Thursday, July 12, 2007

What We're Up Against

UPDATE: Based upon some information in the combox below (hat tip to the man with the hat himself) which was transmitted privately to an inquirer, it seems as if the Pittsburgh statement was simply not carefully written. Further clarifications from Pittsburgh will be posted on this site. Anyone who hears anything, please let me know. I am not trying to pick on Pittsburgh; there are plenty of statements out there that could use a revision. This was simply one example among many. Nor was I trying to impute motives. May God bless the good priests of Pittsburgh.

Further comment: I have been forced to hide the combox because of a particularly egregious comment. I may re-display comments, if I can get some things sorted out.

Original post

Sorry for the dangling preposition, but it's the best way to describe some of the statements coming from diocesan chanceries about Summorum Pontificum.

Here one can find a statement from the Diocese of Pittsburgh that really seems to rewrite what the pope actually said in the motu proprio. Many dioceses, in fact, have spoken of the need to "implement" the motu proprio. (Some have spoken of this "implementation" in seemingly different contexts, some supportive, some not so supportive.) With all due respect, there is not much need for implementation of this document at the diocesan level, save for insuring that unity is guarded, priests are qualified, and the needs of the faithful are met when their local pastors are unable to help them. Everything else can be implemented at the parish level.

These early days are crucial. We all know what happened after Vatican II: misconceptions made their way around and eventually became the accepted "facts" about the Council. We cannot allow the same thing to happen with the motu proprio.

More recent articles:

For more articles, see the NLM archives: