Punditry

CARDINAL George Pell is among a group of Catholic leaders calling on the church’s schools to maximise their enrolment of Catholic children.

According to News Limited today, Dr Pell and his group want preference given to children from a school’s parish, followed by other Catholics, then other Christians and then finally to students with other religions.

The schools have been urged, in an edict reportedly signed by Dr Pell, to “re-examine how they might maximise enrolment of Catholic students”.

They have also been urged to increase the proportion of school staff who are “practising and knowledgeable Catholics”.

Catholic families will also be urged to “maximise their participation”.

The letter, with Dr Pell as head signatory, said: “Half the students of Catholic families are enrolled in state schools and a growing proportion go to non-Catholic independent schools.

“Another enrolment trend of particular concern has been the decline in representation in our schools of students from both poorer and wealthier families.”

I think that you could write a program to determine the bias in a news story based on the words used. Certainly the word "edict" would be a highly weighted word in this context. A document you like is called a letter or instruction, one you don’t like is called an edict.

I wonder how long it will take before some Australian columnist links this to the new CDF document as another attack on non-Catholics. What the Cardinal is requesting is of course common sense and when you get a high index on non-Catholic students and teachers you are usually going to end up with a non-Catholic school or one with a "Catholic Identity" but hardly any actual Catholic content.

A writer in another column that gives two views on this writes:

Catholic schools exist not only because of a percentage of government funding, but also because of sacrifices and donations made by previous generations of Catholics, many working class.

The more non-Catholics they take, the more Catholic schools risk weakening the importance of the Church’s teachings and philosophy alongside academia.

While the opposing writer says:

But at the risk of getting into a biblical slanging match with any member of the clergy, there seems to be a pretty convincing argument that Jesus wouldn’t be falling over Himself to endorse the Church’s present line of thinking.

In the Gospel of St Mark, His views on the issue seem pretty unequivocal: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners," he said.

No one is suggesting Catholic children shouldn’t be brought up in the faith, or that Catholic parents shouldn’t enrol their kids in schools catering to their beliefs.

But to encourage the inclusion of some children more than others seems to fly in the face of everything I was taught at school.

I was not surprised to see her ending line to be "As a product of the Catholic education system, I find that pretty extraordinary." I find her scriptural argument to be rather weak since as every Catholic parent knows their children are sinners also.

The last two years were somewhat more pleasant after Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich were made subscriber only access at $50 a year. Though of course we can always thank Maureen Dowd for coming up with Gerald’s blog title. Unfortunately they have now dropped their paid access.

Now if the NYT whose stock and reputation are going downhill wanted a good income source maybe they could just have a fund drive once a year to raise money to put their columnist back behind a firewall.

Fr. Neuhaus has criticized the NAB translation for years and his latest post at First Things continues it:

The New American Bible (NAB), an unfortunate translation episcopally imposed upon Catholics for readings at Mass, has prompted earlier comment in First Things (see here and here). The problem keeps coming back, not least in pastoral counseling. Take the woman who had had it with her husband’s lying to her. I mentioned to her Our Lord’s admonition to forgive “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22). That’s the way it reads in every widely used English translation, including the Douay-Rheims, an earlier English translation used by Catholics. Jesus obviously intended hyperbole, indicating that forgiveness is open-ended. Keep on forgiving as you are forgiven by God, for God’s forgiving is beyond measure or counting.

But this woman had been reading her NAB, according to which Jesus said we should forgive not “seventy times seven,” but “seventy times.” She had been keeping count, and her husband was well over his quota. Then there is Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, where in both passages Jesus says: “But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress.” In other widely used English translations, it is “unfaithfulness” or “marital unfaithfulness.” The Douay-Rheims says “excepting in the case of fornication.”

In both passages, the NAB puts it this way: “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery.” Meaning a previous marriage had not been annulled by the diocesan marriage tribunal? Whatever.

Now to be perfectly fair, in the three passages mentioned there are ancient authorities that lend some support for the NAB translation. For instance, some ancient texts of Matthew 19 read “he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” which is closer to the NAB version. But in the tradition of translation, scholars have overwhelmingly decided that the manuscripts referring to unchastity or unfaithfulness are to be preferred.

