Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/mso-chorus-director-arrested-on-lewd-behavior-charges-b99136271z1-230763911.html#ixzz2lgZn9yCEThe Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra's chorus director was arrested Monday on accusations of lewd behavior in Grant Park.
Lee E. Erickson, 58, of South Milwaukee followed an undercover Milwaukee County sheriff's deputy into a bathroom at Grant Park along Milwaukee's lakefront, exposed himself and began masturbating in front of the officer, according to the sheriff's department.
Erickson has directed the 150-member chorus since 1994, taking over for the late Margaret Hawkins after serving as her assistant for many years. He's also music director at St. Anthony's Church in Milwaukee.
He has been suspended as the symphony's chorus director pending the completion of the investigation, said Susan Loris, MSO vice president of marketing and communications. Erickson did not return a phone call Tuesday evening.
Erickson was among seven men arrested in the last two weeks in an undercover operation prompted by many complaints about sexual activity and solicitation in county parks, said Milwaukee County sheriff's spokeswoman Fran McLaughlin.
The arrests occurred at Shorewood's Estabrook Park, Wauwatosa's Underwood Park and Milwaukee's Whitnall Park.
Four more arrests were made Tuesday on lewd behavior accusations in Milwaukee County Parks.
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter
Photo
In looking for a photo, I found that St. Anthony's has posted a selection of fine choral pieces on youtube. The contrast between this story and the quality of music is chasmous.
31 comments:
If nothing else these stories demonstrate that no matter how much gay activists pretend the lifestyle has changed and is no longer perverted, the facts are quite different.
....unlike hetero-sexuals among whom there is no sexual deviation, prostitution, exhibitionalism, casual sex, pornography, strip clubs, etc. etc.
Please. let's pray for Lee and not condemn him. I am in his choir and he truly is the best there is musically speaking. We are all sinners in need of mercy. He has asked for our forgiveness and our prayers and shall have it.
Kathy
I'm waiting for TAq to pipe up about how the Milwaukee sheriff should be concentrating on gun violence.
I'm sure you will not be surprised to find outrage emerging out the "entrapment".
http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2013/11/just-in-us-symphony-chorus-director-is-suspended-over-lewd-behaviour.html (see comments).
And of course Marquette Law School posting about how "Anti-gay biases manifest themselves in the enforcement of lewd and lascivious behavior laws" and how the Sheriff's enforcements "cross into deliberate exploitation of anti-gay sentiments."
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/11/11/lewd-and-lascivious-behavior-laws-a-milwaukee-story/
posted by visiting law professor http://law.marquette.edu/faculty-and-staff-directory/detail/5814945
oh, by the way, Lee quietly disappeared from the parish bulletin as Dir of Music between the Nov 3rd and Nov 10th bulletins.
http://content.seekandfind.com/bulletins/01/1265/20131103B.pdf
http://content.seekandfind.com/bulletins/01/1265/20131110B.pdf
Hmmmmmm......
Agreed on prayers. He's also going to need to be made accountable for his crimes, as this isn't just a matter of personal sin here.
I have no problem with a crackdown on solicitation in parks, Cassandra; I'm not sure where your hostility comes from; I'm glad you recognize the cracks in my formation, because after all, aren't we all "working out our salvation." I am curious about your credentialing in matters of doctrine and morals to make such a blanket judgment about someone else's faith formation that you don't know.
My sneaking suspicion is that you might actually be a bit unnerved by how much we might have in common in regard to the expressions of our Catholicism.
Regarding this post, I DO think that those involved should be held accountable for public indecency. That being said, I don't know that broadcasting their sin and scandal produce many good fruits. I agree with Kathy that praying for Mr. Erickson is undoubtedly the most appropriate action.
There will be no charges filed, period. The case is closed.
Is it being reported somewhere? I couldn't find it on JS.
No it's not being reported. The JSOnline did its axe-job on Lee--why bother with the rest of the story? They're not Paul Harvey.
You can rely on my statement. It's over with. No charges, case closed.
