“I think it would be counterproductive to impose sanctions, simply because they don’t change anybody’s minds.”
What have you learned? That the "father" is not a real "father."
But he IS just like Cdl. Cupich.
Children, spiritual or physical, need guidance and "sanctions." Imposing them is what REAL fathers do, out of love and concern for their children.
You may speculate on what +Cupich really is. But as to that first honorific title after Holy Orders, you know, "Father"?
I have long felt that one of the important parts of Seminary instruction, once orthodox Catholics clean the stables and make Seminaries Catholic again, is to teach Seminarians to be men and Fathers in full.
And that means some time taken from theology or free time and allocated instead to sports, calisthenics, craft and physical labor. In sum: Boot Camp. No more soft hands and rose water for our boys. Callouses, bruised shins and the occasional black eye will do much better.
It will accomplish its godly objectives in two ways:
1: It will train young males to be Men.
2: It will weed out most of the effeminate Seminary candidates at discernment; the rest can be weeded out later.
We do indeed need men. Not just Fathers, but men as our Fathers. I think we will be amazed at the growth in Vocations, once the Priesthood is again made a place for cultivating Men In Full.
You forgot marksmanship, friend.
Denial of Communion is not a "sanction." Why do the bishops (McCarrick, Wuerl, Chaput, Dolan, Gomez, O'Malley, etc.) who give Communion to pro-aborts always call it a "sanction." Because they want to pretend that it is OPTIONAL.
Denial of Communion under Canon 915 is MANDATORY. Since disobeying Canon 915 is always a mortal sin (sacrilege and grave scandal), all Bishop Paprocki is doing is declining to commit the mortal sin virtually all other bishops are committing. About ten other bishops in the US are not committing this mortal sin.
Only if one does not believe in the True Presence would one allow this. Yes, it is that simple.
Post a Comment