America Magazine: two items on Summorum Pontificum: a jeer and a reflection

The Jesuit ultra-leftist weekly America Magazine has two items right now on Pope Benedict’s provisions in Summorum Pontificum.

Here are a couple pieces, the first dreadful, and the second… well… I’ll let you discover that for yourself. 

From their latest number with my emphases and comments.

No News…

When Pope Benedict allowed wider use of the Latin Mass [Take note of their careful use of terms.] last July, he explained that he did not expect as a result any extensive return to the Tridentine rite. [Is that what the Pope said?] Rather, he said, he intended to heal rifts with traditionalist groups and allow [I think that is the wrong word.  "Allow" makes this all sound as if there is still an "indult".  There isn’t.  People have rights now.] young people attracted to the rite to experience it. [And not just once in a while, as an "experience".] He said he did not mean to lessen the authority of the world’s bishops, [Yah… but he did.  Right?  Pay close attention to what the writer does: with great stealth he plants the suggestion that Benedict intended XYZ but in fact he was deluded or he failed.  Watch.] who until then held sway over local use of the rite. Nor did he mean to offend Jews worried about offensive [A disputed point.] language in the prayers of Holy Week. To assuage fears that the old rite might compete with the new one, the pope proposed to review the situation in three years. [He makes it sound as if Summorum Pontificum could be rolled back.  It can’t.] The Catholic response to the permission in the United States has been predictable. [Get a load of the condescension that follows:] On op-ed pages proponents hailed it as progress; Patrick Buchanan publicly declared himself “a Latin Mass Catholic.” News outlets big and small ran stories showing priests facing the altar, not the people, and confirming in quotes and interviews just what the pope had predicted: some young people like participating in Mass using a rite they had never before experienced.  Something has changed. But how broad is Catholic interest? A recent New York Times story cited an objective measure: a phone survey [There we go!  Just what we need: polling.] of the 25 largest U.S. dioceses, in which diocesan officials said that a traditional Latin Mass has “emerged in just one or two parishes.” That meager interest confirmed information America obtained from an independent reporter we had engaged to track and write the story. There is no story, though things might change and interest build. For now there is little to report.  [This is great.  The Motu Proprio has been out a couple months and there hasn’t been an explosion of Masses with the old books.  WOW.]

Nothing needs to be said about this.  Let’s move straight to the next article in the same issue:

Faith in Focus

My Second First Mass
On presiding at a Latin liturgy


ON SEPT. 23 I walked down the center aisle of our parish church, genuflected and made the sign of the cross while saying, In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Thus began my first Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 more than 22 years after my first experience of celebrating the Eucharist.

When Pope Benedict XVI issued his letter of July 7 eliminating most restrictions on the use of the so-called Tridentine Mass, my reaction oscillated between mild irritation (Will this ignite conflict? How will we ever provide such Masses?) and vague interest (Is there perhaps some hidden treasure in the old Mass?).

Within a week, letters [The following word might be what the writer wants you to continue with in your mind as you read…] trickled in. Some demanded a Latin Mass every Sunday, insisting that the pope had “mandated” its regular celebration. Others were more reasonable.  [At this point I have real sympathy with the writer!  Some trads can be as subtle and kind as a band sanders when expressing their desires.] In August, I met with a dozen parishioners who wanted the Mass. The meeting became steamy as I explained that I had never said the “old” Mass as a priest and had served such Masses as an altar boy for only two years before everything changed. Some thought I was just feigning ignorance to avoid doing it.  [So far, we have read what is probably an often repeated occurrence after the Motu Proprio was issued.]

A few days after the meeting, I obtained a 1962 missal, looked through it, and concluded, reluctantly, that I knew more Latin [What?  For heaven’s sake.  Why would knowledge of Latin be something to be "reluctant" about?  "Oh dear.  This is not so good.  I guess I am better educated than I thought.  If only I were dumber.  Then I wouldn’t have to willingly receive the group’s petition: If I am not up to the job, they’d have to get another priest.] than I had thought. My original cranky demurral crumbled under the force of my own pastoral self-understanding, which had been largely shaped by the Second Vatican Council. As a promoter of the widest range of pluralism within the church, how could I refuse to deal with an approved liturgical form? As a pastor who has tried to respond to people alienated by the perceived rigid conservatism of the church, how could I walk away from people alienated by priests like myself—progressive, “low church” pastors who have no ear for traditional piety? An examination of conscience revealed an imbalance in my pastoral approach: a gracious openness to the left (like feminists, pro-choice advocates, people cohabiting and secular Catholics) and an instant skepticism toward the right (traditionalists).

[There is a lot going on here.  Let me digress a bit.

First, the "liberal" approach sets up a moral equivalence between, for example, "pro-choice advocates" and "traditionalists".  There is no consideration of whether or not these are both legitimate for a Catholic to be.  While we want always to love the sinner and hate the sin, there is nothing wrong with being a "traditionalist", while there is with being "a pro-choice advocate".  To want or advocate for the TLM is not the moral equivalent of wanting or advocating abortion, or the stranger versions feminism, etc.  I want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.  His comments raised this issue in my mind, so I digressed.  That’s what blogs are for.

Second, and this is very important, almost all progressivist liberals set up a dichotomy between "pastoral" and "intellectual".  This is a false distinction, of course.  However, in the mind of the liberal, these two concepts are inimical: you can’t be both pastoral and intellectual, or rather, intellectual in the way that leads to conservative or traditional conclusions.  No.  To be truly "pastoral" you must avoid reference to unchanging principles or objective truth, and so forth.  This is partly the reason why the writer of this piece expresses disappointment when he figures out he knows more Latin than he thought he did.  The real reason is probably that ignorance of Latin would disqualify him from having to be a servant also to the trads.  Nevertheless, and this is the point of this part of the digression, knowledge of Latin is kryptonite to the truly "pastoral" guy, "pastoral" in the sense that sets up moral equivalence between, say, pro-abortion advocacy and traditional liturgy advocacy.  The liberal will always fear traditional Catholicism.  They will seek to marginalize those who want it.  Clerics in power-positions are especially harsh in this regard with other clerics who haven’t the same power, but who are clearly "not pastoral" (in their sense)" because they know Latin, stick to the Catechism of the Catholic Church … or of Trentetc.  "Low Church" is, for them, "pastoral" and those who demonstrate a condescendingly off-hand but jocular contempt for Latin, liturgy, clear doctrine, attention to the intellectual life, etc, will always win preferment. Violation of the rubrics can be "pastoral", but strict adherence to the rubrics is "not pastoral".  However… make no mistake… I think this writer’s reluctance comes from his realization that because he knows more Latin than he thought, he can’t dodge being a priest/servant to these people.  His model of priesthood is primarily "servant".  Take that foward with you as you read on.]

Having decided to offer the Tridentine Mass, I began the arduous project of recovering—and reinforcing—my Latin grammar and vocabulary so that I could celebrate the liturgy in a prayerful, intelligible way. [The implication is that if priests don’t know Latin well, they shouldn’t say the older form of Mass, even if people are requesting it.] As I studied the Latin texts and intricate rituals [Remember my point, above.  This is like liberal kryptonite.] I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.”  [In other words: self-emptying priest as servant.   Read that paragraph again.  This is a really interesting observation, the priest’s main point.  It deserves discussion elsewhere.]

The old Missal’s rubrical micromanagement made me feel like a mere machine, devoid of personality; but, I wondered, is that really so bad? I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant. [Well-said.] When I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God?   [Hmmm.. continuity.  Again, there are some very good insights.   The writer’s paradigms were being clarified.  Remember, however, that he is letting us know how fair-minded he is.  Can you sense there is a "But…" down the line?]

The act of praying the Roman Canon slowly and in low voice accented my own smallness and mere instrumentality [Well expressed!] more than anything else. Plodding through the first 50 or so words of the Canon, I felt intense loneliness. [Like Jesus on the Cross?  Mass is Calvary. Sacrifice.  The priest is alter Christus.] As I moved along, however, I also heard the absolute silence behind me, 450 people of all ages praying, all bound mysteriously to the words I uttered and to the ritual actions I haltingly and clumsily performed. Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.  [Isn’t this just about a perfect way of putting it?  Moreover, given the sacramental mystery the priest is enacting during Mass, is any priest ever anything but "clumsy"?]

