are asking the world for prayers.
In a video message posted to YouTube, Irish priest Father Marius O’Reilly appeals to Catholics and Christians around the world to pray for the country of Ireland ahead of the vote, particularly through praying the rosary and offering Masses.
O’Reilly noted that while other countries have legalized abortion through legislation or court decisions, “Ireland would be the first country in the world where the people would legalize abortion,” he said.
“We can’t allow that to happen. And so I’m making an appeal to you today - please come to our assistance. Pray the rosary for Ireland. Please have Masses offered for Ireland,” he said.
On May 25, Irish citizens will vote whether they want to repeal the country’s eighth amendment, which recognizes the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn child. Under current law, the practice of abortion in Ireland is illegal, unless the mother’s health is deemed to be endangered. Pro-life Irish citizens are encouraging a “no” vote on the referendum.
The eighth amendment was passed in Ireland in 1983, with upwards of 67 percent voter-approval. It reads, in part: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
Despite the high percentage of the population - 78 percent - that identifies as Catholic, polling has predicted that the vote will be close.  
Two months ago, EWTN Ireland started a 54-day rosary novena campaign for the “affirmation of the inestimable value of every human life.”
The campaign’s website urges “all people of good will to join together in prayer in defence of unborn babies and their mothers. All those professing faith, and those professing secular values, are invited to join as one voice on behalf of the unborn babies and their mothers: to affirm the life of the most vulnerable who may be classed as terminally ill, disabled or ‘unwanted’.”
A Christian prayer and a secular affirmation were also included on the campaign’s site.
EWTN Ireland as well as many clergy are particularly urging Catholics to pray a nine-day rosary novena leading up to the vote, starting on Thursday, May 17 and ending on Friday, May 25, the day of the referendum.
The novena website Pray More Novenas, which sends out daily reminders for various prayers, has also begun a novena through the intercession of the Irish Our Lady of Knock specifically for the abortion referendum.
There is also a prayer and fasting initiative, inspired by Sr. Briege McKenna (O.S.C.) that calls for Masses and days of prayer and “medically safe” fasting to be offered for the “Reparation, Conversions of hearts and Protection of the 8th amendment.”
Pro-life group Human Life International has asked for the offering of 1,000 Masses for the referendum, and has a form on their website where the Masses offered for this intention may be added to the calendar.
In his video, Fr. O’Reilly recalled Pope John Paul II’s 1979 visit to the country, during which he urged Irish citizens to defend life.
“He said to the Irish people ‘you must protect life;’ he knew what was coming down the road. And so the Irish people took this very, very seriously and rosary crusades began all around the country,” O’Reilly said.
This also led to the proposal of the constitutional amendment that is currently in place, which gave equal protection to mother and child “so that Ireland would be a country that in the constitution would say that the unborn child has a right to life.”
“This was an incredible gift from God for our country because it meant that the politicians couldn’t just bring in abortion when they wanted. They would have to put it to the people,” he added. “And so we fought it for years and years and now in 2018 we’re being asked to vote on abortion.” 
The Ancient Order of Hibernians, a Catholic Irish-American men’s fraternity, has asked its members to set aside May 18 as a day of prayer in solidarity with the Save the 8th Campaign.
“Every prayer for a ‘No’ vote is a compassionate plea to spare Ireland the pain America has suffered for 45 years,” Ancient Order of Hibernians National President James F. McKay said, alluding to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decisions that mandated legal abortion across the country.
He encouraged prayers invoking the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Our Lady of Fatima to “save Ireland’s mothers and unborn from the evils of abortion.”
He also encouraged immediate social media outreach as well as discussions with family and friends about “the importance of protecting the unborn.”
Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, Neb. used his May 18 column in the Southern Nebraska Register to ask readers to join him in prayer that the people of Ireland will choose life.
“I pray that the people of Ireland will see that the legalization of abortion in countries around the world has not made women free. That abortion has only caused more violence, more ruin, and more despair,” Bishop Conley said.
The bishop said the Catholic faith “has long given the Irish people an acute and attentive sense of human dignity, human rights, and justice,” but Ireland has secularized in part due to “Church leaders who failed to give authentic and faithful witness to the Gospel.”
Conley, who spent a semester in Ireland as a 20-year-old recent Catholic convert, said “my introduction to the day-to-day practice of my newfound Catholic faith was in Ireland.”
“It has now been over 40 years since I spent those four delightful months in Ireland, but I still remember vividly the strong faith of the Irish people and how Catholicism ran deep in the Irish soil and soul. I owe so much to the Irish people for nurturing me in my Catholic faith. And we, as a country, owe so much to the Catholic Church in Ireland for bringing that same faith to these shores.”

