Friday, September 19, 2014

Women of Texas: time to boycott skirts and dresses?

Guess what, my fellow female Texans?  A Texas court has upheld the right of creepy perverts to take pictures up your skirt while you are in public:
A court has upheld the constitutional right of Texans to photograph strangers as an essential component of freedom of speech - even if those images should happen to be surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Criticising an anti-“creepshot” law as a “paternalistic” intrusion on a person’s right to be aroused, the Texas court of criminal appeals struck down part of the state’s “improper photography or visual recording” statute which banned photographing, broadcasting or transmitting a visual image of another person without the other’s consent and with the intention to “arouse or gratify … sexual desire”.
The case stemmed from the arrest of a man in his early 50s named Ronald Thompson who was stopped in 2011 at Sea World in San Antonio after parents reported him swimming with and taking pictures of children aged 3-11. The local district attorney’s office said that he tried to delete the photographs before his camera was seized and a police examination of it revealed 73 images of children in swimsuits “with most of the photographs targeting the children’s breast and buttocks areas”. [...]
Attorneys for Thompson said that the statute was “the stuff of Orwellian thought-crime” and that it did not distinguish “upskirt” or “peeping Tom” photography from “merely photographing a girl in a skirt walking down the street”, so in theory it could criminalise the likes of paparazzi journalists.
The appeals judges appeared to agree, stating that although “upskirt” type-images are intolerable invasions of privacy, the wording of the law is too broad. Presiding judge Sharon Keller wrote in the court’s opinion published on Wednesday: “Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind’ that the First Amendment was designed to guard against.”
The judges said that photographs were “inherently expressive”, like other artistic mediums such as films or books, and so the process of creating them, as well as the images themselves, was part of an American’s right to free speech because “thought is intertwined with expression”.

So, Texas moms, just to be clear: if you let your child play outside in your neighborhood alone, you can be arrested, but the creepy guy wandering through your neighborhood taking pictures of you in your summer skirt and your daughters in their swimsuits as they splash in a front-yard sprinkler has the right to use those photos for his own (and possibly others’) sexual gratification.  Because free speech, or something.
And if you’re on your way into Sunday Mass in your best conservative Sunday skirt or dress, and a creepy dude posing as a lawn-care guy manages to get a snapshot up your skirt--hey, that’s his right, and who are you to object?

Maybe all the women of Texas ought to wear pants in public until further notice.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Being played for a fool: Cardinal Dolan and the parade

When I read Cardinal Dolan’s explanation for his decision to remain as the Grand Marshall of the first NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade to include open gays marching under a gay rights banner, all I could think was, “Is the Cardinal really that naive?”  Because, yes, the Church differentiates between people who are same-sex attracted but who do not act on that attraction, and people who live in open gay and lesbian relationships or have entered a gay “marriage” with another person, because these sorts of relationships, an overwhelming majority of the time, involve grave sins against the Sixth Commandment, a single one of which, under the usual conditions, can potentially lead to eternal damnation in the fires of Hell--but people who march under gay rights banners in parades usually involve the second group, not the first.

Kevin O’Brien has had a similar thought:
In a stunning display of naivete, Cardinal Dolan, who presides over a Church that in modern times has gone queer over banners at Mass, is utterly clueless about the meaning of queer banners in a public secular parade.
But that's not my point.  We know our bishops are either clueless or cowardly or complicit in all kinds of garbage.  So this is to be expected: that Cardinal Dolan does not even see that the promotion of "gay identity" is promotion of a "gay agenda".  Any idiot knows that.  This has not been an argument against "gays" marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade, as they have done covertly for years.  It's not an argument about the question of loving the sinner but hating the sin.  It's an argument about civic life in the public square and the forced celebration of sin, which is what the gay pride banners are pushing, as anybody but a bishop can easily understand.
Kevin goes on to talk about the insulting, folksy way Cardinal Dolan delivers his message, but I think that when the message is bad it doesn’t really matter how it was delivered--sort of like the joke about the diner who complains that his food was terrible, “...and such small portions!”  But I think we can agree to disagree about that.

Because the real problem here is that Cardinal Dolan, whether willingly or not, is being played for a fool.  Anybody who doesn’t think that the media coverage of the parade will include lots of shots of Dolan and various Catholic trappings juxtaposed against pictures of lesbians kissing and gay men embracing each other, and an interview or two with a lesbian, her “wife,” and the kids they paid some guy to donate sperm to manufacture about how wonderful and inclusive and tolerant it all is, is quite frankly just kidding himself.