Even as I cherish this experience, [!] I must confess that I felt awkward, stiff and not myself. [You get over that, Father.  Practice, practice practice! And you weren’t "yourself".  You were becoming more transparent so that alter Christus was more visible in His greatest act of service.] Some of the rubrical requirements, like not using one’s thumbs and index fingers after the consecration except to touch the host, paralyzed me. As a style, [Well… you see… that rubric really has a practical reason with a theological foundation.  It isn’t really a matter of "style".  Again, it seems there might be a little of that old moral equivalence going on here again.  Not paying attention to particles of the Host falling who knows where is one style of doing it too.] it doesn’t really fit me (I also can’t imagine wearing lace). [Again, the moral equivalence.  Wearing lace is a style-choice.  You can argue for or against lace, maybe try to trot up a theological reason to wear lace (good luck… it would need to have something to do with using intricate and beautiful things, etc.).  Wearing lace is not on a par with keeping index finger and thumb together after the consecration] But as a priest, I must adapt to many styles [again] and perform many onerous [including seeing to the needs of cohabiting couples by marrying them?  Given Communion to pro-abortion advocates?  Celebrating the old Mass?] tasks. Why should this be any different? Perhaps we have here a new form of priestly asceticism: pastoral adaptation for the sake of a few.  [Or "for the many".]

My reluctant [There it is again.] engagement with the Latin Mass has not undermined my own priestly spirituality, born of Vatican II. Rather, it has complemented and reinforced the council’s teaching that the priest is an instrument of Christ called to serve everyone, regardless of theological or liturgical style [again]. Ultimately it means little whether Mass is in Latin or in the vernacular, whether I see the people praying or hear their silence behind. For sure, I have my preference, but service must always trump that.

I am impressed with some of the comments in this piece.  The first bit from the editor is shallow and dreadful, but the second piece is very insightful.

If the priest writer is sincere, then I am impressed.

However, do you get the impression we are seeing the The Struggle?  Quite often today, in this post-Christian world, if you "struggle" with something, you can then to decide to do what you want.  The choices are reduced to equivalents once you "struggle" with them.  Maybe we have to more honestly read what he wrote as an attempt to "struggle" his way out of service to this traditional group.  But this time The Struggle didn’t work.

Clearly the priest who wrote this has some brains.  He has read around the traditional views of priesthood and Holy Mass.  He gets them.  But what is the bottom line?   Is he trying to reduce the two forms of Mass to a matter of style?  So, you can prefer it or not without any real consequences.  He does, however, speak of the need for the priest to serve those who want the older form. 

This is his main point.  The older form of Mass is not really what this guy is talking about, I think.  He is really presenting the priest as a servant who must see to the needs of all the diverse groups around him.  He stumbles, perhaps, with some of his argument that veers into moral equivalence.  Still, I found this very engaging.  If you try actually to get at what he is trying to say, it is good.

Finally, his comments about how he felt as a priest after his experience with the older form of Mass are a perfect reflection of what I have been saying about the effect of Summorum Pontificum

The Motu Proprio is really for priests. 

When younger priests who never knew the older form of Mass begin to learn it, it will change their perceptions about what Mass is and who they are as priests.  Older priests will have much the same experience when they reacquaint themselves, especially after decades of having had only the newer forms of liturgy.

If this fellow continues to say the old Mass, I would like to talk to him again in six-months or a year.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. John says:

    An ‘honest liberal’ confronts his intense bias against the traditional rite– a very interesting read.

    I take it as a sign that prayer for priests works, but it must be intense and sustained. Let’s keep doing that.

  2. Matthew Robinson says:

    Beauty is a powerful thing.

    Our ad-hoc schola sang at a very liberal Jesuit college a couple years back for a penitential service.

    Many of the people in the room, would have started screaming if you had simply read aloud the texts of the pieces we sang, but they were utterly disarmed by the beauty of the chant. (We had translations and the latin texts for all present: including the five Jesuit priests, the students, and even for the middle-aged, dour-looking female “chaplain” of the college).

