UPDATE! ASK FATHER: Use of a Catholic church for the “ordination” of woman Episcopalian “bishop”

UPDATE 17 Jan 2020:

There is a development.   CNA reports:

Catholic parish will not host Episcopalian consecration

The Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia will no longer hold an episcopal consecration and ordination at a Catholic parish in Williamsburg, following an internet petition signed by over 3,000 people objecting to the event.

“It is with great sadness that I have received a letter from Bishop-Elect Susan Haynes stating that, due to the controversy of the proposed use of St. Bede Catholic Church for her consecration of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia, she has decided to find another location for the ceremony to take place,” said a statement from Bishop Barry Knestout of the Catholic Richmond diocese on Friday, Jan. 17. St. Bede Catholic Church is located within the diocese.

A statement from the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia said that the consecration will now take place at Williamsburg Community Chapel. The Williamsburg Community Chapel’s website states that it is home to an “interdenominational family of faith.”

[…]

That story says that they had had a “contract” to use the Catholic parish. Interesting.

In any event, it seems that this chapter is now closing.

___ Originally Published on: Jan 16, 2020

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I am a parishioner at St. Bede the Venerable Catholic Church in Williamsburg, VA. I and many others are outraged at the fact that the Bishop of Richmond (Barry Knestout) has given permission for the consecration of a woman episcopal bishop to take place in our church.

Please see the attached link.

Is this allowed??? What if anything can we do about it? I’d like your thoughts please. Thank you

Story HERE

Bishop Knestout of Richmond issued a statement about this.  HERE

Church Militant has a piece about it.  HERE

The short answer is: Yes, this is allowed.

The longer answer involves whether or not it should be allowed.

There is a petition against the event which calls on the bishop to cancel it.  HERE  I suspect that even if a million people sign it, the local bishop won’t change his mind.

The 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism make provision for other Christian denominations to use our churches:

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.”

Note that the diocesan bishop gets to make these decisions.  Pastors cannot make this decision on their own.  I understand from what I have read that this was arranged without the knowledge of the parishioners.

Let’s be clear: There is no such thing as a female bishop, properly understood, in any denomination.  It is ontologically impossible for a woman to be a real bishop.  Denominations can call a woman whom they appoint as leader a “bishop”, but calling doesn’t make it so.  The ministers of Christian denominations without valid apostolic succession are mere functionaries.  As a matter of fact, this is something that is explained well in the new book by Card. Sarah and Benedict XVI.  Moreover, the Church teaches that Anglican/Episcopalian orders are null and void.  They do not have properly consecrated bishops.  Hence they can’t consecrate anyone, much less a woman.   They can go through whatever ceremonies they want, but at the end, when every walks out they are still what they were when they walked in, ontologically speaking.

So, these Protestants want to have a ceremony to “ordain” for themselves a woman.  Whatever.  Because they want to do it in a church, instead of a hall or auditorium of some kind (as sometimes Catholics have to do because the churches are too small) the Bishop of Richmond is going to let them use a Catholic church.

What is going to happen in there is pretty much a nothing burger.  Also, it might or might not be the case that the church in question was consecrated – many are not consecrated, you know.  So, there is a disconnect between the nature of the building as a sacred place and the nature of the ceremony to be enacted.

However, the Bishop is within his right to let that building be used.  He can permit it, regardless of the sensibilities of Catholics who may be offended.

What recourse do offended Catholics have?  Not much.

In the aftermath, they will have to decide if they want to contribute to that parish and to the diocesan fundraisers, or have anything to do with their projects.  That’s up to them.

Choices have consequences.

Were I a diocesan bishop, I think I would gently deflect the original request to use the church for such an event.  On the other hand, were there to be a case of a true emergency, I might help them out.  Say they had a fire at their own cathedral the day before the event was scheduled.  Then I might help them out.   But this event isn’t an emergency.

I have a hard time getting really worked up about this.  This from a guy who is forever railing on and on about the sacrum.

We do other things in our churches than only sacred liturgical rites.   Talks can be given.  That’s not liturgy.  Concerts can be given.  That’s not liturgy.   If there were a horrible disaster, a church could be used to shelter and succor the wounded.  That’s not liturgy.  So, churches can be used for more than just liturgy.

