The Spanish Church of Sant Pere in Corbera d'Ebre

Talk about a "worship space"...

The church and town was destroyed in the Spanish Civil War in the Battle of the Ebro, 25 July–16 November, 1938.  The ruined church was left standing as a memorial of the decimated town and the many dead.  The church was never restored - simply preserved.  Recently, Spanish architect Ferran Vizoso designed and installed a huge plexi-glass roof system to protect and preserve the ruin and restore it to multifunctional public use.  Story here.

Panorama of Corbera d'Ebre

 

Why are Catholics so worried about the Pope and what he says?

"He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

The problem with the Pope - really?

Why do they attribute some sort of strategy behind the Holy Father's response to journalist's questions?  His answers are matter of fact - simple, clear, understandable.  He knows exactly what he is doing and saying - but I seriously doubt he's playing war games with journalists.  I also do not think the Holy Father needs handlers to censor him.

Yet EWTN spokesman Raymond Arroyo seems to think the Holy Father needs handlers, that he needs distancing from speaking directly to people - lest he be misinterpreted.

The entire episode reminds us that papal handlers do have their place. As cumbersome as they are, and as much as they distance the pontiff from his people, handlers can protect the Pope from this sort of misinterpretation. Off the cuff, vigorous expressions have their place, but so do unambiguous, vetted statements—especially when dealing with a media unversed in Church teaching.  

Likewise, others express worry - 'concern' over how the MSM and dissidents will misinterpret what the Pope said, and most especially, what he meant.  Just about everyone from self-appointed apologist-theologians with their own brand of online tenure and EWTN sponsorship, to Cardinals and bishops bend over backwards to clarify that the Pope's words were somehow impossible for ordinary people to understand without a clear understanding of what the catechism teaches.  They claim the Pope speaking in ordinary language is a "problem" - because his words may be hi-jacked by the enemy.

Don't cry for me Argentina.

I commented on a post a few days ago and said I doubt the Pope sees others as enemies.  I also doubt he needs handlers.  He's from Argentina people.  He lived through some pretty gruesome history and his life was anything but comfortable.  He knows how words are twisted, how propaganda works against the Church.  People are concerned about what and how the Pope speaks?  That's absurd.  Who do you think you are?

You want to censor the Pope?  You want handlers to keep him distant from the people?  You are afraid that he will be misinterpreted?  That's totally hypocritical.  That's like Peter remonstrating with Christ, trying to hold him back, saying he shouldn't have to suffer, he should avoid the cross.  Christ whipped around and said, 'get behind me Satan'.  The Gospel story should be sufficient to put us in our place.

The Pope said what he said.  Stop trying to speak for him.

Every Pope has said things and has done things that have been twisted to suit agendas.  How is that our concern?  Why do we think we have to worry about how the Pope's words are perceived?  Haven't we lived through misinterpretation of actual documents of Vatican II?  What about St. JPII kissing the Koran?  How about Benedict's condom statement?  It is not long ago pious pundits were worried Benedict wasn't allowed to do what he wanted, that his desires were not being met - handlers/bureaucrats were holding things up.  (Seriously - do you people talk and write so much you no longer remember what you say?)

Aren't official documents from the Popes and the CDF routinely ignored or reinterpreted to suit those whose responsibility it is to teach and abide by them?  Are not pastoral concessions/dispensations routinely made for Catholics in all sorts situations?  How about married priests?  How about annulments, which secular critics refer to as Catholic divorce.  How about admitting men with homosexual inclination to seminary?  Kind of an inconvenient truth, huh?

You are worried that the faith and Catholic teaching will be misunderstood?  That the Pope should only speak with prepared theological texts?  This is exactly what the Pope has spoken against - distancing the faithful through over dependence on academic, theological, dogmatic dissertation and cold, official statements in ecclesial language.

The Pope speaks directly, plainly.

He is the son of Italian immigrants.  He is the type of man who sits in the kitchen and talks with the family and friends who stop by.  He's ordinary.  He welcomes persons into his life.  He went into the favelas and made friends with ordinary people and spoke their language, shared their concerns.  When he says something, he means it.  He welcomes sinners and eats with them.  He doesn't brow beat theology and dogma and damnation every time he opens his mouth.