Why is reporting the incident an "axe-job"? Either it happened or it didn't. Is Erickson denying the arrest accusation?
The purpose of the Sheriff's enforcement is to deter these activities on public grounds and facilities. The publication of names achieves this. Running it through the courts does little more than generate a small fine.
From the standpoint of duties at St Anthony Parish, either it happened or it didn't. Civil conviction is not really relevant.
Oh, I dunno. Did the Journal-Slime-in-al name the OTHER 12 who were arrested that night? What about the half-dozen arrested last night in Whitnall Park?
Now, once again, because you are perhaps so highly dudgeoned that you missed this part: NO CHARGES WILL BE FILED.
That means that either he did nothing, or that the DA cannot prove his guilt.
And I didn't know that you are the pastor of St Anthony's! When did you begin exercising those responsibilities?
The DA not filing charges does not mean innocence. Once again, the civil disposition of the case is irrelevant to the Church.
Once again, I ask, has Erickson denied the incident as reported? Kathy (above) says he's asked for forgiveness. That doesn't sound like a denial. Even at that, he has some explaining to do about what he was doing at a gay pickup site. (or are you going to suggest he was hauled out of his house and the deputy fabricated the location he was arrested at?). If Erickson did it, that's a pretty bold act, and indicative of a far larger spiritual problem he needs to resolve.
What the pastor chooses to do about the situation has little to do with the Catholic principles about the requirements to hold a ministry position--which can be discussed. Bishops have notoriously used the excuse of "no (civil) crime involved" to let priests committing grave immoral acts to continue to minister. Just ask Nienstedt about his little priest issue over the computer full of porn. Even if it's only adult porn, the priest should be suspended. A bad priest is worse than no priest at all.
does not mean innocence Correct.
indicative of a far larger spiritual problem he needs to resolve. Not very precise. Lee, like every other human being save the Mother of God, has problems with controlling the impulse to sin. It's called "the human condition" for a reason. It's also the genesis of Christ's command (not suggestion) "...let him without sin cast the first stone."
What the pastor chooses to do about the situation has little to do with the Catholic principles about the requirements to hold a ministry position
Huh? The pastor (not you) will make that decision based on Catholic principles, period. Frankly, I have no idea what he will do.
There's no question that Lee was in that park and did something to occasion an arrest. There is also no question that Lee is a homosexual; he has said so himself.
Tell us: are you proposing that ALL Church-employed personnel who are homosexual be removed from their position for being homosexual? Or for one "incident" like Lee's?
I can agree that removal is the correct discipline for proven child-abuse (hetero or homo); (or even for a circumstantially-probable pattern of same); for publicly-known extra-marital affairs (note the plural); for publicly declaring oneself to be "married" to a same-sex person--all of which are contumacious offenses, not "one-time" offenses.
I don't think you want to be a stone-caster, do you?
Christ's command (not suggestion) "...let him without sin cast the first stone."
You are confusing removal from public ministry with personal condemnation.
1 Tim 3:2-ff "Now a bishop must be above reproach...He must manage his own household well...Deacons...let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve."
Ministerial positions are extensions of the pastor's office, esp liturgical ones. No one has a right to hold one. The good of the Church must take precedence over the individual's desire to hold one.
The pastor ... will make that decision based on Catholic principles, period.
We can hope so. However, in the Church today pastoral decisions based on Catholic principles is the exception, not the norm. If you wish to dispute that, please indicate which planet you are on so that I can beam these comments in the right direction.
(not you)
Why do you keep confusing the discussion of Catholic principles with the authority to act on them? I'm not asserting any authority, just pointing out the principles. If you dispute the principles, please offer something more authoritative than your emotions.
Tell us: are you proposing that ALL Church-employed personnel who are homosexual be removed from their position for being homosexual?
