It's a problem for the Church in the sense that it tacitly approves it, by not disciplining those responsible openly and rapidly. This kind of nonsense could easily be stopped, but for whatever reason, Rome does nothing. Yes I know these clowns are laity , but some priest gave them permission for this stupidity.
There's a lot of instances of this ( bad behavior met with no consequences). Remember Father Rupnik? How about James Martin? Where's that 'zero tolerance" we hear so much about (but see so very rarely).
Credibility of Rome to discipline its clergy is near zero. We all pay the price for it.
Meanwhile, bishops are preoccupied with removing altar rails as a priority.
I get you but the church doesn’t work that way. It isn’t governed that way, and odds are no one in Rome even knows about it. They aren’t glued to Catholic news, if they touch it at all.
ALL organizations work this way if the leadership wants it to.
*Pope Leo famously instructed Bishops to act rapidly on abuse claims against their priests.
*Francis fired Strickland.
*Leo has reprimanded the Church in Germany.
Bishops are not fully autonomous. They take direction from Rome as needed and are responsible for the ordered function of the Church in their dioceses.
"I didn't know it was happening" is not a valid excuse of a leader at any level. Leaders have staffs. It's part of their jobs to be aware of Catholic news.
No responsible person in a management position would try (more than once) to excuse misbehavior in their organization by saying "Oh, I didn't know anything about it!" without immediately following up to rectify the problem at hand.
“Fairly accurate” huh? LOL Not just “accurate”? Why are you such a shill for LSN?. Don’t you have any self respect at all?
They specifically used the phrase "clown liturgy" in the post for a reason and purpose. You think it’s for accuracy? It’s because they know everybody will interpret that as "clown mass," That’s already the rhetoric going around.
90% (or more) of the people who see the post will not read the article. You think LFS doesn’t know that statistic? They’re sending misinformation out into the cultural mind with that post.
It was not a Liturgy of the Word, because there was no Liturgy, there were too many substitutions, and there was not para liturgical setting. It was, at best, a prayer service. They're calling it a Liturgy of the Word because the German advertising did. The organization called it a liturgy of the Word so that they wouldn't have to bill it as ecumenical. Internally, it was called a worship service. Which, as Catholics, we know is ridiculous because worship only happens at the Mass.
So the Germans called it Liturgy of the Word as a deception tactic. Now, why do you think LifeSite News used the same term? Journalistic integrity? You don't think their editorial staff should know what a para-liturgy should look like? You don't think they encountered the same facts that I did, researching the event? Then why do you think they called it a Liturgy of the Word when it objectively wasn't that, and when the Germans only use it as a blanket term?
“The term “Clown Mass” has become a way for traditionally-minded Catholics to describe irreverent Masses, often organized by “progressive” Catholics and sometimes featuring outright liturgical abuses. However, these irreverent church services do not necessarily feature actual clowns, as was the case at this event in Würzburg”
I'd love to know why you think it was necessary for them to put the term "Clown Mass" in the editorial, since that has nothing to do with this. I’m sure you don’t think it's to boost credibility by making an association where none exists. Do you think it's necessary to say, ‘Clown Masses don't usually feature actual clowns. But THIS church service did!’
But this was not a church service. That paragraph is doing work, not reporting facts; it's contributing to the illusion. Also they got the dates of the event wrong, I just realized. Bad fact checking on their part. What do you expect from sloppy journalists
Why is the article tagged “clown mass,” “blasphemy,” and “sacrilege”?
Those terms don’t even apply. So why are they there? You know what my article is tagged as? “Commentary.” That's it. That, my friend, is integrity.
The article blurs the line between reporting, theological judgment, and reader “activation” They lie just enough to get what they’re after.
You have no problem with that bait and switch at all? Everywhere else in the normal world that would be considered unethical journalism, but you're okay with that, right? You have no problem with the ethics of that at all? Do yourself a favor.
Don't attack the guy who's telling you the truth. Go over to Lifesitenews and give them a stern talking to for the deception in their post, sustained in the article they wrote. Be sure to ask them why they don't respect you enough to do better.
I didn’t name-call, you’re just playing a victim card.
Your intention wasn't to point out clickbait on both sides. Your intention was to defend their brand and their credibility by defending it, while casting a shadow over what I presented.
“The Vatican’s “pastoral” shift towards a type of veiled universalism”
is more fantasy land make-believe. But let’s say I were to grant it unopposed. I still say you should be more concerned with LifeSite News' anti-pastoral rhetoric. Because a lie from the Church looks like a lie (because it looks nothing like the Truth). But a lie from LSN is made to look like the Truth. The unrecognized poison is the one that kills.
It's a problem for the Church in the sense that it tacitly approves it, by not disciplining those responsible openly and rapidly. This kind of nonsense could easily be stopped, but for whatever reason, Rome does nothing. Yes I know these clowns are laity , but some priest gave them permission for this stupidity.
There's a lot of instances of this ( bad behavior met with no consequences). Remember Father Rupnik? How about James Martin? Where's that 'zero tolerance" we hear so much about (but see so very rarely).