He doesn't need holier-than-thou handlers watering down or icing over the faith.

UPDATE 8/5/13:  But if you want to see the hand wringing in action - check out Fr. Z's post here.

The Great Pardon of Assisi

Yesterday at adoration I imagined I intruded upon this scene shown in the painting.

THE INDULGENCE: 

“The Portiuncula indulgence is the first plenary indulgence that was ever granted in the Church. There were indeed indulgences at all times, but they were only partial, and only a partial remission of the temporal punishments could be obtained by them. But he who gains the Portiuncula indulgence is freed from all temporal punishments and becomes as pure as after holy baptism. This was also the reason why Pope Honorius was astonished when St. Francis petitioned for the confirmation of this indulgence, for such an indulgence, up to that time, had been entirely unknown. It was only after he had come to the conviction that Jesus Christ himself wished it, that he granted the petition of the saint and confirmed the indulgence” 

August 2nd is the feast of Portiuncula. A plenary indulgence is available to anyone who will:
1. Receive sacramental confession within 20 days prior to or following the day the indulgence is sought)
2. Receive the Holy Eucharist at Holy Mass on August 2nd3. Enter a parish church and, with a contrite heart, pray the Our Father, Apostles Creed, and a prayer of his/her own choosing for the intentions of the Pope.

This indulgence is attributable to a soul in Purgatory. Let as many as possible obtain this indulgence tomorrow to release a multitude of souls into Heaven.

H/T Byron 

Why Fr. Z is so snarking at times.

 

 

 

He gets pretty snarky with the LCWR, Nuns on the Bus, the NCR, and groups such as Association of U.S. Catholic Priests.  Here is one reason why - in his own words - a response to an NCR article by Jamie Manson, "When does our hope for Francis become denial?":

Jamie is in pain, the pain felt by so many victims of injustice.

She is in even more pain because of Francis saying that women can’t be ordained!  She writes:

As a woman who has discerned a calling to the priesthood for more than 20 years, Francis’ hiding behind John Paul II’s theology and claiming that the “door is closed” on the ordination issue was profoundly painful. Hearing these words, I felt the same kind of humiliation I would have experienced if a door had literally been slammed in my face.

Jamie Jamie Jamie… you think you’ve known pain?  

What about my pain? 

I was thrown out of seminary twice…  

… before I was ordained by the author of Ordinatio sacerdotalis. - Fr. Z

Fr. Z knows the really dark side of "nice".

People should give him a break.  I know who some of the people are who had a hand in his 'exile'.  Many have no idea how mean 'nice' religious people can be.  Talk about abuse.

 

Good help is hard to find....

 

... I caught my gardener just laying around today.

 

 

"I just sat down!"

"What?"

"Whatever - I'm still on break."

 

 

"Hey Cat!  I want those hosta blooms taken off before they go to seed."

Happy Feast Day!

St. Ignatius Loyola

My conversion was solidified in and through the Exercises... it was my first school of prayer.

For your consideration: On the effect of the Pope's words ... and what Cardinal Dolan said.

 

From Fr. James Martin, S.J.

Good timing on this new video, just released from Ignatian News Network, on the Catholic Church's outreach to the LGBT community. INN visited America magazine a few months ago, to film a Jesuit vocation video, and, during their stay, asked ...Fr. Matt Malone, SJ, editor in chief, and me to reflect on Cardinal Dolan's comments that the church could do a better job of welcoming LGBT men and women. Believe it or not, INN had planned to release the video today, before knowing about the Pope Francis's comments. (Though I suspect the title might be a new addition!)

 I think more of the effects will soon be noticed.  For instance, I doubt very much that children of 'gay couples' will be kicked out of Catholic school any longer.  Or that a man who lives with another man will be told not to lector at Mass any longer.

Just a guess.

How the Pope's words may have lifted a burden - for some, a burden too heavy to carry.

"Come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome."

"If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”

The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter." - Pope Francis on gay priests, and gay people.