Moreover, I have in my mind’s eye the fact that after the church of the Institute of Christ the King in Chicago burned down, the Presbyterians across the way welcomed Catholics regularly to use their gymnasium for their traditional Catholic Mass.  Consider the theological origins of Presbyterianism.  For Luther, Mass was ‘der größeste und schrecklichste Gräuel… he greatest and most shocking abomination” and a “Drachenschwanz… dragon’s tail”.  Calvin viciously attacked the Mass and transubstantiation as forged by the Devil.  He called it impious blasphemy and compared it to mumbling incantations and idol worship (like bowing down to Pachamama, perhaps).

The use of that Catholic church by these Episcopalians is clearly going to offend a lot of Catholics.  A diocesan bishop ought to see to his own before seeing to others, if you get my drift.  However, the use of that church by that group for this dopey (to us – important to them) ceremony is not going to violate the sacrality of the church.

Lemme back up: given the state of any Protestant group that would choose to “ordain” a woman, who knows what goofy liturgical things they will perpetrate, so they might violate the sacrality of the building.  I hope that the bishop knows what they are going to do in their ceremonies.  I don’t think they will be sacrificing chickens or doing something as bad as bowing down and worshiping wooden Pachamama idols or placing pagan worship bowls on the altar.  They will engage in a kind of idolatry by referring to what is still a piece of bread as “God”, but – hey – we know that Protestants do that.

In short, within the guidelines of ecumenism in force today, we don’t expect that what they will do will be so contrary to everything holy that the building will have to be reconsecrated.  So we hope.

If you want to see me get really irritated about something, the flip side of this thing in Richmond is far far more serious.

That is, some fake catholic group for wynym’s ordination going to a Protestant church for their sacrilegious acts of simulated ordination.

THAT is a serious problem and ecumenical insult of the highest degree.  That is a huge “eff you” finger to the whole Catholic Church.  That is a violation of our most sacred rites.    They mock and trample on the priesthood and the Eucharist, on our whole identity as Catholics.

When any Protestant group allows that sort of horror show in one of their churches, the local diocesan bishop should act swiftly to inform them of the consequences for relations between their groups.  As I have written in the past …

Upon hearing the news that this ceremony is going to take place (or has taken place), the local Catholic bishop must call the pastor of that Protestant parish and say,

“I’m the Catholic Bishop.  Do not allow this sacrilege to be committed in your church. You wouldn’t do this for a group of dissident Jews wanting to ordain rabbis, but we are Catholics so you don’t care what offense you give us.  Until an apology is issued, don’t look for us to dialogue with you again.”

Then that Catholic bishop should call the head of the denomination and convey the same message.

Then that Catholic Bishop should send an informative note to the USCCB’s ecumenical office and to the CDF and to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to let them know the facts of the sacrileges that took place and who helped them.

Then that Catholic bishop should call the press and give them his view about the offense the Protestants gave and the damage they inflicted on ecumenical dialogue.

True ecumenism does not consist in lying down and letting some other church kick you and define what Mass is for you, or say who can be ordained, or stick their finger in your face by hosting these sacrilegious fakers.

That’s the sort of thing that get’s me worked up far more than letting a bunch of Protestants have their little thing in one of our churches.

That said, it seems to me that the diocesan bishop there, while entirely within his rights to allow the use of that church for this Protestant thing, would do well to provide good pastoral care to those who believe that our churches are sacred places, set apart for true sacred liturgical worship and things that are consistent with our Catholic Faith.

Please share this post!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to UPDATE! ASK FATHER: Use of a Catholic church for the “ordination” of woman Episcopalian “bishop”

  1. APX says:

    Since what they’re doing is really nothing, wouldn’t it be using sacred items for profane use?

    [One could say the same for a, say, pipe organ concert of music that isn’t for sacred worship. Also, I don’t think that what they are doing is exactly “profane” in that they are clearly performing a ritual that is Christian in content, though drastically imperfect and erroneous in important respects. It’s sort of a middle case.]

  2. jcariveau says:

    “those who believe that our churches are sacred places, set apart for true sacred liturgical worship and things that are consistent with our Catholic Faith.”

    Do you not believe this? This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. Appealing to the possibility that the Church isn’t consecrated is crap. So is appealing to the fact we use Churches for more than liturgy. Catholics using a Church for a talk is on a different order entirely than a simulation of ordination conferred on a woman, and its asinine to relate the two. In short, super disappointed Padre. Your blog has always been encouraging and a light in the dark, but this is radically unedifying.