And the next time a Catholic employee anywhere in the State of New York turns down a request (e.g., demand) to attend a “wedding" shower for a couple of guys, or even the “wedding” itself, he’s going to be told that his freedom of religion no longer applies.  “Why, Cardinal Dolan in the NYC Archdiocese has no trouble at all with gay marriage or gay married people,” the HR person is likely to exclaim.  “So how can you use your religion as a reason not to attend Bill and Ted’s special event?  If you refuse to go you are creating a hostile environment, and we can’t have that."

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

A preemptive strike against the Synod on the Family

Yesterday, Patrick Archbold decided to launch a preemptive strike against the upcoming Synod on the Family by declaring that even if not much happens, it will be awful:
So what do I expect?
Rather than a direct assault on marriage, I expect the opposite. What I expect is a nice flowery document re-stating the Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. It will include language about the pastoral care of souls in troubled situations, but it will be generally orthodox. But at some point, whether this year or next, or in a post synodal document by the Pope, they will recommend the Bishops conferences to study and implement pastoral guidelines to help those in this situation.
No mandate, no direct assertions on what to do, but just a call for Bishop conferences to study the problem and implement pastoral practices in line with the synodal documents. That is when the horse will be permanently out of the barn.
Then certain conferences will run wild either directly allowing it or allowing the pastor to decide. You know they will. (See German Episcopal conference)
The traditionally minded will scream bloody murder while the "everything is awesome" Catholics will only refer to the document of the synod as the mostest wonderfulist re-statement of Catholic teaching ever, ignoring what his happening on the ground.
In the meantime, the Vatican will move at a glacial pace to correct any abuses. After a few years, it will issue some weak document asking the Bishops not to abuse things. This document will be completely ignored in praxis and will only serve the purpose of throwing it in traditionalist faces when they complain about the obvious. You know the drill.
After a few more years, the obvious abuse will be so commonplace, that people will think you a sedevacantist for even bringing it up.
In other words, Patrick does not expect the Church to declare all of a sudden that she had her fingers crossed all this time on that whole indissolubility of marriage thing, because, you know, she can’t.  What he does expect is for the pope and the bishops to lie--that is, to say that nothing has really changed and then set about making the “obvious abuse” change--the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics who are still living in obvious and unrepentant sin to the Eucharist--happen without any complaint or fuss at all except from the True Faithful Remnant who bravely repudiate the words and actions of the pope and the bishops whenever they feel justified in doing so, which is pretty much all of the time, because that is what truly faithful Catholics do.

I left a couple of comments over there yesterday, but as of nearly 5 pm. CST today they have not appeared.  I’m sure it was just a software glitch, or else the Archbolds are busy today and haven’t been able to approve any comments posted yesterday after a certain hour (something that happens to me all the time).  It would be unjust and uncharitable to suspect Patrick, on no grounds at all, of suppressing negative comments below his blog post.  That every other comment so far that has appeared there is from someone who completely agrees with Patrick that the pope and the bishops will lie and pretend they’re not destroying Church teaching about marriage while secretly setting out to do exactly that because, you know, evil modernists Church of Everything is Awesome (Church of Nice) yada yada yada--is, I am sure, just a coincidence.  Not jumping to the wrong conclusions is something we’re supposed to do, in charity.

So let me repeat the gist of one of my comments (I didn’t save it, so I don’t recall the exact words): whatever does happen at the Synod on the Family, even if tremendous good comes of it, I fully expect a certain subset of Catholics to kvetch about it and insist that this is one more bit of proof that those people in Kansas or wherever who claim they have had the Only True Pope since the so-called Pope St. John XXIII was elected were actually right, freeing them to shake the dust of the Vatican from their feet and go in search of Truly True and Perfect Holy Catholicism, in whatever storefront church it happens at present by the power of the Holy Spirit to reside.  Few things, alas, are more certain than that.

What the Synod will actually do or accomplish, I think, ought at this point to be a fit subject for prayer and reflection.  Strengthening actual, valid marriages, making it harder for people to enter invalid ones, reminding people why we believe what we do about the permanency of marriage “until death do us part,” and finding some ways to help those whose initial marriages were quite likely invalid but who have been battered by a sometimes-unwieldy and, in some countries and dioceses, unjustly expensive process are all good goals.  I have no problem trusting that these are the kinds of things that Pope Francis would like to see coming from the Synod on the Family.