The Church declares that homosexuals are not to be ordained to the priesthood. (the 2005 document allowed for those who overcame transitory attractions.). Church personnel are extensions of the episcopal and priestly offices to which no one has a right. The 2005 document speaks about "affective maturity" which is going to apply to anyone acting in the name of the Church. At the very least personnel would necessarily need to be living chaste lives regardless of orientation.
one "incident" like Lee's
As I stated before, this incident (as reported) is quite bold. It is a culminating incident, not an initial incident. Compulsions begin privately then move publicly. That's the nature of sin as it obtains greater control over a person. Just hanging around a gay pickup site is already an advanced compulsion. It merits removal from public ministry on its own, just like getting caught being in (any) strip club.
Getting caught publicly gives Erickson a personal wake up call which cannot be rationalized away. It may be the best thing that could have happened to him. It forces him to confront his spiritual situation. His soul is infinitely more important than his career.
all of which are contumacious offenses, not "one-time" offenses.
You set the bar for public ministry far too low contrary to the teachings of St. Paul.
The good of the Church must take precedence over the individual's desire to hold one. Failure to do that has caused enormous damage to the Church.
The good of the Church must take precedence over the individual's desire to hold one.
Yes. And your position is that canning Erickson will result in "the good of the Church."
You are also claiming that a choir/musician position is equivalent to Bishop/priest/deacon. That's a bit of a stretch, but not untenable. Can you cite a Canon?
I'm not asserting any authority, just pointing out the principles.
Actually, you're not "pointing out the principles." All you've done is to cite St Paul's charges re Bishops and deacons, so far. It's telling that you haven't responded to my questions as to whether publicly-known marital infidelity calls for the same discipline. Does it, or not?
The Church declares that homosexuals are not to be ordained to the priesthood.
Yup. That stricture was in effect (and ignored) since at least 1958, by the way.
Church personnel are extensions of the episcopal and priestly offices to which no one has a right.
You've asserted, without foundation, that the choir director/organist is an "extension" of the Bishop. Care to elaborate on how you got from A to B?
At the very least personnel would necessarily need to be living chaste lives regardless of orientation.
So in your Church, anyone who commits the solitary sin--or adultery--or has sexual relations w/o the benefit of marriage, should be canned, whether publicly known or not. That also applies to violations of the Commandments re: detraction, calumny? Or the second, using foul language? Or only sex offenses?
I think the Church is going to have a serious shortage of employed personnel, all the way from Bishop on down to secretaries and janitors, at the rate you're firing them.
It is a culminating incident, not an initial incident.
And you know this with moral certainty.....exactly how? I am inclined to agree with your theory here, but it's a theory unless you can offer proof in the specific case at hand.
I suppose you'd also mandate firing of, say, a banker who is a choir director and who is accused of (but not charged with) bank fraud, right?
Part 1 of 2:
First off, I am an heterosexual lifetime Roman Catholic and Tridentine, former acolyte (altar boy), attend and believe in Latin Masses INCLUDING SSPX, have sung for years in Choirs and Gregorian Scholas of grand stature and performance and not so grand stature and performance, including SSPX, all under unbelievable Directors of the finest talent, education, religious history and insight, and Faith.
I have earned the right to know of that which I pen. I've worked diligently, earnestly, and very hard to earn that right.
I am also a lifelong multi-instrumentalist musician, singer, and band leader gracing more stages and more studios than I ever care to even remember.
I am also in contact with Lee Erickson.
Some of you have absolutely NO IDEA of that which you write, including interpretations of our Roman Catholic Faith.
I sing for, under, and with Lee Erickson.
Never have I experienced such an upstanding, upright, forthrighteous, honest, hard-working, and SUPREMELY TALENTED man as this music man. He is THE magnetic musician and leader, drawing all true musicians to him, making individual musicians and whole Choirs WANT to do their best for him. He is an unbelievably talented and gifted Director, organist, musician, and, especially, leader.
He is also an truly devout Catholic, a grand man, a friend.
Lee Erickson is being crucified in the court of public opinion. The sherriff of KnotHead-ingham, David Clarke, has overstepped Clarke's legal authority, probably broken the law, and certainly opened up Clarke and Milwaukee County to a multi-million dollar defamation suit. You do not treat a musical pillar at the top of the game like a wanton criminal with absolutely no proof except an he-said-she-said pathetic book of evidence. Clark has severely overstepped his authority and has legislated and dictated sanctions reserved only for peer juries and justice through one's "day in court". Clarke, as an Agent of The Principal Milwaukee County, has put Milwaukee County and its taxpayers in an extremely precarious position.
