Priests, Pulpits and Sins

The Right Stuff

Reading around on the Internet, one stumbles upon some debates that to this cradle Catholic – who grew up in a country and in a time where Catholicism was still taken seriously – do sound rather strange.

I therefore thought that I would spend two words about what I think is the role expected from a priest vis-a-vis the challenges of modern times – and, come to that, of all times -.

1) I find it very good that a priest is shocked at perverted behaviour. When a priest – or every other person – is not shocked anymore, this means that he has been polluted by perversion himself. One must wonder about the state of a soul who is not taken by disgust at seeing people of same sex holding hands in public or, worse, kissing. Of course a priest must not be a Pollyanna utterly unaware of the existence of sin; but neither can he be one who looks at sexual perversion without cringing.

2) I find it (after the consecration) the most important duty of the priest to be good from the pulpit. In particular, it is inconceivable to me how a priest – any pastor or minister, let alone a Catholic priest – may renounce to address the matter of sin. I do not only mean the sin of lust, but all sins: envy, gluttony, pride, the lot. We are surrounded by obese people, on their way to a life of trouble and a premature death, because the sin of gluttony is not mentioned anymore; we have more and more vocal perverts around, because their sin of pride has been hidden under the cloak of “understanding” for their “plight”, when vocal homosexuality is simply utter rebellion to Our Lord; we have the environmental madness and the spreading of socialist ideas, because the sin of envy is not properly addressed; nay, it is encouraged.

How important the homily is can be clearly seen from the fact that the Church post Vatican II has tried to kill it, transforming it in a harmless chat where no uncomfortable messages are conveyed. The measure in which sin is so accurately avoided in every trendy homily is simply scary. In fact, whilst we still say that something is said “from the pulpit”, the pulpit itself has been one of the victims of Vatican II. How many new churches have been built with a proper pulpit? And when a pulpit is available, how many priests still use it?
The entire concept and physical presence of the pulpit reminds one of sin. NuChurch wants to get rid of the concept of sin. Therefore, NuChurch has to get rid of the pulpit.

Let me state very plainly that to me, a priest who is unwilling to address sin from the pulpit is unrecognisable as a priest.

3) In my eyes, a good priest is one who is, as it is generally said, a lion from the pulpit and a lamb (when he sees contrition, of course) in the confessional. From the pulpit, I am reminded of what a wretched sinner I am. In the confessional, I am re-directed toward the path of salvation. Being a sinner, I need the constant reminder that I go astray, and need to be reconciled to Jesus; that I am like those half-broken spring-propelled toy cars we had as children, which couldn’t go straight and had to be constantly put on the right way again; and this not only in the very grave things, but in the lesser ones also. I need to be reminded that I alone can do pretty much perfectly absolutely nothing; that left to my devices, I am very likely to find a rather fast way to hell; that my path to improvement and to a life of – at least – struggle to be as good as I can goes through the humiliation of penance, the crushing acknowledgment that I continue to nail Christ to the Cross every day. And this humiliation is really good (I mean: salutary), because it keeps me away from the worst of the sin of pride, and puts ruthlessly in front of my eyes what wreckage concupiscence is ready to make in my soul, if I am complacent.

Unpleasant? You bet! The human condition is unpleasant: we are sinners ready to continue to offend Christ every day. We are serial sinners who, unless we are properly instructed and reminded and admonished and rebuked, would easily find a speedy way to hell, and the priest is the man to help us avoid that.

4) Still, my ideal priest is one who uses a wise mixture of all that; one whose homilies are a healthy mixture of instruction and admonition, of hope and brimstone, of roaring and consoling. By one homily of twelve to fifteen minutes a week there is really a lot to say, and a normal churchgoer can have a thorough foundation in Catholic teaching, and at the same time develop a very healthy, nay, indispensable sense of his own sinfulness, in a matter of just a few years. This is what has always happened in the past, when people actually built churches with pulpits; and this is what the perverted generation of Vatican II has abandoned. Even the way to the confessional clearly goes through the pulpit, as the confessionals are deserted because the need for confession is not stressed strongly enough. One would have to talk about sin, you know. So he devotes the homily to the jooooy that awaaaaaits us aaaall in heaaaaven instead. “What a beautiful homily, Father”, will the people whose hand he is – in pure Protestant fashion – happily shaking after Mass say to him. Nothing but smiles all around. How very nice.