Again and again, when manuscript authorities differ from one another, the NAB chooses against the scholarly consensus and the centuries-old tradition of English translation. Why is that? Is the purpose to deliberately destabilize the faithful’s already shaky familiarity with biblical texts? Maybe the idea is just to be different. What’s the point of a new translation if it isn’t very different from other translations?

The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation. Why did the bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass? Various answers are given: Because it was produced by the guild of Catholic biblical scholars and, while it may not be very good, at least it is ours. Because the bishops hold the copyright, and charges for using the NAB in Mass guides and elsewhere is a cash cow for the financially strapped bishops conference. Because the bishops really don’t care whether Catholics use a worthy and reliable translation of the Bible.

If the NCCB needs a revenue stream maybe they can request parishes to pay a fee so that they don’t have to use the NAB. A kind of reverse royalty. When the new English translation is finally available it will be an odd contrast to still have those stilted readings from the NAB. It would be so much better to be able to use a translation such as the RSV-CE 2nd edition.

Fr. Neuhaus does not even mention just how bad the notes are for the NAB in this post. I remember early in my conversion I saw a study edition of the NAB at a book store and I was quite excited to get it. My excitement diminished over time as I read through it and looked at the footnotes. I often thought "that can’t be right." Only later did I find that some of the footnotes portrayed a very modernist and almost Jesus Seminar feel and a fruit of the seventies in which they were written in. The footnotes have a "no it didn’t happen" that way tone to them. They reminded me of a priest I met at my Mother’s parish in the seventies who explained to me how all those biblical miracles really weren’t miracles.

Jimmy Akin previously reviewed the NAB.

A reader sent me the following story

“Is the candidate worthy?” intoned Bishop Patricia Fresen ceremonially, as lifelong Catholic Juanita Cordero stood before her in a pure white gown, about to be ordained as a priest. The question was asked three times during the ordination ceremony on Sunday, July 22, as one female priest and two female deacons were invested with the power to perform sacraments?—?a function forbidden to women under canon law. They are part of a movement from within the Roman Catholic Church that has been ordaining female priests since 2002, though those involved say that the tradition of women priests and bishops dates as far back as Mary Magdalene, whom they consider an apostle of Jesus. The participants in this movement fervently hope to be embraced by the Vatican, as other splinter groups have been before them.

Sunday’s ordination, witnessed by more than 100 invited guests, took place at an interfaith center in Santa Barbara that reporters agreed not to name in exchange for an invitation to attend. (Reporters also agreed not to print the names or orders of the nuns in attendance.)

I always found this partial secretiveness on those supporting women’s ordination to be quite the opposite of what they say. No doubt you will get an ear full of how they are being prophetic, etc. Funny I don’t recall the prophets that were afraid to speak up and face the consequences of their actions. If they truly believe they are following the will of the Holy Spirit then for these supporters to want to hide their affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s will to reporters is rather odd. From their perspective wouldn’t this be like the actions of Peter in the courtyard? "Women’s ordination is the will of Christ, but don’t quote me on that or indicate my name or anything about me."

…The women ordained Sunday join 18 others in North America who belong to an international organization called Roman Catholic Women Priests, which counts among its number approximately 50 female priests and deacons worldwide, including a few whose identities remain undisclosed in an effort to protect their jobs within the church. Also secret are the identities of the male bishops who ordained Bishop Fresen. Film and documentary evidence of that ceremony is being kept by a notary public, not to be released until the deaths of the male bishops.

Oh the bravery! It reminds you of the martyrs who gave their life rather than to go deny any aspect of Church teaching. Oh I forgot, the new martyrs are celebrated for denying any aspect of Church teaching.

At least two additional Santa Barbara women are studying to be ordained, perhaps as early as next year. Besides their gender deviating from the Catholic priest norm, neither of the two deacons ordained Sunday — who are scheduled for re-ordination as priests on July 28— is celibate. Norma Coon, of San Diego, has been married for 40 years. Toni Tortorilla, of Portland, lives with her lesbian partner. Cordero, a newly anointed priest who lives in San Luis Obispo, is a former nun who has been married for 30 years to a former Jesuit priest.