Clarke is an a-hole extraordinaire. That is my opinion...and the opine of almost everyone I know, some of whom have actually worked within The Milwaukee County Sherriff's department.
Lee, however, being more the gentle soul type that he is, I am sure would reserve public disdainment of Clarke.
Clarke, by his self-serving immature infantile ludicrous mishandling of this situation, has single-handedly possibly destroyed Lee the man, Lee's 40+ year career, Lee's position(s), Lee's livelihood(s), Lee's achievments, and probably more than some of Lee's faith in loyalty and humanity.
There was absolutely no cause for Clarke, the local media, The MSO, and other entities (of which they know who they are) to manhandle this situation like they did...like they were shovelling sh*t at a state fair.
Shame on every one of them...and on some of you. You have no idea how Lee Erickson conducts himself and his life.
Lee Erickson is presumed INNOCENT...and TRUTH has prevailed.
Part 2 of 2:
I personally never believed anything happened the way it was reported.
The US judiciary system is an Godless behemoth that simply wants to win...promotions and elections ride on the outcomes of the DAs offices and the sherriffs offices.
There is a scary TRUTH about the system if you cannot get out of it and are stuck dealing with it.
All they want to do is win.
To that end, cops lie.
They lie to courts, juries, judges, taxpayers, citizens, defendants, in their reports, to each other, and, yes, they lie under oath on the witness stand.
Why? To simply win the case. Judges and unions are reticent about, and even empathetic to, this process within the system.
Simply Google, "cops lie". You'll get the telephone book in hits. It is an epidemic in America.
Are there any good LEO (law enforcement officers)? That is for each person to decide for themselves. However, keep in mind "good" LEO will NOT "step over" "the blue line" and report their bad LEO "brothers". It is simple logic, then and therefore, that the "good" LEO are bad BY COMPLICITY...and become instant liars.
The DA's office becomes the hub of the hub/spoke wheel of justice...the center of everything. I have had friends go through hell when a DA's office had little more than speculation, conjecture, and hearsay to bring to the court. DAs offices are always financed by the bottomless wallet of the taxpayer...and they know it.
I have an self-authored musing: keep the cops and the government as far out of your life as possible.
Rock 'em sock 'em video-game-playing cops these days are a far cry from cops I grew up with...not that the cops I grew up with weren't Serpico fodder...no angels. I've always disliked and not trusted cops but these days all bets seem to be off with them. Whether it's SWAT or sting, they, especially the younger, get psyched up like a footbal team heading into battle. All that matters seems to be the arrests. It is these arrests that will warrant promotions for officers and re-elections for sherriffs.
Lee was the big fish. The officer who THINKS he busted Lee would pull the, "I busted Lee Erickson", at promotion time. Clarke would pull the, "I busted Lee Erickson", at re-election campaign time. This is what and all they cared about.
This is all the reality of the situation.
The Crime Of Crime
Excerpts:
"...inflated crime reports help finance more cops, courts, and prisons..."
"...the reporting of crime is now a commodity that is marketed to make revenue for a number of industries and interests. Crime is big business for the lawyers, bail bond agencies, city and county court departments, correctional facilities, as well as companies which sell crime prevention gadgets, and, of course, insurance companies that make money on fear and the spectre of being a victim. Crime is a money-maker even for the medical industry. It should be noted as well that entire non-profit organizations are created around the industry of crime in America..."
Oremus...always
Well, I’m glad our little discussion has finally moved away from the particular case of Mr. Erickson to the general principles.
You've asserted, without foundation, that the choir director/organist is an "extension" of the Bishop.
You are also claiming that a choir/musician position is equivalent to Bishop/priest/deacon.
