I would like to know what is wrong with reporting liturgical abuses to the authorities - especially those related to the Eucharist and Mass - when the complaints are made "in truth and charity".
Would it be better to remain silent and let the abuses continue, under the pretext of "I am not my brother's keeper" or "it is not my business"?
Peter Lynch (September AD2000) refers to "spies". Who has got time to go "spying" these days, when time is so precious?
Abuses that are reported by concerned Catholics are perpetrated openly, because too many people are acquiescent, while others are either too timid to disapprove or object, and find it easier to remain passive.
The whistle-blowers are conscientious Catholics who refuse to be "partners in crime" by their silence.
If there were more Catholic Christians prepared to defend what is right and what is good by denouncing abuses, liturgical or otherwise, we would all be the better for it. Our religious leaders would be more vigilant, for their sake and ours.
And to regard the leadership and authority of the Church as redundant is the wishful thinking of lapsed Catholics. The words of Jesus to His apostles were, "teach them to obey everything I have commanded" (Matthew 28:20).
Those venerable, wise and holy men, whom Mr Lynch discourteously and disrespectfully calls "men in frocks, in Rome", have a clear mandate to teach and lead under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; they keep the Catholic Church true to its mission in spite of negative forces.
East Malvern, Vic