Yes, that's exactly what is so intriguing about this, but just because Fr. Wylie's a diplomat doesn't mean he doesn't also have eyes, a brain and some intestinal fortitude. Pope Pius XII was also a diplomat, and he certainly didn't lack the ability to call a spade a spade when necessary.

I think Fr. Wylie, who has lived in NYC for a number of years, has a very good grasp of the pathetic and precarious situation of Latin Mass Catholics in the Northeast and merely exhorted the people to ask for what has been promised to them by Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. From Fr. Wylie's sermon:

You need to assert that you belong to the Church as fully as any other community . . . You have a right to find the Mass (and not only on Sundays); and not only the Mass, but the other sacraments and rites of the Church. Closing this parish is more akin to closing a linguistic parish or a Oriental rite parish. What becomes of you?No longer, I say, should you think of yourselves as squatters in the mighty edifice of Holy Church, nor should you find yourselves turned out like squatters.

No, one shouldn't normally resort to extreme measures, esp. if one is a trained diplomat. Fr. Wylie must certainly know how to weigh situations and calculate potential risks/ blowback, and his judgment may have been that the situation is so dire for Latin Mass Catholics in the Northeast that someone must sound the alarm and wake up the sheep, or they will shortly be eliminated and ravaged by the wolves. (He mentioned wolves in his sermon, by the way.)

That someone was imprudent enough to invite attack does not justify the attack.

Moreover, it the Church is going to come to grips with its own problems, it needs more priests with the courage to risk censure in order to say what needs to be said.

And this is the same group that raised 1 million a decade ago to restore an historic church which the diocese then closed and sold to NYU (which then demolished it to build a new dorm). I suppose he thought that "tact" wasn't really helping anyone.

That's really awful. Now I need to find something to cheer me up.

As our now departed German pastor of 38 years often said, "The Irish ruined the Church." YMMV.

Far be it from this old crank from California to know anything about NY chancery v curia politicking, but one has to wonder (paraphrasing the cliche anti-women's lib rejoinder) "What do Catholics want?"
I have music directed, been "Jefferson" and "Rutledge" and have seen better and lesser productions enough of "1776" to know that there is a middle ground between the establishment and the plebeians when it comes to revolution or evolution (if you're being PC about it.)
Progressives such as Cdl. Dolan are "the establishment" whether they like the reality or not. They're not at the top of the food chain, most likely and often don't wish to be, and are perfectly content to have enough handlers ensure they don't step in it and stay in everyone's good graces and favor. And like others of their ilk, Franklin, Jefferson, Dickinson, Lee et alia (I can't stop using that since Peter K), they know they risk something by letting John Adams enter the congressional house, Adams at least being a canonist and NOT his uncle Samuel (of blessed memory.) But Adams was literally and totally invited into that house.
Tangential digression: are we all also familiar with Geo. Kaufmann's "The Man Who Came to Dinner?" Good. Just because "Sheridan Whiteside" was personally a jerk doesn't mean that anything that emanated from his mouth or pen was bad. And he was also invited in the door.
If the royal surrogates of NYC didn't vet completely the discomfiting Fr. "Adams," er, Wylie, then it is upon them to do what Whiteside's maligned host had the decency to do, and remain a tolerant if not accommodating host.
It's like the wild west everywhere now, with or without firearms, shoot first, explain later, and let God sort 'em out.
I'm with Wood on this one- we need prophets and poets and real people in the pulpits, now. Dolan, if this plays out as it seems it will, may hang the scarlet letter around his own collar as regards his publicly unabated love-fest with all that HHF has said and stands for, according to, wait for it, Dolan. Done.

He would have said: "Well, done! The Church may not agree in principle with you, but it took a lot of courage for you to publicly voice your opinion, and for that, I applaud you."

Actually, what I wrote isn't so far from something he actually said. Truth is stranger than fiction.

There's something about the Traditional Latin Mass that makes some parts of the hierarchy extremely uncomfortable and suddenly ungenerous. I've always found it a little bizarre and I've never understood the source of this fear. It's like they're dealing with a colony of lepers, rather than sheep of the fold.