    [What’s radically unedifying is your lack of understanding of the situation and your willingness to display it in public. First, the consecration of a church DOES make a difference. We consecrate things, places and people for a reason. This is NOT simulation of a sacrament, for it is NOT an attempt to deceive Catholics into thinking that a Catholic sacrament is being celebrated. Be disappointed if you wish. I am read to accept your apology and I forgive you in advance.]

  3. DMorgan says:

    Well, this is also a Parish in +Bishop Knestout’s Diocese: https://www.holyapostlesvb.org/

  4. My $.02..the optics on this are really bad. That something is ‘allowable’ doesn’t mean necessarily that something should be done.

    Just like all the ‘allowable’ options in the NO ritual. They add nothing and confuse the participants as to the true nature of what it at hand.

    Using the same logic, allowing the local fundamentalist snake handler sect in on Sunday afternoons because their trailer burned down might be approved.

    At least it was made clear that the reserved Eucharist was to be removed (hope they keep the door open to the tabernacle).

    Agree wholeheartedly with the good Father: actions have consequences. I’d remember that next time the Annual Appeal letter comes around…

  5. Fr_Sotelo says:

    jcariveau,

    Fr. Z’s advocacy for respect of our churches should not called be into doubt. Nor are his examples “asinine” (churches have been used for concerts or field hospitals).

    The argument you give of simulation is incorrect. A simulation of a sacrament is the 1) intentional use of our rites with invalid minister, matter and/Form. 2) Willful desire to deceive Catholics, about the valid conferral of a sacrament. 3) a callous disregard for the sacrality ot sacraments.

    Episcopalians sincerely giving worship in their own ritual for their intentions, not ours, are not simulating one of our sacraments. They are Episcopalians, being Episcopalian.

  6. Marion Ancilla Mariae II says:

    If there *were* an Episcopalian church which had flooded or burned, and a local Catholic pastor wanted to make his own parish church available to his neighbors, I’m sure Bishop Knestout would be fine with *most* Episcopalian ceremonies and liturgies. But if the good bishop were to get wind of the fact that this particular Episcopalian congregation kneels to receive Holy Communion, or that they use plainchant (Gregorian or Gregorian-like), or that, worst of all possible eventualities, their priest celebrates their service ad orientem, then permission would be rescinded faster than if they wanted to offer human sacrifices in that church.

  7. Joe in Canada says:

    The Archbishop of Ottawa allowed one of his churches to be used for the making of a bishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion. That a) is a precedent and b) is an example of something that might be offensive to the Anglicans (as they are called in Canada) as would be the offering of an Episcopalian church for a schismatic or heretical “Catholic” group.

  8. Bishops running roughshod over their flocks, and utterly disregarding their just sensibilities, is nothing new. But hasn’t the Church historically taught that Catholics are not to participate in non-Catholic rites, lest we endanger our faith and/or seem to endorse the validity of those rites? If we’re not supposed to participate in non-Catholic rites, how can we justify allowing non-Catholic rites in a Catholic church? And if the Church teaches that these rites are, at best, invalid, why do we want to give the appearance of endorsing them, especially in a time when indifferentism is rife within the Church? I guess I’m not seeing the sense in which this is not scandalous.

    [It seems to me that I underscored the fact that some Catholics are, indeed, scandalized, in one sense of scandalized (they are angry). At the same time, allowing a Episcopalian rite in that church is not a statement that we, or any Catholic, believes that a woman is really being consecrated. So, perhaps you might give it more thought. BTW… if you want to go by what the Church teaches and legislates, then keep in mind that the Church allows this sort of thing. Hence, I firmly emphasized that the bishop is within his right to do this, but I didn’t indicate that I thought that it was a good idea.]

  9. Clinton R. says:

    100 years ago, this is not even a thought. [I’m not so sure about that. I wonder if sometimes other groups weren’t at times allowed to use a church. Frankly, I don’t know that. I doubt that you know this for sure.] Now? Thanks to the age of ecumania, it is allowed. Pagan worship was allowed at Catholic churches in Rome at the Assisi gathering in 1986, [“in Rome at the Assisi gathering”… ?] so of course we should not be surprised at anything anymore. A Catholic parish should be used only for Catholic worship. PERIOD. [That’s a legitimate position to hold! Now make an argument that will convince that bishop. I suspect that shouting at him won’t persuade him.]

  10. JamesA says:

    While I have been controversial about cats (twice, and you responded each time !), I’m with you on this, Father, as I am with nearly everything else.