I do have a problem leaping immediately to the unjust and uncharitable suspicion that what the pope, the bishops, and everybody else but the True Faithful Remnant secretly and nefariously wants is to destroy marriage and make it possible for Catholics to divorce and remarry again and again without being called to repentance (which includes the prohibition against receiving Holy Communion while remaining in a state of adultery).  When you are always ready to assume that nearly everybody in the Church is the enemy of Christ while you are not, the problem, quite likely, is not nearly everybody in the Church.  And launching a preemptive strike against the Synod on the Family because you fear that it is going to be a vehicle for evil says more about the person who launches such a strike than it says about the Synod.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Fixing what’s wrong with the family dinner

There’s been quite the conversation going on over at Rod Dreher’s blog these last few days about food, and cooking, and that Amanda Marcotte piece which is not at all what people seemed to have assumed it was.

What it looks like, from my perspective, is this: Amanda Marcotte shared some information from some studies that showed that working moms have lots of issues when it comes to preparing meals for their families, ranging from income and food availability to means of preparation to irregular working hours or children’s activities that interfere with mealtimes to the problem that even when Mom can make a home cooked dinner Dad and the kids seem to feel entitled to push her efforts away untasted and make themselves sandwiches or something, which makes all the grocery-buying and prep work and cooking and kitchen clean-up for the family dinner feel a bit like an exercise in futility, making microwave dinners and the drive-thru lane look better all the time.

Now, I like Rod and his blog, and I even like most of the commenters most of the time.  But it has been a bit funny to see the reactions to these posts and articles, which seems, a lot of the time, to boil down to: Cooking is easy!  There is no excuse for a mom not to do it!  Why I, a single male/single female/married man or woman with no kids/married man or woman with kids who cooks only when he/she feels like it and only for the adults in the family (the kids are picky) do it all the time!

Um, how can I say this politely?  NOT HELPING.

The whole point of Marcotte’s piece is that moms, most of them moms who work outside the home, some of them even low-income moms struggling to work odd hours during the week, find cooking for the family to be a dull, painful, time-consuming, energy-draining chore that is not worth the effort when those efforts are rejected time and time again so people can go eat cereal, or sandwiches, or a nice skillet of okra and tomatoes and curry powder and hot spices, or whatever the case might be.

I’ve said it over there, but I’ll say it again: OF COURSE cooking is easy when it involves choosing ingredients for a meal for one person or, at the most, two people, who like the same kinds of food and are similar in terms of their willingness to enjoy new culinary experiences.  But cooking for a family of assorted people of differing ages and tastes and levels of culinary adventuresomeness (not to mention different spice loves/hates, different texture issues, and different levels of, oh, let’s just go with pickiness) is no picnic.  And doing it every day when the results will be a loud chorus of “Mom, do I have to try this?” or “Honey, this is weird.  You know I don’t like weird food,” quickly becomes a nightmare for even the most pleasant, sweet, health-conscious wife and mother in the world, to say nothing of the rest of us.

Now, I say “the rest of us,” but the truth is, I got off easy.  My husband is more inclined to try new and different foods than I am, and my children have never been picky eaters.  I’ve often said that if I knew why my children were not picky eaters and could market the recipe for raising non-picky eaters I could write a book and sell millions of copies, but I know perfectly well that whatever blend of genetics and parental example and sibling example and inexplicable openness to really different foods came together to create my non-picky eaters, there was nothing I did to make it happen.  None of my children has ever refused even to taste something, and even the couple of foods they can’t have due to food allergies are foods they happily ate until we made the connection with the weird rashes that would appear right afterward.

So when I cook meals for my family, I cook meals for my family.  I never had to do that Dance of the Recipe File where one meal would be rejected by my husband and another by one girl and yet another by two of them and still another by everybody but me, etc. ad infinitum.  So I sympathize with the moms out there who do have to deal with this sort of thing, and on a daily basis; and I get a little annoyed with the people who think that because it’s so easy to cook for one person it’s just as easy too cook for five or seven or nine or twelve.