5) A good priest is, in my eyes, one who doesn’t refrain from addressing sexual perversion from the pulpit. He will – if he is any good – be able to express himself in a way that is clear without being obscene, and can be directed to the adults without upsetting the children. I agree that one hundred years ago the Sin of Sodom didn’t need to be addressed in Church; but others did, and St. Augustine openly rebuked his parishioners who slept with their own servants without being so afraid of what questions the children of these very fathers might have asked after Mass.

—————-

This is not meant to offend anyone in particular, of course. In fact, the blog where I have read one of these debates is run by what I think a most excellent priest. But then again, it is surprising what comments people (or even: priests) can write around as comments to blog posts or answers to questions. If I look back at my own experience the lack of proper homilies as a child has been, no doubt, one of the things which allowed me to slide away from mass attendance. If the priests isn’t serious, you end up not taking the Mass seriously. My mistake of course, but I can’t say that I was even warned from doing the mistake. Such were the times and such they, I do not doubt, very often are. We live in times where many priests would consider mentioning Mass obligation a no-no. Then they complain about the fact that the world is so materialistic and not turned to God. Why don’t they wake up instead.

A priest doesn’t have to be a master in sensitivity. He is there to save souls. He must be able to find the words, and to use the strong ones when needed. This is what a loving father does.

At times I have the impression that modern “Fathers” would prefer to be called “Mother” instead.

Mundabor

Two Words On “Clericals”

Six Salesians. On the left, Herman Spronck, the now booted protector of pedophiles.

Whilst writing the last blog post about the satanic homosexual, drug-user, embezzler priest, I reflected on the fact that the man was in an establishment for sodomites without wearing his clericals.

Obviously so, you would say. Well yes and no. Let me explain.

Let us imagine that I am a priest with some vices on the side; a frequenter of strip clubs, say, or a client of escort girls. If my parishioners are accustomed to never see me in clerical garbs (because I am oh so “modern”, “pastoral”, and all other stupid terms come into fashion after Vatican II), then it will be rather easy for me to get out of my place at whatever hour during the day without arising any suspicion and, from there, head to wherever I please. No one seeing me going out of the rectory would smell anything fishy.

But let us imagine that the obligation to wear clerical garbs is strictly – and I mean: strictly – enforced. I have a problem now. If I get out of my place during the day without my clericals, I am bound to be noticed sooner rather than later, and If I wait for the darkness I am in even worse trouble. Add to this that I would not be able to play strange tricks, like getting out of my place in clericals and change clothes in some public toilet. It would never work, as I would be constantly at risk of being recognised and automatically exposed.

This would be even worse for a homosexual priest, as the kind of establishment these people frequent tend to be in strange neighbourhoods. One would have to be constantly recognisable as priest, the more so in the strange neighbourhood, to avoid trouble.

Of course, where there’s a will there’s a way; but really, if the rules were thoroughly enforced a whole lot of ways would be closed, and only the most dangerous would remain open.

Which leads me neatly to the other, shorter half of this blog post: all of these priests who do not wear clerical garbs and want to be so much one of us; so much so that they don’t want to be immediately recognised and recognisable as priests:

what are they up to?

Mundabor

Miami Vice II: Meet “Father John” (Warning: explicit language)

"Father John" clearly hasn't heard of him: St. Michael the Archangel.

They say that God is everywhere and I believe it; but it would appear that “liberal” priests are to be found in the strangest places, too.

Make no mistake, the author of this article is – besides being a faggot, which is bad enough – a perfect idiot.  He is, in fact, so stupid that he thinks that he “has won” the “battle for the way he uses his genitals”, forgetting to tell us that:

a) he feels a piece a shit, and hates himself, like everyone of them. This is where the word “homophobia” comes from, “hates of self”. A dominant trait of these people.

b) the day he dies, at the latest, he’ll know “who has won the battle”. Then, he’ll experience a completely different meaning of the expression “being screwed”. Not pleasant even for people who, actually, like being screwed.