(not equivalent—an extension of office. Arguably administrative positions would be an extension of the bishop’s governing office, but the case is harder to make)
From Pope Pius X’s Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini
#12 …therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir.
#13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir.
#14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise.
(BTW, this is where those that irritated TAq about women in choirs get their basis)
All you've done is to cite St Paul's charges re Bishops and deacons, so far
I’m not a canon lawyer and canon law is complex and must be interpreted as a whole. That said, here are some canons applying to laity. Note that the requirement of “suitability” would cover the moral requirements that St. Paul requires of clerics.
Can. 210 All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.
Can. 228 §1. Lay persons who are found suitable are qualified to be admitted by the sacred pastors to those ecclesiastical offices and functions which they are able to exercise according to the precepts of the law.
That stricture was in effect (and ignored) since at least 1958
It goes back centuries if not back to the apostles. St Eudes was writing about it in the 1600’s.
It's telling that you haven't responded to my questions as to whether publicly-known marital infidelity calls for the same discipline.
So in your Church, anyone who commits the solitary sin--or adultery--or has sexual relations w/o the benefit of marriage, should be canned, whether publicly known or not.
“my Church”?? No, THE Church.
I didn’t realize there was any real question about infidelity. Any public serious sin requires removal from ministry to avoid scandal. Serious habitual private sins known to the religious superior would also require this. First, serious habitual private sins eventually manifest themselves publicly causing scandal. Secondly, in the case of liturgical ministry which is part of the Mass, you’re bordering on a profanation of the Mass, since such a person would have a difficult time being regularly in a state of grace during the exercise of his holy office. Priests in mortal sin validly and licitly consecrate the Eucharist, but they profane the Eucharist when they do. I think a strong case can be made that others in mortal sin and involved in the liturgy would to lesser degrees also profane the Mass.
Note the CCC on scandal and the technical definition of it.
II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1399 In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals.
Now, again, a layperson has no right to a position in the Church, so removing them does not constitute a canonical penalty since no canonical process is required. The Church to protect itself from intrusion by the State does place moral clauses in contracts, but this is not needed from the standpoint of the Church. Removing pastors is another story, as pastors have canonical rights attached to their office and so removal requires adherence to canonical procedures. This is why when transfers are published you see the phrase “Fr. X resigned his office as pastor.” Priests could fight transfer and assert their rights against the wishes of the bishop, but bishops have numerous ways of making a priest’s life miserable.
I think the Church is going to have a serious shortage of employed personnel, all the way from Bishop on down to secretaries and janitors, at the rate you're firing them.
Consider carefully the ramifications of what you’re saying. You’re declaring that a parish or diocese does not have enough members who avoid serious public sin or habitual serious private sin (known to the religious superior) in order to fill its necessary positions. Are you asserting that the spiritual states of the parishes and dioceses are that bad?
It is a culminating incident, not an initial incident.
And you know this with moral certainty.....exactly how? I am inclined to agree with your theory here, but it's a theory unless you can offer proof in the specific case at hand.
First of all, moral theology deals with certitude, not certainty.
Secondly, this is not “my” theory, it’s part of the nature of the spiritual life that sins progress in magnitude. I’m not going to dig thru my spiritual library to prove this from the spiritual masters. Yes, it is possible for a highly sanctified soul to commit a mortal sin due to free will, but that is irrelevant since a single public serious sin merits dismissal on its own due to scandal as I showed above.
I suppose you'd also mandate firing of, say, a banker who is a choir director and who is accused of (but not charged with) bank fraud, right?
First, “I” am not mandating, I’m showing general principles involving scandal. It’s up to the religious superior to prudentially apply them.
Second, fraud is a serious sin and was covered above.
Third, you must get it out of your head that civil dispositions of civil cases have anything to do with the Church’s administration. DAs have wide discretion on whether to press charges, and all kinds of things including political pressure, corruption, or even compassion can come into play. The Church is universal and the particularities of US civil law don’t affect the principles of Church administration. The Church has its own law and courts, and what is illicit in canon law may be licit in civil law and vice versa. In fact, the Church used to assert in Catholic States that the State had no right to prosecute clerics at all. This is necessary for the freedom of the Church. In the modern State which does not recognize the freedom (nor true nature) of the Church, obviously the Church has little choice, but I do believe that bishops should not be so eager to hand clerics over to the State simply for better public relations. The Church has the means to punish clerics herself.