    My birth Diocese of Richmond has a history of being REALLY liberal, but in this case the bishop has the right to make this decision. Would that this were the worst thing that goes on in that diocese.

    [The bishop has the right to make this decision. Having the right to make the decision doesn’t make the decision right, a good decision. And would that this were the worst sort of thing that goes on in ANY diocese.]

  11. JamesA says:

    And if you think he’s bad, you’re lucky to have not suffered under his predecessor.

  12. Filiolus says:

    Fr. Z, thank you for your analysis. The church in question does have a consecrated altar upon which the Anglicans will perform their rites. That, too is permitted? It just seems so wrong.

    Thank God there are two FSSP parishes within driving distance.

    [I am not privy to what the Diocese of Richmond is permitting the Protestant guest to do, if they can use the altar or not. I will guess that they are going to use it. Is that permitted? Yes, so it seems. Is it a good idea? I don’t think so. I wasn’t consulted.]

  13. Yes, the Church in her legislation permits this sort of thing, but is that not an innovation? There are other things the Church also permits that are not good, like Communion in the hand (although I do not honestly know whether there is a positive law prescribing it or allowing it, or whether the Church simply chooses not to enforce any laws forbidding it).

    I am not disputing that the bishop can do this under the present state of the law. I am asking whether this practice squares with the Church’s perennial teaching on other religions, and on herself as the True Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I also ask whether we are keeping faith with the many martyrs who preferred death to embracing or countenancing Protestant rites. I just don’t see this as a nothing burger.

  14. scoot says:

    my understanding of Fr. Z’s position is that this would be akin to kids performing a school play in the sanctuary, who earnestly believe their imagined performance. No Catholic believes it is real. That, I believe, is why he emphasized that the counterexample is even more scandalous.

    Said another way: No Catholic believes Episcopalians have a valid liturgy or theology, so letting Episcopalians play pretend in a Catholic church doesn’t automatically profane the parish. In Contrast, if Catholics went to an Episcopalian church and mimicked Catholic sacraments but in some foreign way (perhaps a female Episcopalian “priest” presides over a rogue catholic service?) then there would be a serious problem.

    So the difference is between a Catholic tool being used to play pretend, or a catholic priest using a wooden stick and saying “abra cadabra” to conclude consecration of the eucharist. One is harmless and universally understood to be harmless, the other is obviously verboten.

    If the bishop were to make a habit of renting out Parishes to Episcopalians then maybe there would be a bigger problem. It probably isn’t a good idea, and I can definitely see where the frustration is coming from. If the Episcopalians were officiating a “gay wedding” then that would be an entirely different thing. But it sounds like it’s just LARPers putting on different costumes.

    Far better, in my opinion, to avoid confusion and keep the LARPers away. But since it’s allowed by the rule book, let it be!

  15. Hidden One says:

    As Catholics, we do not have to like all of our Church’s rules. We do not have to agree with all of our bishops’ decisions. Nor are we forbidden from requesting or even arguing for changes to *most* of our rules and our bishops decisions.

    But we do obey the rules, and we respect the authorities who make and act within them. Even when we disagree with their prudential judgments, some of which we at times have the right and even duty to appeal.

    We are Catholic. This is who we are.

    Finally, while as Catholics we pray for our bishops, we do not destroy their reputations in comboxes. That is not who we are.

    [I’ll will only add my own view. We should clearly respect the office an authority has, and remember that the person is a human being, but I don’t have much trouble holding some of them in contempt… respectfully.]

  16. scoot says: Said another way: No Catholic believes Episcopalians have a valid liturgy or theology, so letting Episcopalians play pretend in a Catholic church doesn’t automatically profane the parish.

    After decades of indifferentism within the Church, I don’t believe this is true. In fact, I have had other Catholics argue with me that Episcopalians do have valid orders.

  17. veritas vincit says:

    Episcopalian rites are similar enough to Catholic rites, that I’m not so sure there would not be scandal given, that Catholics would be allowed to think women can be ordained and consecrated as bishops . At the very lease, this well-meaning gesture by the Bishop of Richmond seems imprudent.

    Now if a man were to be consecrated a bishop under the Episcopalian rite, that might be different.