Novena Against the Culture of Death

Today is the beginning of a Novena to Our Lady to defeat the satanic forces of the Culture of Death in Ireland. It will end on the 24th, the day before the referendum on repealing the Eighth Amendment. Please join!

O Mother of Salvation, pray for your children in Ireland to prevent the wicked act of abortion from being inflicted upon them. Protect their holy nation from sinking deeper into despair from the darkness which covers their country. Rid them of the evil one who wants to destroy your children, yet to be born. Pray that those leaders will have the courage to listen to those who love your Son, so that they will follow the Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Please Pray for Ireland! Save the 8th!

On 25 May, Ireland votes in a referendum to decide whether to keep the Eighth Amendment to their Constitution. The Amendment reads, 
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
The Culture of Death and their Master, Satan, want this Amendment repealed so they can 'legalise' the murder of the unborn, bringing the genocidal holocaust of abortion to Ireland. 

I urge all my readers to join the novena. Here is a page with more information.

Major Announcement: The World Unites Together In Spiritual Warfare 

Please, please pray with me that the outcome of the abortion referendum in Ireland will be NO.

Abortion is the greatest form of genocide because it is the genocide of complete innocents. This referendum is the enemy’s will, not God’s, and our prayers and fasting can and will, make the greatest difference in rising against it! Please pray this prayer daily with me! We can't sit back and do nothing for our God.

O Mother of Salvation, pray for your children in Ireland to prevent the wicked act of abortion from being inflicted upon them. Protect their holy nation from sinking deeper into despair from the darkness which covers their country. Rid them of the evil one who wants to destroy your children, yet to be born. Pray that those leaders will have the courage to listen to those who love your Son, so that they will follow the Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Defending the Monarchy, a Vital Institution

An excellent, well reasoned essay on the reasons why a monarchy is superior to a presidential republic. My thanks to my friend, Angela Goudman, for bringing it to my attention.

From the National Post

Richard Whittall: Despite the costly and almost entirely ceremonial trappings of the Royal Family, the monarchy serves a subtle-yet-vital function