That's very true. It's frustrating to see so many bend over backwards to make very questionable cases for why certain progressive priests, parishes, organizations, and groups of people are technically within the rules, while there is absolutely no tolerance for anything from groups of those who hold closely to the traditions of the church. I've seen it happen, and it's happened to groups I'm involved with as well.

You would think that the hierarchy would want to be more open to people who are trying to follow what the church teaches compared to those who are (in many cases) actively working against the church.

There's something about the Traditional Latin Mass that makes some parts of the hierarchy extremely uncomfortable and suddenly ungenerous. I've always found it a little bizarre and I've never understood the source of this fear. It's like they're dealing with a colony of lepers, rather than sheep of the fold.

Exactly. Selective outrage.

Melo, I think your historical analogy is very apt, and that John Adams is a brilliant comparison with the priest in question who is anything but a radical hothead. Like John Adams, Fr. Wylie is also a lawyer and has very distinguished credentials.

I think the narrative continues that Fr. Wylie's impassioned sermon was indeed much like John Adams' speech at the Boston Massacre trial---the decision by a reasonable, measured and careful man to intervene publicly in a blatantly unjust situation at great cost to himself, an effort that is regarded by myself and no doubt by many others as a "most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested action" as John Adams himself in his old age described his trial speech (so convincingly re-enacted by that wonderfully modest and understated actor Paul Giamotti).

Just for the record: Fr Justin Wylie (B.A. Ll.B. Ll.M, Ph.B, ST.B) is a Priest of the Holy Roman Church and Advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa who matriculated from St Benedict’s in 1990. Fr Justin was the first South African candidate accepted at Almo Collegio Caprania, the world’s oldest seminary and was the Deputy Master of Ceremonies for the Papal Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome and a papal delegate.

Okay, I realize reading the text of a homily is not going to provide the nuances that inflection and tone of voice would, and I ma have missed something, but in what words that Fr Wylie used does this "attack," "blast," or tactlessness subsist?
The parishioners or staff at St Agnes are the only ones I could see taking offense.

Will this be the path Christ charts or will we make of ourselves instruments of the evil one for division and derision? The test of this, as in all things, is charity. Deus caritas est; et ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est. Where there is a breakdown of charity, there also is the spirit of the antichrist. I urge you, therefore, to be obedient and to be charitable with your legitimate superiors in all this, as well as with each other. Be firm and clear, also, and just; however, let charity always be the litmus test of whom it is you serve.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Well, another piece of the puzzle just popped up on Rorate Caeli blog.

I see no reason at all to dispute what Rorate is reporting. Let's do a little experiment: I'll call Msgr. Weber's office and verify if this is true and will report back.

P.S. Rorate Caeli is run by a Catholic layperson and not, as far as I know, by a professional journalist. Nevertheless, I've always found the reporting cautious, carefully researched and prudently and charitably framed. I applaud the exemplary (and unpaid) efforts by whoever runs RC to inform people of news and events from a traditional Catholic perspective.

Furthermore, since it's their blog, they're perfectly entitled to their own bias, as we all are, don't you agree? If you don't like what they do, why don't you start your own blog?

Bishop Athanasius Schneider said a few days back, "Thanks be to God the internet exists," and I couldn't agree more. The internet is the great equalizer and a very useful medium for "the little people" to speak truth to power.

I'm a long-time admirer of Rorate Caeli blog and have invariably found their editorializing (which is always carefully delivered as such) fascinating, erudite, well stated and consistent with the Catholic faith. Do I always agree? Maybe not 100% all the time, every day, but I'm always eager to know what New Catholic thinks on a particular issue so I can put it in my own processor and come up with my own opinion. Rorate Caeli is an essential part of my periodic news-gathering operations.

That's very kind and generous of you, Andrew. I appreciate it very much, and, believe me, I'm trying to stick to the facts as much as possible, too.

This is what we have: a) the text of Fr. Wylie's sermon, b) Fr. Wylie's distinguished credentials and record of service, c) an extensive collection on YouTube of his inspiring, thought-provoking, and solidly Catholic sermons in NYC churches, d) the facts of his summary dismissal and banishment from the Archdiocese and e) Msgr. Weber's statement that this action came directly from the Cardinal's office--the rest is conjecture.

