"Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I genuflected at Mass last week..."

There's a story about this Italian priest in the late 19th century. Seems he was called into the office of his bishop, and told to stop preaching on a very controversial subject. The priest agreed to do so, and asked for the order in writing. The bishop, for whatever reason (probably because he was a big wienie, like a few others we've known of lately) did not wish to put the order in writing. Very well, the young priest replied, I will continue to preach on this subject.

What happened to this young miscreant? Well, his name was Guiseppe Sarto. Most people know him better as Pope (Saint) Pius X. Not a bad career track, eh?

I'm bringing this up for the benefit of my dear Miss Emily, who seems to be concerned about all hell breaking loose in Steubenville over a bit of liturgical minutiae.

It is a reality of the natural law, as well as canon law. One who gives an order takes responsibility for the consequences of that order. It is also true in the military. Otherwise, people would be "pulling rank" all over the damn place, and orders would never get carried out.

This "order" about people having to receive communion standing (as the normative posture) was issued by the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy. One of the general norms of canon law (I forget which one) is that a lower authority cannot restrict that which is already permitted by a higher authority. For that reason alone, I'm not even sure the "order" is even binding. Neither is at least one canonist (and you know who you are) of my acquaintance.

Until a bunch of bureaucrats manage to get their priorities in order (and in this case, we've got a long wait) a little perspective may be in order. Kneeling to receive Communion in the Roman rite is obviously preferable. That having been said, standing for the same purpose is hardly a crime. The Byzantines have been doing it since time immemorial, and none of their roofs have caved in, at least not for that reason. One must give some prerequisite gesture of reverence in preparation, of course. The normative gesture in the Roman rite has, up until now, been genuflection. And while attempts by some bodies of bishops have been made to change that to a bow or a sign of the cross or a nod and a wink or whatever, genuflection is still sufficient. So you don't have to get down and kneel in front of a line of people standing, just to prove a point. The only point you may prove is that you like calling attention to yourself -- which sorta defeats the purpose of kneeling, don't it, now?

Simply genuflect while the guy in front of you is receiving, then receive on the tongue and call it a day. I follow this procedure everywhere I go, even in places like the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, where certain people seem to think all kinds of devious shenanigans are going on. (They're probably right.)

What would I do if a priest refused me communion for genuflecting first? I dunno, he hasn't yet. I'd probably have to throttle the poor guy after Mass for the benefit of his own salvation. He wouldn't want that. And if you're reading this, Father Whoever-You-Are-In-Steubenville, neither do you.

Remember, Nicholas of Myra punched Arius in the nose at the Council of Nicea. That's right. Jolly old Saint Nick decked a heretic. I've got the proud heritage of Holy Mother Church on my side.

Soooo... if ever I'm in Steubenville (and I've half a mind to come up there this Sunday and defend Miss Emily's honor!), don't @#$% with me!!! (Grrrrr!!!)