Even with a family of non-picky eaters there are times when I find cooking to be a chore--especially when other things (only 78 days till Thanksgiving!) are crowding into my time and making the inevitable realization that dinner needs to be dealt with the sort of thing that ought to be accompanied by scary music rather than a June Cleaver apron-and-heels ensemble.  So I can only imagine how much more of a chore it would be if I were not a stay-at-home mom, if I had a family full of really picky eaters, and if all I got for my efforts in the kitchen was the extra mess of cereal bowls and sandwich fixings in addition to the meal nobody ate.

Here’s the thing that really gets me: plenty of people are willing to say that all these moms really need is some gumption and some discipline.  Why, if they would just do the prep work before leaving for work in the morning!  Why, if they would just use a slow-cooker!  Why, if they would just grow pots of mung beans on the kitchen windowsills!  Why, if they would just spend all those idle weekend hours doing home canning and roasting enough meat for the rest of the week while planting an organic garden and flash-freezing ripe tomatoes instead of watching TV or getting their nails done!

But if you suggest, ever so politely, that the real discipline problem is the one that has conditioned far too many moms to put up with the outright disrespect and bad manners coming from their husbands and enough of their kids who are old enough to know better who should be willing to eat (with words of thanks and appreciation) whatever she sets in front of them instead of whining that they don’t like it or it’s not how his mom made it or they’d rather have pizza or that it looks weird or yucky, well, you’d better brace yourself, because moms actually making their kids eat dinner is a leading cause of obesity, don’t you know, or children should be permitted to express their food preferences so their sense of self isn’t damaged, or picky eaters are really just discriminating eaters with sensitive palates who will probably grow up to be food critics and wine tasters if their special gift isn’t destroyed by too many meals of meatloaf or casserole, and a really loving wife always cooks what her husband likes and goes out of her way to find out from him each day what he’d like to eat that evening, and--oh, gag me with a spoon.

It does not help women at all to tell them that they should get into the kitchen and cook those home cooked meals, and then to insinuate that they should just do what the bachelor does and cook four or five or six separate home cooked meals every night so that each person can have exactly what he or she likes, and nobody’s tastes or feelings or palates or emotions will be damaged at all--because, after all, if it’s easy to whip up one meal in a skillet, it’s just as easy to whip up half a dozen in half a dozen skillets, right?  It does not help women to blame them if they get tired of the endless food wars and pick up a frozen pizza or two on occasion.  And it does not help women to make such a fetish out of the evening meal--why is nobody crying that Americans don’t eat home cooked breakfasts or lunches anymore?  Clearly it’s because nobody expects there to be time for eggs and waffles and bacon before work and school every day, let alone the return of Dad and the kids to a nice meal of soup and sandwiches or a casserole at noon--and yet, somehow, people seem to expect that the dinner hour has been kept just as free and quasi-sacred as it was fifty or sixty years ago, when these days the dinner hour starts much later than it used to for many Americans and is hemmed in by long work commutes, two-working parent weeknight errand running, school and sports activities, and other constant demands on family time.

If we, as a culture, value the evening meal enough to want more of our fellow Americans to be able to enjoy it as a nightly ritual, the last thing we ought to be doing is assuming that everybody can just easily do whatever it is that works for us.  It’s going to take a lot more than mung beans on a windowsill to fix what’s wrong with the American family dinner.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Ironic

Yesterday, I published a post about Catholic Outrage Porn Addicts.

I received one comment.  From somebody earnestly trying to get me to reject the “Vatican II heresy” and join the real Catholic Church.

Sometimes when you’re addicted to Outrage Porn, you can’t actually even read what the other person is saying.  You are just on a mission to inform, from the great kindness of your heart, every person who accepts that the Church is still Catholic and that the present Pope Francis is, you know, a duly elected successor to St. Peter and not some heretical pretender to a vacant throne, is actually not a Catholic at all and will probably go to Hell (but have a nice day!).

Sigh.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Catholics addicted to outrage porn

Did you hear what the Pope said yesterday?  I found it both inspiring and convicting:
Any wrongdoing should be confronted with gentleness, prudence, and humility, he said, adding that words that can “injure or kill” the offender ought to be avoided.
“Even words kill!” he said. “When I speak ill [of someone], when I make an unjust criticism... this is killing the reputation of another!”
In the Gospel, Jesus teaches that one must first go to the offending person alone, then with two or three persons, only bringing involving the community in the dispute as a last resort. [...]
He said it is a “very ugly” thing to witness “an insult or attack” from the mouth of a Christian. “It is ugly! Do you understand? Never insult! To insult is not Christian! Do you understand? To insult is not Christian!”
First things first: I am as guilty as anybody in violating these principles.  I need to remember these words and take them to heart.  What follows is not an attempt to see over the huge log in my eye in order to focus on the specks in somebody else’s.