Still, this post is not about the pathetic attempts of these practicing homos to give themselves a dignity; nor is this about their self-hate, or the fact that their own conscience catches them even before the particular judgment does (and no, shouting “gay pride” and “human rights” is of no avail); but it is about the other, rather interesting elements coming out of the article:

1) A priest (depicted in the article’s photo and yes, he wears no clericals), called “Father John”, frequents faggoty bars described as “not the kind of place into which heterosexual wander by mistake”, and “an establishment where men occasionally exchange blowjobs in the parking lot”.

2) This priest is not only – which is bad enough, but par for the course in such an establishment – an unrepentant sodomite, but he hasn’t any problem in giving further scandal. The journalist describes his behaviour in this way:

The young man told us extraordinary tales: and openly boasting of sex-and-ecstasy parties in Miami rectories, swinging priestly bachelor pads purchased with illicit cash, embezzlement schemes, S&M, and blowjobs-for-promotions.

Note here: openly boasting; which given the place, and the situation, is an utterly believable claim. A Catholic priest, for heaven’s sake.

3) A conservative Catholic blogger acquaintance of the faggot in question was:

rejected from the seminary, it seems, because of his insistence that homosexual behavior is sinful.

So, the conservative is kicked out of the seminary because he is a Christian and even insists in being it, whilst the obviously satanic “Father John”, who is “modern” and “pastoral”, finds his way into the seminary and from there in a completely homo-dominated “lavender mafia”.

This is what the “aggiornamento” has brought us.
Congratulations, Pope Paul VI. I hope you’ve avoided hell and no, I’m not so sure.

4) The journalist (who is, let us not forget, a faggot and an idiot), dares to implicitly call “hypocrite” an organisation that is against homosexuality and then tolerates such sods as “Father John”. What escapes him is that Father John is the pathology, not the physiology of the Church, and that the hypocrite here is Father John himself, the unrepentant bragging faggot.

The author of the article has, in his foggy thinking, at least the intellectual honesty to report that conservative Catholics thinks that the Church needs to be “purged” (you don’t say? Are you sure? Shouldn’t the Church place an idiot like Father John in every sodomite bar instead?); but being a pervert, he cannot resist from mentioning to us this pearl of the purest heresy, referred to him by a “liberal” (read: either faggot himself, or fornicating) priest:

“Sex is such an important part of who we are. You’re going to find a lot more people who are willing to embrace celibacy because of some sexual neurosis than guys who are willing to embrace it out of religious piety. And guess what? It doesn’t work.”

These words come from a priest – anonymous, of course – . This is one that first decides to become a priest, and then discover that “sex is such an important part of who we are” and those who embrace celibacy have, in their majority, their screws out of place.
What an ass.
You wouldn’t believe it, but these are the people who call the Church “hypocritical”.

Next time you hear of a liberal priest, think of “Father John”.

He might be pretty representative of the genre.

Mundabor

“Miami Vice”

In this rare photo, Agents Crockett and Tubbs upset at learning the news.

This is bad news, and good news at the same time. Bad news, because a shameless behaviour went on unchecked for too long. Good news, because the scandal is out after it is clear that decisive steps have been undertaken to clear up the pig stall (and the pig stall was, apparently, of impressive proportions, and the stink mighty).

It would appear that in the diocese of Miami a group of actively homosexual bishop and priests called the shots in the way you can imagine; bullying of those dissenting; favour for those willing to “favour” the bishop and his friend; toleration of live-in “boyfriends”; alcoholism;  all sorts of sexual license; embezzlement of diocesan money to pay for expensive restaurants; even a commercial enterprise producing an exciting beverage meant to give young people “the best sex they ever had”, or the like, with the bishop himself having a financial interest in the operation.

It would also appear that things went so far, and so public, that a group of angry Catholics took the time and pain to write an extremely detailed, 400-page report to Rome, which led to the defenestration of the bishop John Favalora (I will resist the temptation of telling you what fava also means in Italian; let us say that in this case, it applies well to Favalora’s head), his substitution with an orthodox chap and the above-mentioned cleaning of the pig-stall now apparently well on its way.