    It struck me how, even though at an intellectual level, the dissenters may reject Tradition, in the hearts, they are still stirred by the true beauty of its music and forms.

    Many really didn’t know how to react, as the whole experience of hearing traditional chant in a worship setting was so utterly new to them. I was quite surprised by this, since you could feel that there was quite a lot of tension before the service (The Service wasn’t Form III by the way, but individual confessions following the prayers, otherwise we would have not agreed to do it. We continued to sing while students went to confession.

    We were thanked in a very warm and genuine way by all. Even the stodgy priests suddenly became animated and friendly toward us, and asked us to come back again.

    How this occurred, is that we had a friend among the Jesuits, a very orthodox Novice (a convert too) convinced the older, stodgy priests to give us a crack at it.

    My advice to those at Steubenville, and other Catholic colleges as well as for those living in “liberal” dioceses, is that you can always win with beauty.

  3. mary margaret says:

    There are some very beautiful reflections in the second piece. I really loved when Fr Kerper commented on how he realized his own insignificance as an instrument of God, and praying in intense solitude yet in solidarity with the congregation. This is reality. It is not about the priest or the laity. The Mass is about worshiping God in the mysterious Trinity.

    If there is one thing that I really dislike about the ordinary form of the Mass, it is how it so often puts the priest at the center of the Mass (I suspect that this would be less of a problem, if it were celebrated AO). It has lead to a more protestantized feel, as though the preacher and what he had to say was the centerpiece of the Mass, when the Eucharist should have that place.

    So, good for Fr Kerper. He is at least trying to be a servant. I hope he continues to offer the TLM, and grows in faith as he does so.

  4. Diane K says:

    The second article, by the priest, was quite interesting. I would be even more interested to see what he thinks in another year or two, after it has all sunk in. How does it affect him outside of the Mass?

    While I am troubled with some things he wrote, change doesn’t happen overnight. Many of his statements gave me reason to hope that the change in him, and in others who dive in despite their apprehensions, will eventually lead to more positive experiences.

    This is an awkward phase and it will take tremendous humility on the part of people at all levels. Then again, is that not what the usus antiquior seems to demand? Humility? This has been missing for 40 years and now the door opens to explore that very thing which so many seminaries have done a good job avoiding in their teachings. Once the humility enters, other changes begin to take place.

    Yes, save the liturgy, save the world!

  5. Father M says:

    O my dear brother priest, Michael: When you were younger you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go…I pray that you let yourself be led and that we can all meet again in joy before His altar in heaven.

  6. fxr2 says:

    Father Z.
    This is but the first TLM read by this priest. I pray for him and all priests. Imagine how after the 100th or 1,000th TLM he has read he releases the need to perform and allows himself to become the ‘alter Christus’. Father Z, you are exactly correct in stating Summorum Pontificum was issued by His Holiness Benedict XVI for the benefit of our priests. Imagine the transformation taking place in this philosophically opposed priest.

  7. Fr. Michael Kerper says:

    Thanks for your thoughtful and entertaining comments. I am celebrating the Mass again on Dec. 2.

  8. Guy Power says:

    Dear Fr. Kerper,

    God bless you for your open heart and willingness. If I lived near your parish I would attend and support your noble efforts.

    “Be not afraid” … the Father who prays the TLM at our Oratory actually made some pronunciation errors and had to repeat a few words or two this past Sunday …… and he’s been praying in Latin for “donkey’s years”.

    –Guy Power

  9. EVERYONE: While I am delighted that Fr. Kerper decided to chime in, let’s leave the pep talks aside!

    I think it is far more important and effective to talk intelligently about the issues his piece raised.

  10. EnglishCatholic says:

    Let’s not be too nit-picky about Fr Kerper’s exact words. Remember, he isn’t writing for readers of WDTPRS; he’s writing for American Jesuits. He may even be a strong supporter of the extraordinary rite, but knows the best way to enter hearts and change minds is to use a language that his audience will understand, then slip in his message under the radar. Either way, I think this is a very good and important article, with lessons for us all.