I don't want to extend this painful subject, but things just got even more convoluted in the Archdiocese of New York. It would appear that six blocks away from Holy Innocents where those parishioners are preparing themselves for the closure and probable demolition of their beloved church, the parishioners at St. Francis of Assisi on West 31st St. are preparing for this celebration.

Now I'm an EF musician and not very familiar with GIRM, but I hope one of the knowledgeable people here can please reassure me that GIRM does not allow for a "Pre-Pride Mass" which I suppose is the prelude for a "Pride Mass."

Please, please tell me that GIRM doesn't permit liturgy committees to do an "insert-theme-here" thing with the Mass?

There has to be a proscription in GIRM against this, right? Or else, what's to stop people from using the Holy Mass to canonize any political/ideological agenda under the sun? What's to stop us from having a "White Pride Mass", a "Taliban Pride Mass," a "Baseball Mass", an "Anarchy Mass", you name it?

Actually there are "white masses," "red masses," "baccalaureate masses," ...

Some people have white masses in their noses.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that those are not the same.

No, they are definitely not. I was more speaking to her "question," i.e. criticism regarding whether there exist other "themed" masses. There indeed are other themed masses. But a "white-pride" mass is not anything similar to a "white mass."

I half-way expect to see green masses for the faithful children of God who donate money.

That already happens. In my former diocese, my parish hosted an annual mass, presided by the bishop, for those who were the biggest supporters of the diocese. I think the people that got invited to that mass were those who gave at least $100,000 a year to the diocese, or something like that. There was a special lunch with the bishop after that mass.

It's being advertised on the official website of St. Francis of Assisi parish. Whether the Archdiocese of NY condones it, I don't know.

My point isn't to pick on gay people; I would object just as fiercely if it were a "Freedom Mass" for those who advocate for liberty from oppressive government or any such obviously political/ideological/sociological message. I'm just concerned about the Mass being used as a tool for a specific group, and random extraneous themes being injected into it as opposed to a Mass being offered for a special intention, and the Mass itself left alone without being skewed and embellished to serve a specific theme such as these:

Pajama Mass, Girl Scout Mass, LifeTeen Mass, Folk Mass, Polka Mass, Jazz Mass,
Circus Mass, Red (as in Communist) Mass (in Vienna), OctoberFest Mass or a Beer Tent/Biker Mass, Balloon Mass, Clown Mass, Puppet Mass

I'm just concerned about the Mass being used as a political/ideological tool, and random extraneous themes being injected into it as opposed to a Mass being offered for a special intention, and the Mass itself left alone without being skewed and embellished to serve a specific theme such as:

Pajama Mass, Girl Scout Mass, LifeTeen Mass, Folk Mass, Polka Mass, Jazz Mass,
Circus Mass, Red (as in Communist) Mass (in Vienna), OctoberFest Mass or a Beer Tent/Biker Mass, Balloon Mass, Clown Mass, Puppet Mass

Well, that ship has sailed. I gave up even having a negative opinion of this years ago when I realized all of the special masses being set up by those Church authorities whom I considered to be the most orthodox and trust-worthy.

Like I said earlier, we've got the Red Mass for lawyers and judges, the White Mass for healthcare workers, the Blue Mass for police, the Mass for Immigrants, the annual Pro-life Mass, the Baccalaureate Masses, on and on and on.

It seems like these "themed masses" have been around for a while and aren't going anywhere soon, and they seem to be endorsed by everyone.

Taliban Pride Mass

I always enjoy going to these.

While millions join the theme, I'll sing on, I'll sing on.

I think Votive Masses are fine. That's about as far as I go for themed Masses or liturgy properly speaking (i.e., including the Divine Office and rituals involving the sacraments). Let public devotions be themed otherwise; that's where group affinities are traditionally channeled in Catholicism. We make the liturgy carry too much water in that regard these days.

You can't ignore people who have an orientation that you don't like and hope that they go away.

The Church can, should, and must reach out to them.

Being gay - the orientation and the attraction - is a much different issue - indeed, related to a person's identity - than a random sin one is tempted to commit, such as gluttony, envy, etc.

And, as you are well aware, there is no sin in the orientation, but in the committed acts.