Good news all around, then. Well, not really. How can it be possible that an entire diocese falls prey of a homo mafia and no one seems to notice much until the local Catholics get really angry? Come on, folks: is it possible that no rumour comes to the ear of other bishops and other functionaries, and from there to the nuncio? How is it possible to arrive to such extremes of depravity without the matter becoming the subject of the usual whispers and rumours, hints and allegations? We are not talking of clearly secret cases of child abuses here; we are talking of a behaviour that must have been noticed by the clergy as it has been noticed by the laity. How can it be that a group of rightly angered Catholics writes a 400-pages report without first trying to address things in a different way within the US (bishop’s conference’s relevant office, say; apostolic nuncio, say)? Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that steps were undertaken before writing the report, and they haven’t achieved anything? And how is it possible that what was plain to see for the people outside, was fully unknown to the people inside the US clerical apparatus?

Now 109 of the 400 pages are in the hands of “Gawker”, a rather vulgar, secular gossip magazine whose direct link I am not going to publish, but the page I linked to has the link for those willing to deepen the matter. The behaviour described therein would let your blood freeze it it had been put in place in, say, a commercial enterprise; but it becomes outright scary if you think that it all happened in a big diocese of the Catholic Church.

One can’t escape the uncomfortable though that even after so many scandals, the old habit of the full-time wearing of earplugs and blinkers doesn’t want to die; and one must at this point wonder whether other similar situations exist, whose only difference is that in their case there is no group of admirably organised Catholics like we had – thankfully – in Miami.

Scary thought, really.

Mundabor

DOMA: Catholic Call to Arms

The President needs more training.

CNA has a story about Dan Avila, an advisor to the US Bishop, calling Catholics to arms with words whose clarity can only be lauded.

“We just can’t simply sit back. Every Catholic and every Catholic institution concerned about marriage and the family will need to be able to step forward and advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act as federal policy,”

“Even if there’s no immediate prospect for this bill to race through Congress, the fact is that the pressure is building and the case is being made for the eventual demise of DOMA. All those concerned about the preservation of marriage simply need to pay attention, stay tuned, and be ready to respond.”

“Marriage is the keystone of the common good. When you erase from a policy on marriage any reference to sexual difference, you will force the government to ignore and to be indifferent to the absence of either the man or the woman in the most fundamental relationship that we know of.”

“I would daresay that Congressman Nadler and others who are advocating the repeal of DOMA are not also advocating for the repeal of the requirement that be limited to people,” he said. Many who argue for same-sex marriage have taken positions against recognizing group marriage, even as polygamists have filed suit charging that polygamy bans are discriminatory.

One can’t say for sure that the US Bishop will respond to this call to arm with half the energy it would require; but one thing seems clear to me: this issue is going to stay with us, and it will grow in public awareness as 2012 approaches. By supporting the (hoped for) move to repeal the DOMA, Adolf Hussein Obama has taken sides and he will have to live with the consequences.

It surprises me that Adolf Hussein would choose the side that has lost 31 times out of 31, but this is such a self-deluded child president that one should never be too surprised at seeing him, once again, piddle out of the potty-chair without even noticing the puddle.

I do hope he’ll have more of these brilliant initiatives in the months to come. More liberal, more socialist, more populist, more “change”, more Obama.

Go on, Adolf Hussein; you saw how good it worked in 2010….

Mundabor

Mexican Bishop In Trouble About Homos

Bishop Raul Vera Lopez

The CNA reports that Bishop Raul Vera Lopez of Saltillo, Mexico has put himself in a bit of a trouble for his – and his priests’ – relaxed attitude towards Sodomy. CNA now confirms that he has declared to the press that he has “received some questions” from the Vatican, which certainly doesn’t bode well for his chances of having a tranquil autumn.

From what I can read from the CNA press release, Bishop Vera seems one of the rather strange ones. He accuses a Catholic press agency (ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language version of the CNA; which latter yours truly knows as rather factual and not inclined to fight ideological fights against anyone, much less bishops) of having published “outrageous things” that misrepresent his thinking and let him appear at odd with Church teaching; but then he goes on to say that they do it because…

“they are driven by prejudice and phobias against the homosexual community….”

hhhmmm….is this bishop’s talk? Am I sitting in front of the wrong cinema screen? Call me a cynic, but whenever I hear someone accusing someone else of being “homophobic”, I know that heresy is not far away.. How can a press agency, of all things, be driven by such phobias? And a Catholic one, at that? Methinks, they are just being (charitably) Christian? And who are in most cases those who accuse others – and the Church, with great pleasure – of being “homophobic”, but the friends of sodomy and the enemies of the Church?