  11. Joe says:

    The one issue which I’d like to see addressed in greater depth is how saying the TLM will affect a given priest’s saying the Novus Ordo Mass. It is precisely there where I believe we will begin to see the “gravitational pull” which the Holy Father so ardently desires.



    P.S. I’m offering my Angelus this week for all priests who, like Fr. Kerper, are saying the TLM for the first time ever…and perhaps with less initial enthusiasm than many had hoped.

  12. Sid Cundiff says:

    One of Father Z’s best fisking jobs, and one for the files. He excels again in pointing out the pseudo-distinction between “intellectual” and “pastoral”, really code words for “Conservative” and “Liberal” respectively, themselves poor choices for “authentic/Orthodox/traditional” and “Potemkin/heretical/iconoclastic” respectively.

    Style is the outer expression of meaning. The meaning “in-forms” the style, the style points to the meaning.

    Yet the article by Fr. Kerper is very useful. It shows the state of mind of many Catholics, decent people who wish to be obedient to the Chruch, and yet find themselves standing between two camps of opposing warriors, not only in the Church, but in the social order’s own Kulturkampf. On one hand, he finds himself liberated from being an entertainer; on the other, he finds himself “inauthentic”, “not being oneself”, themselves code words for the 60s’ “do your own thing”. Yet not to be ourselves is what salvation is all about!

    I am actually encouraged by Fr. Kemper’s remarks. He isn’t hostile to the Extraordinary Form. I say, let’s give this guy time. The obligation instead is upon ourselves: Let’s let him and the rest know us and our cause by our good works.

  13. Sean says:

    I think the nearest lay experience might be in those people (usually young men never seen before) who tentatively enter the church to join the queue for confession then emerge looking stunned as if they have been hit with something. I’m pretty sure that I have looked like that.

  14. Kim says:

    Msgr. Luigi Giussani wrote the following in his book “The Religious Sense”:

    Love the truth of an object more than your attachment to the opinions you have already formed about it. More concisely, one could say, “love the truth more than yourself.”

    Having read this quote just this morning, it strikes me that Fr. Kerper is beginning to do just that with the Tridentine Mass and his role as a priest. He is standing before the truth of his role as servant and is putting it in it’s proper perspective. He is not losing focus on his role, but is rather re-focusing it in light of his new discovery: he has remained open-minded to the truth. He understands his role as servant in a deeper and more enlightening way.

  15. Barb says:

    Yes, Father Z.,

    The Motu Proprio is for priests. I cannot express how much I empathize with our priests who have suffered a great deal because they wanted very much to celebrate the Extraordinary form and were forbidden to do so.

    Although it will be a very long time before Springfield, the 3rd largest city in Missouri, will have access to the Traditional Mass, the stories priests from smaller towns are telling me about being called to say the Extraordinary form are very revealing. God bless them. His grace works miracles even in the desert.

  16. Neal says:

    Fr. Z. wrote: “[He makes it sound as if Summorum Pontificum could be rolled back. It can’t.]”

    Can somebody explain to me why it can’t be rolled back? I am under the impression that every pope has be power to build up and knock down, i.e., to create and enforce new rules and obviate existing ones.

    I’ve read elsewhere that some bishops who disagree with the present pope’s approach are simply waiting for His Holiness to go to his eternal reward and be replaced by someone more to their liking. While I think this is perverse, I don’t see why it won’t work. Please explain.

  17. Habemus Papam says:

    Neal, I’ve wondered about this myself and think its to do with the fact that the Missal of Pius V (latest edition 1962) was never abrogated and this is stated in Summorum Pontificum.
    So to be over-ruled, evidence of abrogation would have to be produced (and this seems to be non-existent). This is my conclusion, there may be another reason why Summorum Pontificum cannot be ignored?
    But yes, why do we hear so much about the Pope’s enemies just “sitting it out” if the above is true!

  18. Pam says:

    I think Fr. Kerper had an experience of profound grace at the moment of consecraton which sent my soul into awed silence before the power of God to reach the hearts of His children and draw them to Himself.

  19. Dom Anselm says:

    Yes, the TLM was never abrogated. But does that mean that it can never be abrogated?? To me it simply means that Paul VI either didn’t know the proper way to abrogate the TLM; he clearly thought he had eliminated it! Perhaps that the Holy Spirit provided this loop-hole for precisely this point in time?