One of my best friends actually teared up in reaction to the Holy Father's interview on the plane from Rio back to Rome.  He told me that what the Pope said made him feel accepted, included.  He said what many gay people said - that before this Pope even spoke the word 'gay', he always felt - even from me - that Catholics judged him unfavorably because of his sexual attraction.  I told him the Pope didn't actually change Church teaching by what he said ... yet my friend perceived it in a much more positive way...

The Pope actually affirmed Church teaching, making reference to the Catechism - but he spoke in more simple, understandable, personable terms - making some people uncomfortable, while making others feel worthwhile.

"The pope's conversational tone is a welcome change from the more dogmatic approach we're used to from members of the church hierarchy."

Michael Bayly, Minneapolis' local gay Catholic 'activist/dissenter' is more articulate in his reaction to the Pope's statement.  Though I disagree with Michael's perspective - especially as regards Pope Benedict and Church teaching on homosexuality, ordination of women, and so on, Michael poses an interesting contrast with Pope Francis' statement and what has been said in the past about 'gay' priests. 

"... according to media reports, the pope said the following in relation to homosexuality and the priesthood: 

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?  

Many commentators are saying that this statement shifts the hierarchy's message not just on gays and the priesthood but on gay issues in general. For one thing, it's apparently the first documented use by a pope of the word "gay" – the term that gay people themselves most often use yet which some within the church view as implying "ideological commitments" at odds with being Catholic. Also, the pope's conversational tone is a welcome change from the more dogmatic approach we're used to from members of the church hierarchy.

 Do you remember how, about four or five years ago, there was a lot of talk about something called "spiritual paternity"? It was actually an idea, a theological concept, used to support the judgment that gay men and women are ontologically deficit in such a way that they cannot serve as priests.

Speaking in October 2008, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski of the Congregation for Catholic Education stated that "Homosexuals [and women] cannot be admitted to the priesthood because of the nature of priesthood in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. . . . When we ask why Christ reserved the priesthood to men, we speak of this spiritual paternity."

The cardinal's statements were in relation to a Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood, one that made it clear that homosexuals were barred from being priests by the "paternal" nature of priesthood and their inherent lack of "affective maturity."

 I recall how many people were deeply offended by the judgmental and insensitive tone of both the Vatican document and Cardinal Grocholewski's remarks on gay priests.

At a Vatican press conference at around the time of the release of the document, Grocholewski was asked if homosexuals committed to lifelong celibacy could be ordained. He said "no," adding that:

"The candidate does not necessarily have to practice homosexuality (to be excluded.) He can even be without sin. But if he has this deeply seated tendency, he cannot be admitted to priestly ministry precisely because of the nature of the priesthood, in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. Here we are not talking about whether he commits sins, but whether this deeply rooted tendency remains."

I don't know about you, but I look back on these statements and the idea of "spiritual paternity" and see a lot of judging going on in relation to gay men and the priesthood. - Wild Reed

To his credit, Michael concedes:

Pope Francis, unfortunately, isn't directly challenging these foundational notions of the hierarchy nor the 'official' teaching' that results from them. However, his words today to journalists traveling with him back to Rome from Rio de Janeiro are a step in the right direction and may well be paving the way for future developments.

While nothing Francis said suggested acceptance of what the hierarchy labels "homosexual acts," homosexual people, said the pope, should be treated with dignity and not be blackmailed or pressured because of their sexual orientation. - ibid

Church teaching cannot change on sexuality and marriage, so I think it is a false hope to expect any "future developments" in that direction.  What Michael recognizes however is the 'climate change' in how people are treated, or at least discussed.

Disclaimer:  I am not endorsing dissent.  My acceptance of, and fidelity to Catholic teaching is well documented on this blog.

Oh! Oh! The Pope mentioned something else too! MASONS!

I know!

"There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby ... a lobby of Masons.  This is the most serious problem for me." - Salt and Light

 

One more comment on what the Pope said as regards gay priests.

Did he really address the issue of gay priests?

Apparently.  What did he say again?

"I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.  They are bad.  If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.” 

The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter.  There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies.  This is the most serious problem for me." - Source

I do not disagree with the Holy Father.  He is speaking of men who have accepted Church teaching on sexuality and reformed their lives.