  18. Cicero_NOLA says:

    Father, I am afraid that I don’t understand your distinction between the notional wymyn priests and this actually scenario. [There’s a HUGE difference.] I believe that we’re also giving the average Catholic a lot of credit by assuming that a majority will see this is the equivalent of play-acting. [At this point this sad fact is that we can’t do much about the appalling religious formation of “the average Catholic”. However, it could be a good idea for the formation of future Catholics not to send mixed signals… like bowing down to wooden idols, etc.] When I was received into the Church from episcopalianism, my family didn’t bat an eye because they see it all as basically the same, but with some stuffier rules about women and marriage.
    The invitation for this event says that she will be “ordained and consecrated a bishop in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” [So they say those words. Big deal.] I don’t see how this isn’t simulating a sacrament and therefore a big problem. [Simulation of a sacrament is a technical term. That’s not what they are doing.] Isn’t indifferentism a big problem at all levels of the Church today? Shouldn’t this event be an occasion for unambiguously asserting the truth found in the Catholic faith? [Tell that to the Bishop of Richmond. Look. There is lot that is wrong in your comment. However, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have a legitimate view of the whole mess. Just because the bishop has the right to allow this, that doesn’t automatically make that a good decision. If you are upset by this, and a lot of other people are upset by this, perhaps bishops will notice for future reference.]

  19. hwriggles4 says:

    I remember my growing subdivision in the late 1970s and early 1980s. When the Catholic Church was under construction, the Methodist Church allowed the parish to have Saturday evening Mass in their sanctuary. My mother took my brothers and I there sometimes, and it was like “no problem “. This Catholic Church had Sunday Mass at the elementary school cafeteria before construction was completed, and CCD was held in parishioner’s homes.

    This arrangement is somewhat “normal ” in many dioceses when a new parish is established. Mass has to be said somewhere.

  20. arga says:

    Relevant to the rage is the larger context of apostasy at the highest levels, profound distrust of bishops (for very good reason), and B. Knestout’s close association with Cards. Wuerl and McCarrick; I think he also is the auxiliary who came to the rescue, at Wuerl’s orders, of the lesbian couple who had been denied communion a few years ago. Plus, Richmond has suffered through a cycle of very bad to very mediocre bishops since the 1970s. I write from Richmond. Many of us are fed up and this incident is something like the last straw. We’ve been willing to give Knestout the benefit of the doubt. No longer. I’m fit to be tied. There is more, related to the history of St. Bede’s, which is also relevant. I could go on.

    [I am sad to hear reports from Richmond. We shall see what comes of this. There are consequences for these choices.]

  21. scoot says:

    @Anita Moore: “After decades of indifferentism within the Church, I don’t believe this is true. In fact, I have had other Catholics argue with me that Episcopalians do have valid orders.”

    Maybe so. Doesn’t change the reality that they are not valid orders, regardless whether a preponderance believe it or not.

    @Veritas vincit: “Episcopalian rites are similar enough to Catholic rites”

    As a former Anglican (Yes in America–Anglicans are the traditionalists here in the states, and contrast themselves against their Episcopalian counterparts. A story for another day), they are similar in form but completely different in substance and, importantly, belief. A catholic could accidentally wander into an Anglican liturgy (at least the ones I was used to) and would probably consider it all very familiar, though perhaps some of the words were different. Switching to “consubstantial” from “being of one substance” in the Nicene Creed, for example, was hard for me. But if you look at the 39 articles, the supposedly core beliefs across the entire Anglican communion, you can see it right there: The eucharist is a symbol, veneration of Mary is prohibited.

    All this to say, it might look like a real liturgy, but the second a Catholic sees a woman up there, they SHOULD know that it’s not Catholic. That’s where it would benefit to avoid confusion, but again, the Bishop has decided to allow it in this case so it comes down to taste. And as we know, ad gustibam non disputandem est.

  22. RAve says:

    My comment is from the perspective of a lawyer who is simply applying the very clear language of the applicable rule.

    The rule being cited that allows other faiths to use a Catholic church actually does not allow this particular ceremony because the prerequisite condition that makes such sharing permissible does not exist.

    Such sharing is only applicable “if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies”.

    When, as in this case, an Episcopalian diocese has its own cathedral and church buildings within which many dignified and worthy liturgical celebrations regularly occur, the prerequisite condition that allows the bishop to offer Catholic church buildings for external use does not exist.

    Therefore the bishop can’t cite this rule as his authority to allow the simulated Episcopalian ordination.

    The desire to have more people attend a ceremony is not mentioned or even suggested by the language in the rule, as something that would trigger this exception. Plenty of worthy celebrations of ordinations have occurred in small church buildings, and in this case, in the dignified church buildings owned by this Episcopalian diocese.