    However, a future Pontiff could well abrogate this Mass- if so inclined. The recent Motu did not quote, or refer to, Quo Primum as a foundational statement. The Motu would have been on stronger ground IF the Pope had said that this Mass could never be abrogated because of the provisions of Quo Primum!! In my humble opinion. I am not sure Pope Benedict XVI has truly protected the Mass into the future. However, he has made it really difficult to undo. ( But that was what Pius V thought too.)

  20. dad29 says:

    Fr. Kerper’s essay was, I think, an honest and forthright recording of his thoughts, and was an enlightenment to me–particularly the ‘loneliness’ and ‘humility’ commentary.

    It is precisely what B-16 was looking for, I think; because the Motu was Part One of an ongoing process of liturgical reform. Part Two will begin when priests like Fr. K. begin to think seriously about “what needs be done” to incorporate the best of the Extraordinary Rite with the better parts of the Ordinary Rite.

    As to “intellectual” v. “pastoral”–I think a better realization would be “mind” v. “heart,” and of course, as Pius X made clear, BOTH must be raised to God. The “and” is extremely important.

    While Pius X was speaking of sacred music, because sacred music is pars integralis of the Liturgy, the “mind and heart”-raising is also part of the Liturgy per se.

    In a way, they are also “faith and reason.” The twain should always meet, albeit it’s not always easy to make it so.

  21. Louis E. says:

    Can a Pope make a (canonical) “rock” so big he can’t lift it?
    There is the issue…the radtrad position is that Quo Primum can never be overturned by any Pope,and that anyone who says it can be is IRREVOCABLY excommunicated and barred from all ecclesiastical office by Paul IV’s similarly irrevocable Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
    On the other hand,if there is nothing in the faith that can not be altered by man…where is the divine origin or the reason for anyone to see the authority as greater than their own?
    Truth does not adhere to either excess firmness or excess fuzziness.

  22. Georgette says:

    Great post, Fr. Z! You said:

    \”When younger priests who never knew the older form of Mass begin to learn it, it will change their perceptions about what Mass is and who they are as priests.\”

    To this point about learning the older form of the Mass, are you familiar with the book by Maria Montessori (the same lady who began the Montessori schools), _The Mass Explained to Children_? As you may know, readers should not let the title fool them–it is just as enlightening and inspiring for grown-ups as it is for children– much more so even! I certainly got so much from it, and I think even priests and seminarians may be able to glean much good from it, as well! It goes over the Traditional Mass, explaining each part simply and beautifully, in a truly elegant and sublime way. The book is out of publication, but there are copies of it available online at as well as other book sellers who deal in out of print books. Many of Fr Kerper’s insights reminded me of the points that Mrs Montessori makes in her little book.

    And just as an aside (and in case there are any Catholic publishers reading this!), it seems to me this would be a great time for this little book to be republished, what with the Motu Proprio and all…as long as they don’t fool with the title and rename it “For Dummies” or something!

  23. Georgette says:

    Great post, Fr. Z! You said:

    “When younger priests who never knew the older form of Mass begin to learn it, it will change their perceptions about what Mass is and who they are as priests.”

    To this point about learning the older form of the Mass, are you familiar with the book by Maria Montessori (the same lady who began the Montessori schools), _The Mass Explained to Children_? As you may know, readers should not let the title fool them–it is just as enlightening and inspiring for grown-ups as it is for children– much more so even! I certainly got so much from it, and I think even priests and seminarians may be able to glean much good from it, as well! It goes over the Traditional Mass, explaining each part simply and beautifully, in a truly elegant and sublime way. The book is out of publication, but there are copies of it available online at as well as other book sellers who deal in out of print books. Many of Fr Kerper’s (divinely inspired?) insights reminded me of the points that Mrs Montessori makes in her little book.

    And just as an aside (and in case there are any Catholic publishers reading this!), it seems to me this would be a great time for this little book to be republished, what with the Motu Proprio and all…as long as they don’t fool with the title and rename it “For Dummies” or something!

Comments are closed.