Although I'd like to point out that what the Pope said is pretty much how things have been handled and continue to be handled - all along.  Bishops, Cardinals, seminary rectors, and vocation directors have more or less always had the same attitude - and most still do, I am sure.  I have no doubt the powers that be know who the gay/ssa priests are in their diocese; the chanceries know, the personnel boards know,  the nuncios most likely know if a candidate for bishop has any history.  Those in charge also know which abbey (in Minnesota at least) and which religious group is gay friendly.  They know.  If we lay people know - they know.  I'm sure the Pope knows more than he admits.  Pope Benedict had to know.  Members of the curia know.  Cardinal Burke knows some stuff.  The seminary rectors knew and know.  The abbots know.  Your pastor probably knows.  If they say they don't know - it just means they do not have proof of misconduct.

Nothing new.

I'm not going to waste my time discussing the pros and cons of the matter any longer, since it doesn't concern me - it's not my responsibility.  It is what it is.

Over the years, I've said repeatedly that attitudes would be changing.  Church teaching cannot change - interpretation can and does change however.  I think you will now see the Church going along with Cardinal Dolan - "doing more for gay people."  Whatever that means?  I think now you will see priests doing what Fr. Martin S.J. hoped for - "coming out."  Gay/SSA men haven't been held back from seminary, despite the fact the documents forbade it.  Why?  Because "the problem is not that one has this tendency..."   And ,"if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has committed a sin and then that person experienced conversion, the Lord forgives and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives.  When we go to confession and we truly say “I have sinned in this matter,” the Lord forgets and we do not have the right to not forget because we run the risk that the Lord will not forget our sins, eh?" 

What the Pope said is pretty much what the practice has been and will be.  The Pope proposed nothing new.  Everything is possible with God.  There is no limit to his mercy - no accounting for sheer grace.  God's will be done.

What?

 

The Pope said 'gay'.

I heard him.

When he was talking about gays on the plane:  He said gay.

That kind of blows the 'don't call it gay, call it SSA' argument all to hell.

Well, that's all settled then isn't it.

 

“What is the cross that the Lord has given me?"

Felipe Passos

"What is the cross that he wants me to carry for his love?”

A young man in a wheel chair asked three million people to ask themselves that question as silence came over Copacabana.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jul 27, 2013 / 07:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The young Brazilian Felipe Passos moved the hearts of three million World Youth Day participants, including Pope Francis himself, when he told the story of how he became bound to a wheelchair and discovered “the Cross.” 

Felipe, 23, spoke at the World Youth Day prayer vigil July 27 at Copacabana Beach.
He told how at the end of the past World Youth Day, held in Madrid in 2011, he made two spiritual promises. He promised to stay chaste until marriage and to work hard so his prayer group of Ponta Grossa, in Brazil’s southern state of Paraná, could participate in this year’s World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro. 

With few resources, Felipe and his friends began saving money by working several hard jobs at the same time that they prepared themselves spiritually: praying, adoring the Blessed Sacrament, fasting and doing works of solidarity. 

Then a horrible thing happened. 

“In January of this year, two days before turning 23, two youths entered my house, armed, to rob the money we had gathered with so much sacrifice,” said Felipe. 

“I thought of the months of great efforts, of my family’s sacrificing, of my friends and colleagues… in what would have been snatched from us and I decided I would not give it,” he added July 27. 

Felipe saved the savings of the group, but received a gunshot wound that almost ended his life. 

“I was clinically dead, I had several cardiac arrests, and the doctor told my parents in the hospital ‘this boy has no hope,’ but I’m here and my community is here because of God’s mercy,” remarked Felipe. 

In front of a shocked crowd and in front of Pope Francis, who looked at him attentively, the Brazilian told how he was in coma, breathing through a tube, while his community offered prayer intentions and sacrifices so he would heal. 

Finally, when he became conscious, the first thing he did was ask for the Eucharist and after receiving it, he recovered rapidly. 

But Felipe, who was then bound to a wheelchair, stated “this is my cross, the cross the Lord sent me to come closer to him, to live more openly his grace and love.” 

