StL Review Denies Ad Placement from Catholic Action Network

And this action by the Review pleases Catholics throughout the Archdiocese!

Jim Rygelski, the editor of The St. Louis Review, met with four members [Megan Heeney, Marie Andrews, Seán Collins, and Bill Ramsey] of the Catholic Action Network for Social Justice (CAN) on Monday 28 July 2008 and discussed the advertisement they had brought to him for publication in the Review. The St. Louis Review is the official Catholic newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Louis....

"Rygelski's initial response was 'no' and his final response was 'no.' But in between was an hour-and-a-half of discussion on the beliefs, practices, polity, and history of the Catholic Church," said Bill Ramsey. "After saying his final answer was 'no,’ Rygelski said he would discuss it with Bishop Hermann."....

Frankly, I'm surprised that Rygelski met with this group of malcontents for such a long period of time. Is there something new that they could have said that has not been spewed forth from them or similar anti-Church groups?

Sean Collins, who, it appears, now works with this dissenting group after leaving St Cronan's, attributes Bishop Hermann's August 1 column in The Review on "Obedience" to CAN and themselves. A result of an over inflated ego?:

"I am increasingly impressed with the Roman hierarchs' mind-reading abilities....Bishop Hermann, like his predecessor Archbishop Burke, seems unfortunately comfortable ascribing motives and ideas to people with whom he refuses to meet."

It would seem that meeting with such a group of only lends them some "Catholic" legitimacy which they certainly do not possess.

Megan Heeney, one of the CAN members supportive of Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath's "liturgies," stated:

"A growing number of Catholics in St. Louis and across the globe are questioning the methods of the bishops...We wonder if they don't exhibit a fundamental detachment from the realities of the lives of Catholic Christians."

Rational people are forced to asked exactly who are those who exhibit a fundamental detachment from reality? It is not Archbishop Burke nor Bishop Hermann. Nor is it the Holy Father - all of these speak with clarity of thought and have the perennial teaching of the Church and the Holy Spirit to guide them, despite what some so-called Catholics may think.

And Sean Collins, who seems to become hypersensitive rather easily, reflects on what appears to be his own personal problems while projecting them to others:

"When Bishop Hermann writes, 'everything that my superiors asked me to do has brought me incredible satisfaction, peace, joy and fulfillment. It is more fun "to listen to the Word" than to rebel against it' one has to question the spiritual and psychological maturity that underlies that notion of obedience. Some in the Church continue to extol the virtues of infantilism, a perpetual child-like posture that "Father knows best" and our role, as Catholics, to pray, pay, and obey." [my emphasis]

Pride blinds people and leads them to conclude that others, particularly Church leaders, are at fault for reminding them that certain behaviors, such as homosexuality and sins against chastity, are sinful. And so is the scandal caused by open rebellion against Church teaching that women can never be ordained as priests. But this arrogant rebellion and public whining is not viewed by the spiritually and psychologically immature as a problem which afflicts them. For them, it's always someone else's fault. Such "spoiled children" view themselves as blameless.

"There are serious issues facing the Church globally and locally. It's time the bishops took seriously their responsibility to be ministers of unity," says Collins. "It's not enough for them to lay down the law and expect well-educated, well-meaning, well-equipped members of the Church to toe the line. Lay women and men are integral members of this Church, though they are effectively ignored in decision-making."

Does oil "unite" with water? Is truth compatible with error? What causes sowers of disunity to think that they can demand that Catholics unite with them when, in fact, they reject fundamental tenets of the faith? And who, being of sound mind, would even consider allowing one of these "well-educated, well-meaning, well-equipped members of the Church" (and that is debatable) to be involved in any decision making process? Do parents allow their young children to set the family budgets or menu?

Such people, consumed with disdain for lawful Church authority, prefer the darkness of rebellion and sin rather than the love of Christ, His Church, and the boundaries imposed or suggested for one's own safety and salvation.

In a follow-up e-mail to Megan Heeney dated August 1, Rygelski addressed the tension: "As editor of the Review, I've always striven to make it a real newspaper, but a newspaper that's always faithful to the teachings of the Church and does all it can to explain those beliefs to its readers."

Of course, there is his job to consider as well - he isn't working for The Tidings where such dissent is all too common. Had he allowed this display of public repudiation of the Church by "Catholic" Action Network, he would have set a dangerous precedent to accept similar claptrap from other rebellious and dissenting groups.

CAN should be grateful that he even gave them the time he did - most faithful Catholics probably would not have even met with them.

See the complete posting by CAN here.