The bishop’s utterances appear, therefore, already suspect. It is as if yours truly would be accused of being, say, anti-semitic and would reply by saying “ACI Prensa has misrepresented my thinking about the Jews; and they do it because they are clearly linked with the Jewish plutocracy”. Not very credible, is it now?

The CNA describes the controversial activities of bishop Vera as follows:

In March of this year, Bishop Vera published a statement on the diocesan website expressing support for the “sexual, family and religious diversity forum.” The event was aimed at “eradicating what some sectors of the Church believe about homosexuality” — especially the belief “that homosexual actions are contrary to God.”

This is, if confirmed, rather strong tobacco as a bishop – or a diocesan site – expressing “support for sexual diversity” is not unlikely to get the “Golden Sodomite” Prize for the current year; the more so when it is maintained that homosexual actions be not contrary to God. Strange god, this one; perhaps they are confusing with Baal.

Even stranger it becomes when one reflects – as, again, the CNA reports – that the bishop has expressed his opinions in the frame of the continuing support for an organisation called San Elredo community, founded by an American (still) priest called Father Robert Coogan.

This chap has managed, in a remarkable feat, to maintain that his group is not in opposition to Church teaching and at the same time to be on record with the following words:

“How can a person with same-sex attraction have a fulfilling life? And the only answer the Catechism gives is to tell them to be celibate, and that is not enough.”

Now this is very, very colourful (there can be no fulfilling life without sexual satisfaction; that’s a new one from a priest, and says rather a lot about Father Coogan’s own habits) as the ability of claiming to be orthodox whilst screaming around that one isn’t is not given to everyone.

Father Coogan’s and bishop Vera’s logic seem to be remarkably aligned, though; which is probably why they seem to get along so well.

We’ll see how this pans out. It can be – I mean, in theory there’s always a lot that “can be” – that ACI Prensa truly has misunderstood the poor bishop; that the remarks about them being “homophobic” is not authentic; and that when Father Coogan says that celibacy is not enough, he means that homosexuals must pray a lot. Which would be strange, because the Catechism says that, too.

Again, we’ll see how this develops. In the meantime, it is nice to notice that in Rome they have directed their attention towards Mexico.

Mundabor

Michael Voris “Madrid” Video Response

This is the “Vortex” dedicated to the strange – though rather transparent in its intentions – initiative of the WYD organisers.

The video largely repeats what was already said in the message from Real Catholic Tv that has been the object of another post. Still, there are two new elements that are, in my eyes, extremely important:

1) it is the first time that something like this happens; and
2) the same need hasn’t been felt for other alleged “Catholic” groups planning the distribution of condoms or other activities in clear contrast with the Church’s teaching.

It seems, therefore, rather clear that what has happened here was a thinly disguised attempt to discredit Voris’ troops, whilst the usual “progressive” dissenters are left, as usual, largely undisturbed.

If they really want to damage true and sincere Catholics, I would suggest to the organisers of the World Youth Day that they try to do it in a less stupid way as it might be at least a bit entertaining. What they have done is, instead, simply pathetic.

Mundabor

Michael Voris “Madrid” Statement

This is the answer of Real Catholic TV to the “clarification” issued about their role in Madrid. Emphasis mine.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2011

REALCATHOLICTV.COM THANKS UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS FOR CLARIFICATION ON ROLE AT WORLD YOUTH DAY

SOUTH BEND, IN – The faithful who work at http://www.realcatholictv.com would like to thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for drawing attention to our existence and scheduled contributions to the upcoming World Youth Day events to be held in Madrid, Spain, as well as the launch of its new pilot program striving to address tough issues concerning sexuality and morals facing Catholic youth today, http://www.nobullinmadrid.com.

While we regret that some assistant to the Secretariat for Laity of the USCCB has not given us her approval “to participate in the cultural program”, we prefer to rely upon the higher authority of Our Lord Himself, and an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church as it does what it can to increase the authentic Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church:

“The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself.” Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem, 3.