What you mean besides women’s ordination they have other issues with Church teaching? This of course is always the way it is. They are never totally orthodox with women’s ordination being the one and oly exception. It is always a slew of things and it is up to them to help push back the gates of Hell that must have opened and prevailed against the Church until they came along.

The ceremony, which took place on the feast day of Mary Magdalene, also differed from the standard Catholic ordination in the names the presiding clergy used for God, who is ordinarily referred to as “the Father.” The female priests instead referred to “Mother and Father” and to “God/de.” (The latter is pronounced like “God,” with the silent, extra letters hinting at a goddess that those in the ceremony declined to refer to explicitly.) Jesus Christ retained his masculine identity, however.

I thought it was pronounced "gaudy" and in the stoles they weary. Poor Mary Magdalene she suffers so much abuse now of days.

The reason that the women are determined to remain Roman Catholics, instead of forming their own church or joining another—such as the Episcopal Church, which ordains female clergy—is that they consider the Roman Catholic Church to be their family, albeit a dysfunctional one, and they have no intention of abandoning it.

Now if only they would realize that they are thr dysfunctional part of the family. This is rather interesting since Mark Shea wrote on Monday the philosophical divide between some converts and some cradle Catholics as seeing the Church as family.

There is another aspect of women’s ordination that is just so un-Catholic. If as a Catholic you really believe that the Church is in error on something than you would act as the reformer saints did. Foremost it would be prayer by these advocates for the Church. There is just no history of reform by disobedience in the Church. Saint reformers were often persecuted for calling their religious orders back to their charisms and the Gospel. Yet when their superiors and bishops had them disciplined or gave them orders they were obedient to them, even when it was unfair. It was their heroic sanctity and obedience to the Church that would lead to true reforms. Just as lack of humility and disobedience is the easiest way to sort out false seers, the same criteria can be easily applied to the false reformers.

“The meaningfulness of the Catholic tradition to me is the long history of mysticism in the church,” said priest Victoria Rue, who also teaches theology and theater at San Jose State University. She finds particular inspiration in the women mystics of the Middle Ages. “Priesthood,” added Rue, “is about leadership within the community.” There are many types of ministries to which people are called, she said, concluding, “I feel called to the ministry of the liturgy,” which she described as communal worship.

Well Victoria Rue is much better at theater than theology and theater is exactly right for the playacting of these pseudo ordinations. This is the world where "I feel called" is suppose to trump the Church. Not even all men who feel called to the priesthood are, and it is the bishop who makes the final decisions as to who become seminarians and ultimately who he accepts as having a vocation to the priesthood. Strangely vocation is one of those words I never see in these articles.

This article also doesn’t even pretend to have a shred of journalistic integrity. It is totally one sided on the question of women’s ordination with not even the feigned balance some articles on women’s ordination have.

They added that excommunication, contrary to popular belief, does not remove one from the church; it only means that one cannot receive the sacraments. “Nothing can put you out of the church once you have been baptized,” said Fresen. However, after the first seven women priests ordained on the Danube in 2002 were promptly excommunicated, none of the other ordained females has been excommunicated.

That the groups of women trying to simulate a sacrament since 2002 have not been formally excommunicated seems to be true. Canonist Ed Peters Excommunication Blotter doesn’t list any excommunication due to women’s ordination since 2002, though this is based on information in the public record. Considering that Cardinal Mahony is their Bishop I would be skeptical as to it happening in their case. The only people he seeks to discipline are nuns that criticize him on TV. I would love to be wrong here.

Diogenes posts on this story:

Viewed as a magic act, the present paradigm-shattering stunt is a disappointment. It’s one thing to watch a conjurer pull a rabbit out of a hat, another to watch him pull a hat-lining out of a hat. So here we see three perfectly conventional Unitarians kneel down, the secret formula is intoned over their heads, and — presto! — when they get to their feet we find three perfectly conventional Unitarians. None of the parties starts off close enough to Catholic churchmanship to make the ceremony a plausible counterfeit, whence it’s hard to see why they bother in the first place.

