I don’t know if reading Father Z’s blog constitutes a guilty pleasure or not. It is amusing to see the TLM linked to homosexuality. In some sort of reverse, mind you.
I often wonder what it is that critics of Summorum Pontificum are really objecting to. Some say that they object to the “out dated” ecclesiology. Quite often I think their objections go deeper… to Catholic moral teaching. Traditional liturgy usually goes hand in hand with traditional Catholic teaching on faith and morals.
It (sic) suspect most critics of the older Mass don’t, for one reason or another, want traditional teaching about morals.
This kind of reasoning would probably wash you out of high school debate. But it’s not out of touch from the coaching you might get if Karl Rove were your icon.
I find it interesting that a discussion about other people’s morals is as juicy as well-cooked beef. Equally interesting is the line of thought that liturgical traditionalists have settled some sort of moral high ground above the rest of Catholicism. I have to ask: what would the pope make of this?
As for a discussion on sin, I’d prefer to stick to my own and keep it in context of a meeting with my spiritual director or my confessor.
As for the merits of the TLM or lack thereof, it seems there’s enough to discuss on the matters of ecclesiology, schism, obedience, charity, and Vatican II without trying to cloud matters with some pharisee moment of morality.