Credibility of Rome to discipline its clergy is near zero. We all pay the price for it.
Meanwhile, bishops are preoccupied with removing altar rails as a priority.
I agree. Action teaches lessons better than “catechesis” (an explanation) sometimes.
A couple or priest reassignments to Siberia and Greenland would do much to reinforce orthodox behavior in the clergy.
Why is Rome so cowardly to do the job they are responsible for?
This has to be handled by the local Bishop, not the Vatican
One phone call from Rome would work wonders.
Finger pointing is the way for nothing to get accomplished.
I get you but the church doesn’t work that way. It isn’t governed that way, and odds are no one in Rome even knows about it. They aren’t glued to Catholic news, if they touch it at all.
John <johnk5mo@gmail.com>
ALL organizations work this way if the leadership wants it to.
*Pope Leo famously instructed Bishops to act rapidly on abuse claims against their priests.
*Francis fired Strickland.
*Leo has reprimanded the Church in Germany.
Bishops are not fully autonomous. They take direction from Rome as needed and are responsible for the ordered function of the Church in their dioceses.
"I didn't know it was happening" is not a valid excuse of a leader at any level. Leaders have staffs. It's part of their jobs to be aware of Catholic news.
No responsible person in a management position would try (more than once) to excuse misbehavior in their organization by saying "Oh, I didn't know anything about it!" without immediately following up to rectify the problem at hand.
This is a German tradition. Same people who produced Martin Luther. Also, the German churches are owned by the German State, not the Catholic Church.
While there's comfort that this was not an actual mass, it's of the scant variety.
Of course nothing will happen to German clergy as a result of this. That will be reserved for others.
PS: Speaking of no consequences (even in these "zero tolerance" times) How's Rupnik doing these days?
The real problem is that there will be no consequences for that clown silliness.
I agree with you!
“Fairly accurate” huh? LOL Not just “accurate”? Why are you such a shill for LSN?. Don’t you have any self respect at all?
They specifically used the phrase "clown liturgy" in the post for a reason and purpose. You think it’s for accuracy? It’s because they know everybody will interpret that as "clown mass," That’s already the rhetoric going around.
90% (or more) of the people who see the post will not read the article. You think LFS doesn’t know that statistic? They’re sending misinformation out into the cultural mind with that post.
It was not a Liturgy of the Word, because there was no Liturgy, there were too many substitutions, and there was not para liturgical setting. It was, at best, a prayer service. They're calling it a Liturgy of the Word because the German advertising did. The organization called it a liturgy of the Word so that they wouldn't have to bill it as ecumenical. Internally, it was called a worship service. Which, as Catholics, we know is ridiculous because worship only happens at the Mass.
So the Germans called it Liturgy of the Word as a deception tactic. Now, why do you think LifeSite News used the same term? Journalistic integrity? You don't think their editorial staff should know what a para-liturgy should look like? You don't think they encountered the same facts that I did, researching the event? Then why do you think they called it a Liturgy of the Word when it objectively wasn't that, and when the Germans only use it as a blanket term?
“The term “Clown Mass” has become a way for traditionally-minded Catholics to describe irreverent Masses, often organized by “progressive” Catholics and sometimes featuring outright liturgical abuses. However, these irreverent church services do not necessarily feature actual clowns, as was the case at this event in Würzburg”
I'd love to know why you think it was necessary for them to put the term "Clown Mass" in the editorial, since that has nothing to do with this. I’m sure you don’t think it's to boost credibility by making an association where none exists. Do you think it's necessary to say, ‘Clown Masses don't usually feature actual clowns. But THIS church service did!’
But this was not a church service. That paragraph is doing work, not reporting facts; it's contributing to the illusion. Also they got the dates of the event wrong, I just realized. Bad fact checking on their part. What do you expect from sloppy journalists
Why is the article tagged “clown mass,” “blasphemy,” and “sacrilege”?
Those terms don’t even apply. So why are they there? You know what my article is tagged as? “Commentary.” That's it. That, my friend, is integrity.
The article blurs the line between reporting, theological judgment, and reader “activation” They lie just enough to get what they’re after.
You have no problem with that bait and switch at all? Everywhere else in the normal world that would be considered unethical journalism, but you're okay with that, right? You have no problem with the ethics of that at all? Do yourself a favor.
Don't attack the guy who's telling you the truth. Go over to Lifesitenews and give them a stern talking to for the deception in their post, sustained in the article they wrote. Be sure to ask them why they don't respect you enough to do better.
I didn’t name-call, you’re just playing a victim card.
Your intention wasn't to point out clickbait on both sides. Your intention was to defend their brand and their credibility by defending it, while casting a shadow over what I presented.
“The Vatican’s “pastoral” shift towards a type of veiled universalism”
is more fantasy land make-believe. But let’s say I were to grant it unopposed. I still say you should be more concerned with LifeSite News' anti-pastoral rhetoric. Because a lie from the Church looks like a lie (because it looks nothing like the Truth). But a lie from LSN is made to look like the Truth. The unrecognized poison is the one that kills.