3/13/2021
 |
| Memmi, "Madonna" |
Allow me to admit that I’ve done something wrong. Show me what it is that I’ve done wrong. When an end that is in itself is good is nevertheless vitiated by circumstances, the actor is responsible for his failure to consider the evil circumstances and to act so as to avoid them.
There is a good of maintaining peaceable unity with the bishop. There is a good of containing excessive overreach by the same bishop. There is the question of irreconcilable preferences: shall we or shall we not? At what point is it a disservice, a violation of my promise to respect and to obey, to demur to the overreach of the bishop? There is the question of bearing wrongs patiently. I preach it all the time. What is the wrong that I have to bear patiently? Could it not be the lashing out of my bishop against me for containing his overreach. In other words, it could be a lack of charity, of respect and obedience to desist, to acquiesce in the suggestion—however mildly put—to stand down.
Could this firmness of purpose not be a sign of strength for the good of the Church and of souls? Perhaps if we were dealing with a matter the criterion of which is a precept of the divine law: to eat w/o recognizing is judgment. But here, our criterion is not divine law but the liturgical custom of the parish. Do we save our firmness of purpose for matters of divine law, acquiescing in everything besides? Do we bend over backwards for everything, but expect to hold firm on matters of precept. In all things, the truth in charity. Charity, joy, peace. If it robs you of your peace can it come from God?
To acquiesce in the suggestion off of St. Joe’s altar and onto the low altar. Seems mild enough. But what about the perspective of the people? What about the perspective of the priest? We know that from the perspective of some, it’s uncomfortable on St. Joe’s altar. We also know that from the perspective of many, it’s more comfortable. Whose call?