My father, like many fathers, developed and honed a set of ideas in his 20s that, decades later, he continues to espouse to anyone and everyone who will listen – all as though he just came up with them.  
Though I don’t agree with all or even most of them – no, I don’t think boys in particular are underserved by our education system; yes, I do think it’s important to replace the sink sponge more than once a year – there is one idea of his that I have recently come around on: that the monarchy is a vital institution that we must preserve at all costs.
Now before you roll your eyes in anticipation of another anglophilic screed urging you to celebrate the union of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle that ends in a hearty “Vivat Regina Elizabetha!”, dear old dad had a fairly radical – radical for him at least – take on this hoary subject. It goes something like this: despite the costly and almost entirely ceremonial trappings of the Royal Family – the palaces, the never-ending world tours and, of course, the extravagant televised nuptials for princes who will almost certainly never sit upon any throne – the monarchy serves a subtle-yet-vital function in modern parliamentary democracies. Their primary purpose is to separate the symbolism and idealism inherent in the role of head of state from the more banal role of chief executive.
What does this mean, exactly?
The “head of state” is a public persona. Their duty is to represent the national unity and legitimacy of a sovereign state. They are the living symbolic guarantor of the social contract, jurisprudence and the rule of law. They are the powerful symbolic “god-daddy” that holds the messy, diverse human conglomerates known as nations together. Meanwhile, the head of government is a mere politician who either directs legislation or, in the case of prime ministers, helps craft it.
Michel Foucault reflects on the origins of the symbolic function of the head of state in Discipline and Punish. “The monarchy presented itself as a referee,” he writes, “a power capable of putting an end to war, violence and pillage, and saying no to these struggles and private feuds.” Though monarchs could be and often were despotic tyrants, they were also public protectors and therefore commanded a measure of respect that went beyond fear of reprisals. They provided some measure of social and institutional stability. Though the Age of Revolutions spanning the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries was supposed to remove some or all of this stabilizing power from the monarch and give it directly to the people via representative democracy, it critically did not eliminate the symbolic role and function of the head of state. In fact, Foucault’s description of the role of the monarch could easily apply to symbolism and pageantry of the modern Republican president.  
And therein we find one of the most critical flaws of republicanism: it is not good for democracies when the same person serves as both a symbolic head of state and the chief executive of a nation. It muddies the democratic waters.
Consider commonwealth nations like Canada or the United Kingdom, where the role of head of state and legislative executive are sharply distinct. No one bats an eye when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or Theresa May is pilloried endlessly online by the public, or in the House of Commons by opposition members or in the newspaper by a columnist. They are legislators, elected public servants who have a job to do and must be held accountable for it, both in the media and at the polls. By contract, mocking the Queen is still considered taboo by a not insignificant number of people in both nations, and is certainly out of the question for members of government. For the same reason, it would arguably feel very odd, if not downright repulsive, to have photos of either Prime Minister in their respective federal government buildings instead of the Queen. This is the symbolism of the head of state at play.
It is not good for democracies when the same person serves as both a symbolic head of state and the chief executive of a nation.
Now, compare this to the United States, where the president – whose photo you do see in federal buildings – carries a regal aura despite the fact they also direct policy on farm subsidies and corporate tax loopholes. Though an elected politician who runs on specific and often banal policy platforms, the president is expected by their fellow Americans to maintain a certain deportment because they are also head of state, and when they fail to act appropriately it can become a matter of national crisis.
This doesn’t mean the president is immune from criticism. However, the difference is that hatred for Donald Trump goes far beyond his legislative accomplishments, with talk of how he has “sullied the Oval Office” by not acting like a president is “supposed to.” When people criticize Trump, it is often less about what he has or has not accomplished as a politician, and more about how he doesn’t “behave like a president should,” or how he “doesn’t respect the office.” Incidental matters of Trump’s personal behaviour often take up far more public attention and concern than his government’s legislative accomplishments or failures, which affect the lives of millions of Americans. And even then, there are some among the constituents of the United States who would imagine any criticism of the executive branch to be unpatriotic.
Democracy in practice should be about the dirty, boring, ephemeral stuff: wonkish debates, grassroots advocacy, the peaceful transition of power between sometimes fundamentally opposed ideologies. But for that kind of democracy to work, you need a permanent locus of power with universal assent in the form of a head of state. Some nations achieve this through a monarch; others with another, higher elected role, like a chancellor or a president who oversees a prime minister.
But to my mind – and it must be said, my father’s – it serves democracies best if the two roles are distinct, providing government legitimacy while focusing attention on what legislators do and not whether they are suitably dignified while doing it.

'Gumball' Clip Brilliantly Reveals the Hollowness of Social Justice ‘Tolerance’

Someday, real life is going to kick these SJWs in their arses, hard!

From Intellectual Takeout

A hilarious episode of 'Gumball' has fun with the palpable intolerance of social justice tolerance.