From Fr. Tran at St. Mary’s by the Sea in the Diocese of Orange:

Regarding the Tridentine Mass
at our parish, I
would like to make some clarifications, following the
directives of Bishop Brown in 3 points:

1) “The availability of a priest, in good standing, who
can demonstrate a minimum rubrical and linguistic
Your servant/brother in Christ,
ability to celebrate the extraordinary form”.

For this point we do not have any problems:
Fr. Mackin and I can learn hard to celebrate the
Tridentine Mass with the help of other priests.

2) “The ‘group’ of the faithful (that) exists ‘stably’
needs to be of sufficient number to warrant the
public use of the forma extraordinaria.
Individuals who are not geographically or
intentionally part of a particular parish
community should have recourse to their
proper parish with their request or to the
existing public celebrations that presently are
offered in the Diocese of Orange at Mission
Juan Capistrano and Pope John Paul II Center”.

For this point: I believe that we have a
sufficient number of parishioners to warrant the
public use of the Tridentine Mass. Furthermore,
the directive of the Bishop is very clear: for
those who are not parishioners of St. Mary’s by
the Sea: either geographically not from our parish (visitors are OK),
registered/willing being part of St. Mary’s by the Sea: either geographically not from our
parish (visitors are OK), or intentionally not registered/willing being part of St. Mary’s by
the Sea (but just coming for the Tridentine
Mass), they should go back to their home
parishes to request the Tridentine Mass or they
can go to Mission San Juan Capistrano or Pope
John Paul II Center to attend the Tridentine
Mass celebrated there.

Many will remember the previous problems at St. Mary by the Sea and Fr. Tran where parishioners complaining about not kneeling after the Agnus Dei were told "with the approval of the Bishop, I (very sadly) officially invite you To leave the parish St. Mary’s by the Sea and the diocese of Orange." Fr. Tran has even said that it was a "mortal sin" to kneel after the Agnus Dei. Something that was clarified later by the diocese. The parish at one time held the indult Mass and this stopped, I believe, after the arrival of Fr. Tran causing much friction in the parish.

First off I would like to applaud Fr. Tran for responding to those in his parish who would like the extraordinary form of Mass and his commitment to learn to celebrate it. With all of the bad blood in the parish it would have been so easy to finds reasons not to do so.

I do though wonder about the Bishop’s directives and Fr. Trans’ interpretation. Surely as the Bishop states parishioners should go to their home parish to let them know of their desire for the older form of Mass. But I don’t think the either/or directive meets muster. Under the current code of Canon Law the faithful are not restricted to mainly attend Mass at their own parish. I just don’t see how someone could be restricted from attending their Tridentine Mass. Plus how could such a restriction be carried out in the first place? Will parishioners have to prove parish registry to attend the Mass if they are not visitors? Will there be a secret knock or a password required? (Which would be Swordfish for Marx brother’s fans) Ushers trained to identify non-registered Catholics stationed at the door. Wanted: Ushers with previous training as bouncers with skills to detect non St. Mary’s by the Sea parishioners. Maybe registered parishioners will get their hand inked with some permanent stamp like at some amusement park.

Wouldn’t anybody attending who is not registered technically a visitor anyway? Plus the whole system of parish registry is not something mandated from Canon Law and is really just a tool parishes use.

Kudos to Fr. Tran for making available the Tridentine Mass, but there is a problem with either inviting people to leave or requesting people not to come in the first place.

[Via Roman Catholic Blog]

Karen Hall posts:

In the middle of the L.A. Times article, one happens upon this staggering statistic:

In Los Angeles, some 75% of the archdiocese’s 288 parishes were served at some time by a cleric accused of molesting, according to a Times study. As the scandal’s details slowly emerged, it became clear that the church hierarchy knew about complaints against some priests and that at least a dozen were allowed to continue working in ministry after their conduct with children was questioned. (emphasis mine)

Now, just for fun, name another industry or organization wherein the boss could have overseen operations that led to the above quote in the L.A. times and a $600,000,000 loss for the company/organization without any consequences?