When the three million youths broke out clapping, Felipe interrupted them.
“Silence!” he said. “Let’s listen to the Holy Spirit!” 

The 23-year-old then asked each of the youths present to take the cross they had hung around their neck, to hold it and look at it. 

Felipe invited them to meditate in silence on the questions: “What is the cross that the Lord has given me? What is the cross that he wants me to carry for his love?” - CNA

When the Holy Father said earlier that he wanted youth to stir things up, he scared people not accustomed to such language from the Pope.  The Pope wasn't calling for anarchy, but the commotion of the Holy Spirit.  He was calling young people - and the young at heart - to stir into flame the Living Flame of Love in their heart.  Stir up the embers of our faith into flame - that all may see.  To go out into the marketplace, as Pope Benedict might say.

He is saying nothing new - simply speaking, calling in a new way.  Others have done the same.  The Holy Father points directly to St. Francis - who didn't set out to start an order but set out to serve those most in need, to share his faith and make love known and loved.  St. JoseMaria Escriva proposed an even simpler apostolate - to sanctify ordinary life.  So many today are examples of how to do this - from Felipe Passos to young men such as Thomas Peters.  Peters, now recovering from a terrible accident, from the start dedicated himself to the Gospel of Life - going out into the streets.  Literally.  (Most recently in the March for Marriage.)

We have other examples of such dedicated witness in the lives of modern saints.  I think of Bl. Pier Giorgio whose own family did not know the extent of his good works, his political activity, his service to the Church, his dedication to the poor.  They found out at his funeral when crowds of ordinary people gathered to pay their respects.  Later, we have Bl. Alberto Marvelli who dedicated himself to helping the poor and rebuilding Rimini after WWII.  These were ordinary lay men who didn't wait for someone to come along and recruit them, but laid aside their lives, rolled up their sleeves - shouldered their cross, as it were - and sacrificed themselves for the Gospel. 

I'm convinced these are just a couple of examples of what the Pope is talking about when he says to 'shake things up'.

I might be wrong, but I don't think we should worry about how the Pope said it, rather just accept it - and "just do it".

But first ask: “What is the cross that the Lord has given me? What is the cross that he wants me to carry for his love?”

Then do it.
 

Fr. Z criticized for refusing to give Nazi salute at some sort of WWII Youth Day event.

Story-photo source.

Evidently some of the bishops asked him to dance, but he refused.  Then everybody raised their hands in the air - like they just don't care,  and he folded his arms in protest.  Now people are accusing him of being a WYD denier.

That's just dumb.

 

L'Amour Fou - Mad Love...

Saint Laurent and Berge

Quel dommage.

Last evening I watched the documentary L'Amour Fou on Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Berge.  L'amour fou can be translated as mad love, crazy love.  Berge and Saint Laurent were together for 50 years as business partners, and exclusive lovers for the first 18 of those years.  At the very end, the two were joined in a "same-sex civil union known as a Pacte civil de solidarité (PACS) in France."

I mention it at the onset because this week same sex marriage becomes legal in Minnesota.  Any proposal for same sex civil unions, though naively encouraged by some Catholics - including priests and bishops, was bypassed in Minnesota in favor of all out legalization of same sex marriage. 

Civil unions aren't enough for gay activists.  The situation in France demonstrates that.  France has now legalized same sex marriage.  Nevertheless, PACS has affected heterosexual marriage, in so far as many heterosexual couples have taken advantage of the civil union arrangement, which had originated as a way to accommodate same sex couples.

Although originally intended for same-sex couples, currently in France the majority of couples taking advantage of its law are now heterosexual couples who for one reason or another choose civil union rather than marriage, and that more heterosexual couples are opting for civil union rather than marriage. In fact, this trend was already in place in 2000, with 75% of unions between heterosexual couples (42% the previous years) and 95% in 2009. The process is commonly referred to as se pacser (IPA: [pakse], getting PACSed).

Back to L'Amour Fou.