Few would disagree with the assertion that genuine tolerance is a virtue. As University of Texas professor and ethics expert J. Budziszewski states, “To tolerate something is to put up with it even though we might be tempted to suppress it.”
What many are increasingly noticing, however, is that tolerance is often practiced in a very different manner today. People are not putting up with something they disagree with; they are using tolerance to suppress others.
This turns the traditional meaning of tolerance on its head, a fact that did not escape the writers of the children’s cartoon "The Amazing World of Gumball" (also known simply as just "Gumball"), a TV show that runs on the Cartoon Network. In the episode, Darwin is explaining to Anais why Gumball is plugged into a machine called Ranblur, which allows him to suck up vast amounts of information.
ANAIS: Ranblur? What is that, a website?   
DARWIN: It’s more like a bare-knuckle fight to see who is the most tolerant person on the internet.
ANAIS: Why? Isn’t tolerance about being philanthropic?
ANAIS: What?
DARWIN: Nothing. Just thinking about weiner dogs. But yeah – no tolerance on the internet these days is more about destroying people in an argument.
This is great, but it’s even better when we get to see Gumball employ the skills he uploaded Matrix-style from Ranblur.
[Gumball enters a school lunch cafeteria, sits beside Carmen, and opens his lunch]
CARMEN: Have you ever tried whole grain bread? It’s far better for you.
GUMBALL: Not everyone can afford organic stores, Carmen. Maybe you should CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!
CARMEN: I- I just meant that eating too much processed food is a big factor in weight gain …
GUMBALL: And WHAT, big people shouldn’t be proud of who they are?
CARMEN: Ah no … of course not. I mean, ask your doctor and he will tell you …
GUMBALL: He? Why would you assume a doctor is a he? Is it because you assume a woman CAN’T BE A DOCTOR!
CARMEN: Ah (gasps)… what is this.
GUMBALL: I have studied the ways of the social justice warrior. Fight me in an argument if you dare. Perish under the sword of my self-righteousness.

It’s brilliant stuff. I couldn’t stop laughing. The clip goes on to show that people who use tolerance this way actually do damage to their cause (assuming their cause is the people or groups they are defending).
The cartoon shows the key to defeating those who’d use tolerance as a weapon to further their political causes: love. Carmen is not able to defeat Gumball through rhetorical social justice jiu-jitsu. She beats him by showering him with love and forgiveness. It’s done in jest—it’s a children’s cartoon, after all—but there is a message here about genuine love, compassion, and tolerance.
Inherent in these debates about tolerance are moral assumptions. As Budziszewski writes, all discussions on what acts and language should be tolerated and what acts and language should be suppressed involve humans making conclusions on what is evil (and, hence, should be tolerated or suppressed) and what is good (and, hence, should be protected).
“People may not agree about what is good and what is evil; or they may be mistaken about what is good and what is evil,” Budziszewski says. “They may even call evil good, and good, evil. But every time someone wants to suppress something, we can be sure he is attempting to prevent what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, to be evil; alternately, to protect something he thinks, rightly or wrongly, to be good.”
Humans today, who are digitally connected like never before, increasingly struggle to agree on what is good and what is evil (or whether such concepts even exist). So perhaps it’s no surprise that the internet is such a “combative” place.
Still, whatever our beliefs, it would be nice to see more genuine tolerance in society and perhaps even a little love for others who may not share our beliefs. I’ve not yet read the Social Justice Bible, so I'm not familiar with its tenets. But I do recall someone mentioning, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
According to this worldview, we're not called merely to tolerate our enemies (intellectual or otherwise); we're called to love them. It’s a tall order, to be sure, but it’s also a very clear (and good) message.

Supermarket Censors 'Summa Cum Laude' From Graduation Cake

You can't make this stuff up! Not too many decades ago, to be considered truly educated, you had to know Latin. Even if you didn't, it was at least assumed that one knew certain Latin phrases like 'E Pluribus Unum', Vox populi', and, oh, 'Summa Cum Laude'.

From USA Today

Well, we’re guessing the folks at this particular Publix supermarket didn’t graduate summa cum laude.
The story starts with a proud mom ordering a cake online for her son’s graduation party. On it she wanted the words “Congrats Jacob! Summa Cum Laude Class of 2018.”
But then she found that the software at the Publix near their home in West Ashley, S.C., refused to include the word “Cum” in the decoration on top of the cake because it considered it to be profane.
Undaunted, Cara Koscinski used a special-instructions box to explain that the offending word was part of a Latin phrase for academic honors and meant “with” (laude translates as “honors” or “distinction” and summa as “highest”), according to a report by local TV station WCIV. She even included a link to a website explaining the meaning, reported the Washington Post.
And so the box containing a frosted sheet cake arrived for the Saturday celebration of Jacob Koscinski’s 4.89 grade point average and admission to a pre-med program at college.
“And when we opened it, it was a huge shock to all of us," Cara Koscinski told the station.
Yes, instead of the word “Cum,” there were three hyphens. ‘‘Congrats Jacob! Summa - - - Laude Class of 2018.’’
"The cake experience was kind of frustrating and humiliating because I had to explain to my friends and family, like, what that meant. And they were giggling uncontrollably. At least my friends were," said Jacob Koscinski, 18.
His mother was less calm about the incident, telling the Washington Post that her son was ‘‘absolutely humiliated.’’
‘‘It was unbelievable,” she added “I can’t believe I’m the first one to ever write ‘Summa Cum Laude’ on a cake.”
The Koscinskis told WCIV on Monday that a manager from Publix later apologized and offered a refund.
And they are now more sanguine (from the Latin word sanguineus) about the incident.
"We're just happy that our son graduated school and has a bright future," said Cara Koscinski.
The station said it reached out to Publix to find out why the incident occurred but didn’t receive a response.