  23. Fuerza says:

    I didn’t read all the comments so maybe someone already said it. My main concern with this whole thing is that the local press will probably report this as, “Woman Ordained as a Bishop in Catholic Church”.

  24. Clinton R. says:

    My argument for a Catholic parish to have only Catholic worship is the primary purpose of the edifice is to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A Catholic parish is consecrated grounds for the proper worship of God, not to host heretical sects and their invalid “ordinations”.

  25. RosaryRose says:

    We are our rites.

    We are not the building.

    Is it a good idea to host the ordination of a female Episcopal bishop in a Catholic Church? No, for many reasons. It is allowed per the current documents. I cannot change the past, the documents published after Modernism creeped into the Catholic church.

    I can pray and work for the future of the Catholic church. I can use this as a clarion call. I can work to increase the celebration of the TLM (with great appreciation to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI).

    Take your anger or frustration and use it to bring back true respect for the Holy Eucharist. Learn the Catechism so that you can defend your faith.

    Go to confession. Be in a state of Grace so that all your prayers and offerings are heard. Go to confession because you love Jesus Christ and you don’t want to offend Him anymore.

    Pray for the conversion of everyone who attends the ordination.

    Don’t focus on the weeds. Fertilize the grass. The grass will take over.

  26. tskrobola says:

    Anita P. Moore, I think you are spot on. Whether this is the worst thing or even in the top 10 list of worst things doesn’t change the fact that it’s a bad idea that sends a message of indifferentism (a big picture issue where the Church in modern times has face-planted).

    I think in this case, it will seem to many Catholics and non-Catholics across the spectrum that the Church and Richmond Diocese are in effect or intentionally endorsing women’s ordination. Even if in a vacuum, the act of permitting this act does not *necessarily*/objectively = endorsement of WO, and even if in actuality the intention is not to endorse WO….nevertheless in this current environment, many will draw that conclusion.

    I believe that the majority (in my opinion) of observers (even devout churchgoers) will view this as the Church and/or Diocese’s tacit endorsement of WO, and thus it is a bad idea from that perspective, and I think in general (despite the permissive rules) letting Catholic Churches out for other denominational rites is a bad idea.

  27. tskrobola says:

    I do realize that given the current permissive rules and decades of accomodation, refusing this ceremony or changing its location would be seen as impolitic from an ecumenical standpoiny, and would have ramifications. But that is the nature of hard choices, and I’d rather seem impolitic in this case than seem to endorse WO.

  28. RAve says:

    Quite simply: the frequently cited document quite clearly does NOT contain any language that could authorize or endorse the bishop’s hosting of this particular event (given its particular facts) in a Catholic church. Scroll up for my explanation.

  29. robtbrown says:

    RosaryRose says,

    We are out rites. We are not out buildings.

    Certain buildings are sacred space, having been set aside for the celebration Our Rites, which includes not on the Eucharist but also Ordination. No activity should take place in those buildings that contradict the Rites of Catholic Sacraments.

  30. robtbrown says:

    should be: contradicts

  31. oledocfarmer says:

    UPDATE: the lady so-called Bishop-elect has demonstrated that she at least has good manners if not good theology. She today withdrew from the contract with St Bede Church. The so-called consecration will take place at a local community center….where it should have occurred in the first place.

  32. thepapalbull says:

    This the same diocese which has this parish, which is a permanent Episcopal/Catholic church, under one roof:

    http://www.holyapostlesvb.org

  33. Leonius says:

    This is a spit on the graves of recuscant martyrs like Saint Richard Gwyn who choose suffering and death rather than even set foot in a protestant church.

    Now we invite them into our own…

  34. Ages says:

    “All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient.”

    The fact that the bishop starts his statement with “It is with great sadness” sort of betrays the fact that he would have enjoyed seeing it happen. It’s the same kind of spirit which wishes homosexuals well in their “marriages” and transgenders in their new outfits.

  35. MarkosC says:

    I find this bizarre. To me, indifferentism is not so much the problem.

    The big question is why a diocese/synod/etc. – of whatever denomination – doesn’t use its own facilities (if not its own cathedral or major basilicas, a la St. Peter’s in Rome) for its own major functions like consecrations, outside of extreme circumstances. It implies the diocese is (certainly in facilities, also maybe ecclesiologically?) incomplete. Makes no sense to me, even if they’re expecting a larger crowd than the cathedral normally can accommodate.