People are also bound to wonder about the obvious difference in treatment between Cardinal Mahoney and Cardinal Law. The difference between the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe’s coverage of their respective cardinals is striking. The L.A. Times has had some highly critical pieces on Cardinal Mahony in relation to priestly abuse, but not very many of them.

One difference that comes to mind is the cases that came to trial in L.A. are, as Diogenes previously noted, 44 representive cases the Archdiocese agreed could be litigated in court range from 1958 to 1984. All of them prior to Mahony times Archbishop. So there is no direct linkage to the Cardinal and the details of the cases prosecuted and post 1985 abuse cases will likely be settled out of court. So we just are not going to hear about the cases where he might have been involved in covering up abuse when he was still a priest and those cases he was obviously involved in as a Cardinal.

Though even the case cherry-picking does not account for the disparage in coverage. There have been some moves in the Archdiocese handling of priestly abuse under Cardinal Mahony that have been breath taking in their arrogance. The legal maneuvering to hide records of what the Archdiocese knew such as invoking confidentially of correspondence and putting any meetings between the Cardinal and a suspect as being spiritual guidance and protected. In the case of abuser Father Nicolas Aguilar Rivera the Archdiocese prevented further interviews under the guise of fear of an immigration crackdown. All of these legal tactics should have demanded spectacular headlines form the L.A. Times and other papers, but while there was coverage it certainly wasn’t amped up as the Globe’s was.

The differences in coverage seem to be due to the fact that the L.A. Times is quite sympathetic to Cardinal Mahony and the issues the Cardinal has fought for over the years. Cardinal Law despite his quite obvious flaws and complicity in the abuse cover ups was quite orthodox in his theology and heavily involved in the pro-life movement and of course this made him a prime target. Cardinal Mahony in contrast makes some noises in a pro-life direction, but is hardly active in the movement and has no problem holding events for ardently pro-abortion politicians. The L.A. Times can easily see him as one of their own and while they are troubled about the abuse problems under his watch, well between friends can’t we overlook some flaws? The media is certainly not going to shame Cardinal Mahony into resigning barring some yet unknown circumstances. The Cardinal is safe just as long as he doesn’t become too pro-life or actually start showing signs of orthodoxy.

If you wanted to know the real reason why the CDF released the latest document, a commentator for CNN says:

Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.

My favorite part of this ex-Catholic’s idiotic commentary is:

It doesn’t matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.

And then of course doesn’t see the problem with quoting the Bible in the next paragraph since now we are to listen to what this man of God has to say.

Oh and remember that Catholics are not encouraged to read the scriptures even though scripture reading is indulgenced or that Catholics hear more scripture at Mass then the average Protestant Church.

Jimmy Akin is up in arms and wants to write a response to this.

Speaking of new age nuns, a reader sent me the following story.

When Sister Teresina Grasso performs a laying on of hands, she draws on the Japanese healing practice called Reiki. Reiki is rooted in the idea that, through touch, a practitioner can unblock the body’s energy to help a person relax, relieve pain and promote healing.

In a dimly lit room in St. Celestine Parish, Sister Grasso made wide, sweeping motions over a fellow sister lying on a cot.

Sister Teresina Grasso feels for the chakras, or energy fields, over Sister Regina Gallo, during a Reiki massage demonstration June 26 at St. Celestine Parish.

She explained that she must "test the aura" or the energy around a person before a treatment.

"This is probably the most hokey-pokey part of the treatment," she joked to the dozen people watching the Reiki treatment demonstration.

The alternative healing technique might raise some eyebrows, but Sister Grasso assured, "It’s not magic. We’re not expecting miracle cures."

Reiki is not an alternative to Western medicine, she said, but this technique is effective in conjunction with mainstream medical practices.

…Sister Grasso also runs a regular Reiki clinic at the parish, where more Reiki practitioners are on-hand to perform treatments.

Reiki comes from "Rei" – universal and Ki – "Life force" and is a form of pantheism. Or as I have said before when it comes to nuns doing this it is a form of "pantsuitheism."