Finally, I should address false accusations. A catholic with no particular standing is not required to defend himself from false accusations. However, someone with high standing in the community and especially one holding a Church office is required to defend his good name out of concern for scandal to others. I believe it was the writings of St. Francis de Sales where I ran across this, but don’t remember. It would be up to the religious superior to determine if the denial and defense were sufficiently credible to avoid scandal in order to let someone retain their Church office or be reinstated.
I have laid out the principles concerning scandal and given what I think is sufficient basis from sources. If you have a truly valid objection, I’ll answer it, but otherwise I’ve spent enough time on this. You are free to do your own research.
I think a strong case can be made that others in mortal sin and involved in the liturgy would to lesser degrees also profane the Mass.
First off, your cite of Piux X is accurate. Discussion to follow later.
Regarding the above: your contention is problematic. All the laity ("officed" or not) participate in the Mass. At least a few are in a state of serious sin. Does that "profane" the Mass?
...You’re declaring that a parish or diocese does not have enough members who avoid serious public sin or habitual serious private sin (known to the religious superior) in order to fill its necessary positions. Are you asserting that the spiritual states of the parishes and dioceses are that bad?
Artificial birth control.
One more note: I have never stated (nor has Lee) that anyone has a "right" to a position in the Church. Please stop repeating that.
Now, then, as to disposition.
It is Pope Francis' contention that the Church is a 'hospital' for sinners. The entire Canon Law is summed up in its last provision (IIRC) to the effect that 'saving souls' is the basis of all Canon Law.
Penance is required; of that there is no doubt (we will assume ad arguendam that there is guilt in the case(s)). Are you arguing that fraudsters, or people guilty of detraction or calumny (there are a LOT of those), as well as those guilty of (known) sexual sins, should be permanently dismissed? Black-listed from all other Church employment? Is that an appropriate 'penance'? Or would you argue that some time-certain 'suspension' is the penance?
You can not be arguing that there is no forgiveness, right?
First off, your cite of Piux X is accurate. Discussion to follow later.
No. There will be no following discussion. I’m not going to get into educating you about Liturgical law via comment box, esp. since you apparently weren’t even aware of a fundamental document beforehand.
… involved in the liturgy.... the laity …participate in the Mass.
I was not referring to the laity in the pews. I didn’t like using the word “involved” because I was afraid you’d misinterpret, but didn’t want to use “minister” because current liturgical “practices” often involve people not really in any ministerial role. I also don’t want to get into quibbling over where the line is where “involvement” stops and lay assistance at Mass starts (e.g. gift bearers, ushers, collection, etc.).
Do [laity in the state of mortal sin] "profane" the Mass?
I wasn’t making that case, but the question did occur to me. The spiritual effects [or lack thereof] of laity in mortal sin at Mass would make an interesting theological discussion, but not one I’d have with you over comment box. We are required to render due worship to God in the Mass, but those in mortal sin cannot because charity is killed in the soul.
parish or diocese does not have enough members who avoid serious public sin or habitual serious private sin (known to the religious superior) in order to fill its necessary positions.
Since you seem to be asserting “yes”, then really the positions stay open. I’d refer you to St Anthony Mary Claret. http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20040307-Priest-by-Name-Only-and-Not-by-Deed.html At 6:06 into the sermon above, there is a quote from Anthony talking about leaving parishes without priests if God does not send good ones. People who are in a state of mortal sin can only think on a natural level and only with darkened intellects. That’s a bad combination for those responsible for Church duties.
never stated …that anyone has a "right" to a position in the Church.
Black-listed … Is that an appropriate 'penance'?
You can not be arguing that there is no forgiveness, right?