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on Arianism & Islam

The Chevalier discusses the possible relationship between the Arian heresy and Islam. A very interesting episode!

The Growing German Schism: Warnings, Personal Attacks, and a “Liturgical Dance”

The Church in Germany appears to be in the process of disintegrating. As I pointed out a few days ago, some Dioceses will remain Catholic, whilst others, with Francis' tacit approval, will leave the Church for the wilderness of 'independent Catholicism'.

From One Peter Five

Liturgical 'Dance'!

As the we reported a few days ago, it seems that the progressivist German bishops under the leadership of Cardinal Reinhard Marx – who are facing resistance from seven fellow bishops concerning their new intercommunion handout – are leaning now toward a decentralized solution to the conflict whereby each bishop would set his own rules for his particular diocese. However, this very idea has now also met with resistance in Germany. There are to be seen now many rebukes, attacks, and yet another scandalous “liturgical dance.”
For example, for Regina Einig, writing an article for the conservative Catholic newspaperDie Tagespost, this decentralized approach “means de facto the prospect of schism.” She explains: “The episcopacy in Germany is, in any event, at a point where one cannot any more elide over opposing theological views with the help of an episcopal formula of consensus.”
In Einig’s eyes, the recent Katholikentag (a national meeting of Catholics) in Münster has shown that “’ecumenism from below’ with a Protestant orientation,” an orientation which creates “facts at a violent pace, does not refute obvious errors, isolates opponents, and throws rhetorical smoke grenades.”
Einig continues her piercing description of the German Church’s situation with these words: “The Katholikentag became a rehearsal for a split of Catholics: questions concerning the teaching and the tradition of the Church were at times apodictically brushed aside and drowned by monologues.” “Psychological pressure” was applied to the opponents, as well, Einig adds. All of these steps “are accelerating the sell-out of the Sacraments,” the journalist comments. After describing the increasing sense of insecurity among the lay faithful, to include future seminarians, and the growing desire among them to exit the official structures of the German Catholic Church and also its state tax system, Einig concludes her stirring commentary with the words: “The self-protestantization of the Church in Germany damages no one more than herself.”
In the course of her comments, Einig also had earlier pointed out that nobody at the Katholikentag in Münster had listened to the dire warnings of Metropolitan Augoustinos, the President of the Orthodox Bishops’ Conference in Germany. She herself had recently, on 10 May, reported on that sobering admonition from a non-Catholic Christian leader.
Metropolitan Augoustinos had spoken on Thursday 10 May at the Katholikentag in Münster, and commented on the topic of the admittance of Protestant spouses of Catholics to Holy Communion in individual cases as it had been largely approved by the German bishops. “We all have to be careful,” he explained; “It can be that one causes schisms when trying to unite.” While Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians wish for more ecumenism, he added, one has to be careful not thereby to create new splits.
Moreover, Metropolitan Augoustinos makes it clear that the Orthodox Church also has problems in the question of intercommunion. German Christians, he says, have “carefully to clarify” the questions of the last supper, Communion, and the ecclesiastical understanding. The Orthodox Church, according to him, permits mixed marriages, but rejects intercommunion. “We have no intercommunion between the Orthodox and Catholics, even though we nearly have the same faith. And that is right,” he added. Metropolitan Augoustinos supported the idea that the Catholics, for the sake of ecumenism, should hold fast to the existing teaching according to which ecclesial communion is a precondition for Eucharistic communion.
Additionally, he also reminded his audience of a saying of the Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople (1886-1972), according to which love and truth have to be the leitmotifs of ecumenical dialogue. Metropolitan Augoustinos made it clear that Communion can only be shared where one “shares the faith.” If the faithful wish to “make” unity without theologians and bishops, “that would be a catastrophe for me.” He referred here to some Protestant intercommunion initiatives. For him, it is honest to admit that there exist some fundamental problems with ecumenism.