However, one of the reasons these words rang so true for me yesterday is that yesterday I was starting to think that the biggest mistake a Catholic can make is to friend a fellow Catholic on Facebook.

I’m not talking about the Catholics I’m blessed to know in real life.  Their FB feeds are usually delightful--pictures of children or grandchildren, inspiring quotes, recipes, links to goofy quizzes that are fun to take on occasion.  If they do post something controversial, I know I can talk to them about it, and it works both ways--they can talk to me about my FB stuff, or my blog stuff, while knowing I’m not going to be offended either.

I’m talking about some of the Catholics I only know online, and especially some of the ones I really admire, because what’s disturbing me is that kindly, smart, friendly, engaging, civil people who stay that way on blogs and in emails and in most other forms of communication have had this weird tendency of late to turn into Catholic Outrage Porn Addicts on Facebook.

What does that mean?  To illustrate, I will use an example that I HAVEN’T run into on FB.  Please note the HAVEN’T.  I’m not saying no Catholic has ever devolved into Outrage Porn on this issue, just that I haven’t personally encountered it.  The reason I want to use an issue I haven’t personally encountered is so that nobody will think I am singling any one person out specifically.  I am not.  This is a pattern of behavior I am seeing, not an individual example of a behavior.  I could list at least half-a-dozen people I saw last week alone engaging in it.

So let’s pretend that a group of Catholics are talking about Common Core on Facebook.  (Again, these conversations have probably happened, but I haven’t personally seen any, at least not any time in the recent past.)  One parent says her kids’ Catholic school is adopting CC, and she’s worried.  Another parent says his kids public school implemented it last year and it was no big deal except for a handful of frustrating math worksheets.  Still another Catholic says her cousin is a math teacher and hates CC’s approach to math.  Someone else chimes in that her diocese was going to implement CC but backed out when intelligent parents showed up to demonstrate specific shortcomings in the new standards.  Another parent shares some humorous examples from actual worksheets her kids had to do, and talks about the frustration and tears these sheets produced in her offspring.

And then the Catholic Outrage Porn Addict--the COPA--shows up.

How dare you take a position against educational standards? the COPA shrieks.  Do you want everyone in the world to think that Catholics are a bunch of superstitious ignorami who don’t believe in educational science?  Stop claiming that Obama is a Socialist Kenyan Muslim with a secret plot to destroy American schools and make public school graduates even more likely to vote Democrat than they already are--you look ignorant and uninformed and Michelle Bachman Sarah Palin etc. ad infinitum.  Catholics should be better than this.  Every smart person knows that Common Core is scientifically designed to help all students but especially the poor--are you going to feed into the belief that Catholics hate educating poor people?  Are you claiming that you know better than people with Ph.D.s in education?  Are you actually encouraging people to revolt against the bishop, who has the sole responsibility to direct the Catholic schools in his diocese?  If Common Core is good enough for professional educators and bishops, then it should be good enough for you, average Catholic lay person.  If you’re so anti-education that you think kids should all be homeschooled to believe in a literal six-day creation and fake dinosaurs then you’re not a real Catholic, and I don’t want you as a Facebook friend anymore.

Notice that nothing the COPA says has anything to do with the limited, legitimate, and honest concerns that actual parents have about their actual children’s education.  He or she just rushes in to stop the conversation by tarring everybody who is participating in it with a huge conspiracy-tainted brush, and assuming that a parent who says, “I’m not sure about this Common Core stuff,” is the same as a parent who says, “Children only need the Bible, and Obama is trying to destroy Christians, and math is a satanic plot.”  Many of us know people who say the first thing, but hardly any of us knows, in actual, real life, an actual practicing Catholic who would say the second.

And that’s why I use the phrase “outrage porn,” which is not something I came up with at all (but I don’t know who did so I can’t attribute it to that person, sadly) to describe the typical COPA.  The whole point is not to engage in real fraternal correction (something else the Pope talked about yesterday).  The whole point is to trigger the good feeling one has of being RIGHT about something at the expense of all those silly, strange, threatening OTHERS who are WRONG.