I keep repeating “no right” because you keep failing to see the ramifications. Removal or suspension of laity from such positions is neither a penalty nor a penance.
You’re lacking some fundamental catechesis. You’re confusing forgiveness, temporal punishment, reparation, and satisfaction. I suggest you make an appointment with a traditional priest (one who spent 7 years in a trad seminary, not a diocesan who says the TLM) and have a personal discussion about your questions. There’s an Institute of Christ the King parish right there in Milwaukee. You could even print out this discussion and have him go over it with you.
since you apparently weren’t even aware of a fundamental document beforehand.
Wrong. I was waiting for you to cite it to justify your position. I read that doc before you were born.
We are required to render due worship to God in the Mass, but those in mortal sin cannot because charity is killed in the soul.
Jansenist. The logical inference is that those in mortal sin are no longer bound by the 3rd Commandment.
Since you seem to be asserting “yes”,
Since you seem to ignore Artificial Birth Control among the 'officed' laity, I'll assume you have no mocking response available. For that matter, why do the un-'officed' laity bother showing up for Mass at all, given your contention that they "cannot worship God"?
Removal or suspension of laity from such positions is neither a penalty nor a penance.
Not per se, agreed. But there IS a financial penalty attached, and in many cases it is a very serious penalty.
I'm aware of ICK and their inclination to ignore every Papal writing on the Liturgy since BEFORE Pius X. YMMV.
since you apparently weren’t even aware of a fundamental document beforehand.
Wrong. I was waiting for you to cite it to justify your position. I read that doc before you were born.
The resistance you previously showed to the principle has destroyed any credibility that you might have had to asserting having previously read the document. I have no reason to believe you are doing anything but trying to save face here. On the other hand, if you had read it and still resisted it, you show insincerity in your posts, which again strikes against your credibility and secondly demonstrates why it is a waste of time for anyone to take your posts seriously. Your self-designation as “Nasty” in your profile appears quite a propos.
We are required to render due worship to God in the Mass, but those in mortal sin cannot because charity is killed in the soul.
Jansenist
You would avoid public embarrassment if you learned the meaning of terms before you haphazardly toss them out.
The logical inference is that those in mortal sin are no longer bound by the 3rd Commandment.
Only in your personal logic system.
un-'officed' laity bother showing up for Mass at all, given your contention that they "cannot worship God"?
We are commanded to give worship to God. One of the purposes of the Law was to demonstrate the inability of Man to keep it without Grace. Those in mortal sin have no Charity in their soul, therefore they cannot love God due to self-idolatry, nor offer themselves wholly to God as self-sacrifice in union with the Sacrifice of the Mass. They neither justify themselves by Mass attendance nor can they merit due to their state. God in his mercy offers a remedy—it’s called Confession. Those in a state of sanctifying grace are capable of offering supernaturally by Grace what they cannot offer naturally.
Since you seem to ignore Artificial Birth Control among the 'officed' laity
No such ignoring on my part. If you have personal knowledge of such use, you have a duty to the soul of the individual to offer correction and to notify the religious superior to avoid scandal. Otherwise, speculation is calumny.
But there IS a financial penalty attached, and in many cases it is a very serious penalty.
No. If the position is not a right, then the compensation is not a right. Therefore, losing the compensation is not a penalty from the Church, but a consequence of personal actions.
This is the last time I will ever respond to one of your comments on this post or any other. I do appreciate having had the exchange, however, as it is a good reminder to me of the utter waste of time blogs and commenters really are. I strongly suggest that you stop blogging and commenting and start studying instead. Jesus said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Mt 12:36-37. It is not a stretch to apply this to what one writes on the internet.
I return to my studies of the Fathers and Doctors and “leave the dead to bury the dead.”
IS his case closed-???? no charges-????
It is heresy to speculate that 'the effect of the Mass is diminished' due to attendance of grave sinners. It is also heresy to speculate (or postulate) the same 'diminished effect' even when the priest who celebrates the Mass is a grave sinner.
Whether Jansenist or otherwise....
Perhaps you should study Patristics a bit more carefully.
Post a Comment