Besides being spiritually dangerous Reiki has also been discredited scientifically. Practices will often refer to a study done that shows it effectiveness, but this study was thoroughly debunked and discredited for the methods used. This type of spiritually dangerous crap needs to be thoroughly routed out of out retreat centers, Catholics hospitals, and parishes. The who underpinning of Reiki is not not consonant with Catholic spirituality and attempts to Christianize this "life force"as the Holy Spirit is totally mistaken. Another misleading factor is the use of the laying on of hands as if you were performing a quasi-sacrament.

How many received Reiki instead of the Anointing of the Sick? What we have here is spiritual malpractice where Eastern mysticism is substituted for the truths of the faith and users are deprived of grace via the sacraments.

Fr. Pacwa who has become an expert on the "New Age" was instrumental in the writing of the document put out by the Vatican called Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian reflection
on the “New Age” and this document discusses Reiki like "psychic healing" and other prevalent practices.

"

A reader sent me a link to the story about Islamochristian Ann Holmes Redding I posted about previously.

The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, a local Episcopal priest who announced she is both Muslim and Christian, will not be able to serve as a priest for a year, according to her bishop.

During that year, Redding is expected to "reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam," the Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, bishop of the Diocese of Rhode Island, wrote in an e-mail to Episcopal Church leaders….

During the next year, Redding "is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon," Wolf wrote in her e-mail. Wolf could not be reached for immediate comment….

Redding’s bishop in Seattle, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner of the Diocese of Olympia, who accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, said Wolf’s decision is a good compromise.

"It’s a good way to have a timeout and provide an opportunity for Ann to continue to teach … and at the same time take a look at her relationship both with the Episcopal Church and the Christian faith and Islam," Warner said.

Redding is scheduled to start teaching part time as a visiting assistant professor at Jesuit-run Seattle University this fall.

Sometimes it seems Episcopalians exist to help Catholics feel better about the nuttiness in their own ranks. A prime example of Reductio ad absurdum. Though considering the religious orders that seem to have embraced eco-spirituality or other forms of new age ideas we don’t have too much to be smug about.

The Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, Barry Jones, is opposing a visit by a controversial feminist nun from the United States.

He has written to priests saying that next week’s visit by Benedictine nun Sister Joan Chittister is unauthorised.

Permission for the event had not been sought or given, and Jones did not want it promoted through Catholic churches.

"The point is that silence generates the misunderstanding that this is all approved, when it’s not. I have made my position clear to the priests," he said.

Chittister, from Eire, Pennsylvania, has clashed with church authorities internationally over her strong stance on issues such as women’s ordination and contraception.

She attended the first Women’s Ordination Worldwide Conference in 2000, defying an order by the Vatican.

An independent group of Catholic lay people, the Adult Education Trust, has invited Chittister to Christchurch.

She will speak about spirituality, culture, justice and "God, women and the world".

Jones opposed the visit because he said Chittister did not agree with the Catholic Church’s teachings.

"I don’t see how I, as a bishop, can advance the teachings of the Catholic Church by appearing to condone other views," he said.

High-profile Sister Pauline O’Regan, of the Sisters of Mercy, backs Chittister’s visit and was surprised by Jones’s stance.

It is rather heartening that we are getting more and more stories like this.

"It sort of sounds like censorship, doesn’t it?" O’Regan said. "I think she has a very loving attitude towards challenging the church in matters where it needs to look at itself. She should not be feared. She’s a very, very spiritual woman."

Let’s see, a Bishop makes his view known and Chittister is still going to be speaking, so exactly how is that censorship? I guess a shepard crying out against wolves coming to devour their flock is also censorship. So I guess what she wanted was the bishop to shut up about this, and of course that wouldn’t be censorship.

"Sure, she challenges various things within the church, but then so do a great number of other people. Jesus challenged the leaders of his religious era," said O’Regan.

Yes when you can’t defend something that goes against the authority of Church teaching you say something like that. Jesus challenged those who diluted the scriptures and taught doctrines of men. Women’s ordination and contraception are settled teaching. When Jesus told the Apostles "He who hears you hears me" and gave Peter the power to bind and loose he meant this also for Sr. Chittister and those like her who consider disobedience to the Church a virtue.

	Jester Hat Tip:	Te Deum