Thus, while this passionate and truthful warning from an Orthodox leader has been largely avoided, or dismissed, during the recent discussions in Germany, another episcopal statement has received a strong, though somewhat mocking, response.
No one else but the private secretary of Pope emeritus Bendedict XVI had given, on 16 May, an interview to the German magazine Stern, in which he made a slight ironic criticism of Cardinal Reinhard Marx’ own recent rejection of Bavaria’s decision to display crosses in public buildings. First, Archbishop Georg Gänswein made it clear that he “welcomed the decision to preserve the presence of the crucifix also in the public realm.” When asked about Marx’ claim that this decision was causing “division, unrest and animosity,” Gänswein responded that these words spoken by Marx were only “a first, initial statement which was little enlightened [wenig erleuchtet].” “In the meantime, he [Marx] backed off quite strongly,” Gänswein – who is also the Prefect of the Papal Household – pertly added.
Moreover, in the same interview, Archbishop Gänswein also ruled out the possibility of female priests. This will not happen, he said, “also not after my death.” “This is fundamentally not a question of the times, but a question of the sense and purpose of the Catholic priesthood.” For this prelate, “the female priesthood would not be a fitting response to the lack of priests. Yes, we have a lack of priests in Germany, but we also have a serious lack of faithful.” Here, the German prelate made a reference to celibacy, saying that this is “something precious” that may not be thrown out into the water. He himself does not think that celibacy is at the root of the problem of the lack of faithful and priests.
Archbishop Gänswein also made an explicit reference to Pope John Paul II, and his ruling in the question of female priests, when he said:
The question has been definitively answered – if I may clearly recall here this fact – and in the negative. The Church is bound to the Will and the Word of Christ. She is not authorized to make a change in this central question of the faith. I am of course aware that there is a noisy movement which has as its main ideological goal the fight for the female priesthood.
These strong comments as presented here by Archbishop Gänswein did not seem to sit well with the progressivist camp in Germany, even though he had interspersed his comments with some high (and quite disheartening) praises for Pope Francis. In a satirical “review of the week,” the German bishops’ own website mocks the German prelate, calling him “Don Giorgio” (as he is sometimes called by Pope Benedict himself), and speaking about how he is “worth his money.” The reference here is to the fact that he is working both for Pope Francis and for Benedict, thus fulfilling two jobs. Comments the author of the satire: “Even more astonishing is it that Don Giorgio still finds time to give interviews.” In a mocking tone, the author then mentions the archbishop’s critical remarks about Cardinal Marx and himself makes up a song, asking whether Pope Benedict is still alive. Is there any further comment necessary?
However, there was also to be seen a new “liturgical dance” during the Katholikentag, on 13 May during Holy Mass (at the Agnus Dei) – in the presence of Cardinal Marx, Cardinal Rainer Woelki, as well as many German bishops. That is to say, a layman danced in front of the altar.

This scene provoked the just indignation of Dr. Markus Büning who, in his comments to Onepeterfive, called this dance “sensual” and “utterly unfitting for Holy Mass.” “This is pure event culture!” this German theologian and book author likewise exclaimed. “The fitting respect for the Holy Sacrifice at the Cross which is present in the Holy Eucharist is missing; yes, we are witnessing here a mockery of this deep mystery of our faith,” he added. “In front of the Blessed Sacrament, we do not dance, we fall on our knees and adore Him.” Dr. Büning also asked the piercing question: “How shall I teach my children a deep reverence toward the Sacrifice at Holy Mass when bishops turn it into an event filled with dance and entertainment?”
Yes, Mrs. Einig, it is so that the German Catholic Church is in trouble. Signs of schism are palpable. And sometimes also in a repellent way.