It’s bad enough when we trigger outrage porn in our emotions at the expense of OTHERS like Islamic fundamentalists or illegal immigrants or people who don’t share our faith, values, and convictions.  But when we have to trigger that reaction at the expense of people who do share our faith, values, and convictions, people who, like us, are trying to be good Catholics and go to Mass and pray and do charitable works and live in the world while not being of the world, people who are marching alongside us in the Church Militant, then, I think, we have crossed over into an addiction, and it is the kind of addiction that is dangerous to our souls.

Because if we really were coming from a place of charity, if we really wanted to offer genuine fraternal correction to a brother or sister we really believed was in error, we would do so quietly, behind the scenes, in confidential conversation--not by screaming at them publicly and imputing to them every possible bad motive on display among the worst of the rabble-rousers out there and holding them responsible for every hypothetical bad outcome.  A person who legitimately opposes Common Core, for instance, is not guilty of keeping the poor illiterate, and it’s highly uncharitable to suggest any such thing--yet I’ve seen even worse allegations made against people who are genuinely puzzled as to why the COPA seems to insist that the issue at hand is one about which good and faithful Catholics cannot legitimately disagree.

Why write about this?  Am I not guilty of adding more fuel to an already raging fire of uncharity?

That’s not my intention at all.  I think, having been guilty of this sort of thing myself in the past, that it is entirely too easy to reach this stage of outrage porn without even realizing one was on the path to it.  But it is a spiritual poison to continually insist that your faithful fellow Catholics are some kind of dreadful OTHERS who don’t agree with you about everything (and most especially about the kind of prudential judgments where differences of opinions are entirely possible) and to pronounce Facebook Anathemas on them.  There are plenty of things about which faithful Catholics can disagree while not in any way incurring the guilt of sin, and last I checked, Pope Francis and the bishops in communion with him haven’t handed over any of their binding and loosing authority to any Facebook Tribunals at all.

UPDATE: As I’ve been informed in the comment box, credit for the phrase “outrage porn” belongs to Kevin Tierney.  Thanks! :)

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Something is rotten in the Archdiocese of New York

Yesterday, I wrote about the death of Irish Catholicism in America, mentioning that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York is on it’s way to becoming the Gay Pride Parade--St. Patrick’s Day Edition, but that that’s not stopping Cardinal Dolan from enthusiastically agreeing to be the parade’s Grand Marshall.

Msgr. Charles Pope wrote about it much better than I did.  But if you want to read his post today, you’ll have to go somewhere else for it.  The Archdiocese of Washington apparently considers it unseemly for  a priest to criticize a cardinal even when that cardinal is doing something demonstrably idiotic.

And Cardinal Dolan is being criticized, too, for refusing to release the body of Fulton Sheen to the Bishop of Peoria, thus grinding to a halt the cause of canonization for Archbishop Sheen.  I won’t bother linking to the Archdiocese of New York’s official statement, as it makes no sense at all--why on earth would the Archdiocese of New York have concealed from the Bishop of Peoria an alleged directive from the Vatican from ten years ago ordering that Sheen’s body not be moved?  On what possible grounds could the Archdiocese of New York have hidden such important information from Peoria while allowing Peoria, a diocese of much smaller financial resources, to bear the full costs associated with the cause for Archbishop Sheen?  Cynical speculation that this was intentional, to let Peoria pay until there was a good chance of success and then take over all the honors and tourism associated with the resting place of (eventually) a canonized saint may seem uncharitable, but in the absence of any reasonable explanation at all as to why one of the wealthiest archdioceses in the nation would let Peoria pay while in possession of an apparent directive that would eventually take the potential saint’s cause completely out of Peoria’s hands it is not at all unexpected that such poor motives would be imputed to New York in all of this.

In the light of all of this, the ongoing controversy regarding possible church closings in New York and the impact those would have on the only church offering a daily Mass in the Extraordinary Form takes on a different hue.  I am not one to impute to malice what may be caused by ignorant error, especially when it comes to bishops, who are not exactly a watchword for savviness these days.  But it is hard not to wonder what is motivating a cardinal archbishop who apparently sees nothing wrong at all with giving the Church’s stamp of approval to a parade that will feature people advertising their pride in their sins against the Sixth Commandment, or who was willing to let a smaller and poorer diocese carry the financial burden of a cause for sainthood while knowing full well that Fulton Sheen’s remains had to stay in New York.  There is simply no explaining these things, except by the observation that something is rotten in the archdiocese of New York.