For every press release that is issued mentioning our existence, more and more tangible interest in http://www.realcatholictv.com is generated on the part of ordinary Catholic faithful simply seeking straightforward information on just how to be really Catholic – not only in word, but more importantly in deed, which all too often is lacking on the part of some Dioceses in too many parishes to the grave detriment of souls. For the significant increased attention drawn to the exclusive on-line product found on http://www.realcatholictv.com, we are very grateful.

The faithful at http://www.realcatholictv.com are in full compliance with the universal norms of the Code of Canon Law, the universal legislation of the Roman Catholic Church, which in no canon muzzles ordinary Catholic faithful from using themselves on the web as genuine instruments of dissemination of Catholic principles. To the contrary, the Second Vatican Council calls upon every single Catholic to do his or her share to build up genuine observance of authentic Catholic Faith and Morals, which we only strive to achieve in a concrete and updated format resonating with the youth of today.

To learn more about us, check us out at http://www.realcatholictv.com, and http://www.nobullinmadrid.com. Press and other Media are invited to contact Ms. Susan Vance, Director of Communications, directly at 248-545-5716, or by e-mail at info@realcatholictv.com

Very light-hearted, but spot on.

Mundabor

“Protect the Seal of Confession” Banner

Several blogs are now sporting the new, elegant banner “Protect the seal of confession”, the creation of the St. Genesius Blog.

I will insert an image of this on my sidebar and to do things tidily and without risk of links breaking, I need to post the image in a blog post of my site and then link the image to this blog post.

This is, very honestly,  the main reason for this blog post.

As I am there, I suggest that you consider inserting this on your blog (if you have one) or alternatively mail it around to people you know and won’t feel spammed by you.

Every little helps.

Mundabor

About “Instant Saints”

Unnecessary and controversial haste: Blessed Pope John Paul II

We all know and hopefully dislike the “instant” that has become so common in our time. Instant coffee, instant soup, instant gratification. After a while, it turns out that the instant coffee isn’t really at par with the non-instant one, the instant soup is even worse, and the instant gratification is not really gratifying and only takes one away from more important gratifications requiring, alas, much more time; guitar instead of video games, say, or learning Italian to read your Dante properly, or just something simple like a slowly and lovingly cooked meal rather than pre-processed garbage.

Andrea Tornielli at “Vatican Insider” has now a rather worrying story about a new manifestation of this instant gratification mentality, “instant canonisation”.

The re-inventor (in modern times) of this new fashion is – and how could it have been otherwise – the late Pope, Blessed John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was not one for waiting, particularly if easily gained instant popularity for the Church was part of the equation. Therefore, he sounded around whether in the case of Mother Theresa those oppressive red tape procedures – already largely massacred from … himself – could not have been skipped altogether, elegantly jumping the boring formality of beatification and immediately starting to work on the next Great Media Show And Popularity Festival, Mother Teresa’s canonisation.

Those asked must have politely defined the initiative, in “Yes, Prime Minister” parlance, “courageous”, because even if John Paul II skipped, with the usual athleticism, the minimum waiting time, the beatification itself was not skipped.

We are now informed that after the death of the late Pope, the same ideas were circulated; this time, concerning Pope John Paul himself, and promoted by none other than his secretary, Stanislaw Dziwisz. Here the Polish athleticism reached Usain Bolt proportions, the idea that a Pope should make a historical exception in the matter of the canonisation of his own predecessor being very similar to Merriam-Webster’s definition of “questionable”.

Happily, Pope Benedict had the sense of braking the impetus of the former secretary, though he didn’t see it fit to stick to the rules, either. Therefore, we got another “exception”, the second in just a few years. Predictably, this second exception didn’t fail to damage the institution of Beatification, – which is, as you will remember, not a matter of infallibility like the canonisation – attract vocal criticism and, in general, succeed in making of a rather uncontroversial institution the object of loud disputes.

This, the late Pope had not deserved, as his undoubtedly saintly character and exemplary life (as a religious, I mean) would have certainly allowed for a slowly cooked, but far more savoury and enjoyable beatification at a later point in time. It surprises one that the Church, accustomed and expected to think in very long terms, should completely forget her own wise habits regarding an institution so directly linked with her prestige and reputation.

Like instant coffee and instant soup, instant beatification proved a rather tasteless, inferior product.

Mundabor