It was an interesting film.  Saint Laurent was an important figure in the world of fashion, changing how women dressed in much the same way Chanel had done earlier.  He was also an influence in my early life, since I worked in retail-fashion and his influence was rather major, especially since he pretty much invented designer ready to wear.  He was also a player in the cultural scene of the time.  His relationship with Berge seemed to fall apart romantically due to too much night-clubbing and drug use in the '70's.  Saint Laurent worked all of his life and never had any time to simply be a carefree youth - the club scene and jet set society more or less made that available.  Berge remained devoted to the designer as well as to the business, and was always St. Laurent's stable partner.

At his funeral, which was a Catholic one, Berge eulogized his partner:

"I remember your first collection under your name and the tears at the end. Then the years passed. Oh, how they passed quickly. The divorce was inevitable but the love never stopped."

I think in Europe, funerals for Catholics who may have been alienated from the Church, take place without much fuss.  In this country not so much.  I have no problem with it since we never know the private ministry the deceased may have benefited from - specifically, there may have been a deathbed reconciliation.

That said, the film was rather depressing.  For all of his success and riches, Saint Laurent suffered from depression all of his life, and surely ended terribly depressed, though sober and clean of drugs and alcohol - he went through treatment in the early '90's I believe.  There is a desolation which comes through the narrative, albeit unintentionally. 

The film was also sad because it documents the liquidation of the estate and the extraordinary art and antique collection the two men amassed, which made millions for Berge.  Berge was able to let go, something he said Saint Laurent would not be able to do if he had survived Berge.  Sadly Berge admits he himself 'believes in nothing'.  No God.  No after life. "I don’t believe in the soul, neither in my own, nor in that of these objects."

That is so extremely sad - the saddest thing of all in fact.

I think Saint Laurent did believe however - I saw an ivory crucifix above his bed.

"One's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” - Luke 12:15

 

Mass Chat: Listen to the Pope.

"Ours is not an age of change, but a change of age."

Don't listen to the interpreters, the scoffers, the critics.  Don't be distracted by the theatrics of 'the road trip'.  Read what Pope Francis said to the Bishops - you will understand what he says - because he speaks simply. 

Dear brothers, the results of our pastoral work do not depend on a wealth of resources, but on the creativity of love. To be sure, perseverance, effort, hard work, planning and organization all have their place, but first and foremost we need to realize that the Church’s power does not reside in herself; it is hidden in the deep waters of God, into which she is called to cast her nets.

Another lesson which the Church must constantly recall is that she cannot leave simplicity behind; otherwise she forgets how to speak the language of Mystery. Not only does she herself remain outside the door of the mystery, but she proves incapable of approaching those who look to the Church for something which they themselves cannot provide, namely, God himself. At times we lose people because they don’t understand what we are saying, because we have forgotten the language of simplicity and import an intellectualism foreign to our people. Without the grammar of simplicity, the Church loses the very conditions which make it possible “to fish” for God in the deep waters of his Mystery. 

[...]

Today, we need a Church capable of walking at people’s side, of doing more than simply listening to them; a Church which accompanies them on their journey; a Church able to make sense of the “night” contained in the flight of so many of our brothers and sisters from Jerusalem; a Church which realizes that the reasons why people leave also contain
reasons why they can eventually return. But we need to know how to interpret, with courage, the larger picture.

[...]

... it is important to devise and ensure a suitable formation, one which will provide persons able to step into the night without being overcome by the darkness and losing their bearings; able to listen to people’s dreams without being seduced and to share their disappointments without losing hope and becoming bitter; able to sympathize with the brokenness of others without losing their own strength and identity. What is needed is a solid human, cultural, effective, spiritual and doctrinal formation.  - Read the entire document here.

There is so much contained in the Holy Father's address which I think explains much of what he has said 'off the cuff' since becoming Pope.

There is nothing to be afraid of with this Pope.

 

"The two disciples have left Jerusalem. They are leaving behind the “nakedness” of God. They are scandalized by the failure of the Messiah in whom they had hoped and who now appeared utterly vanquished, humiliated, even after the third day (vv. 17-21). Here we have to face the difficult mystery of those people who leave the Church, who, under the illusion of alternative ideas, now think that the Church – their Jerusalem – can no longer offer them anything meaningful and important. So they set off on the road alone, with their disappointment."