Et factum est íterum Dóminus sábbatis ambuláret per sata, et discípuli ejus cœpérunt progrédi, et véllere spicas. Pharisǽi autem dicébant ei : Ecce, quid fáciunt sábbatis quod non licet ? Et ait illis : Numquam legístis quid fécerit David, quando necessitátem hábuit, et esúriit ipse, et qui cum eo erant ? quómodo introívit in domum Dei sub Abiáthar príncipe sacerdótum, et panes propositiónis manducávit, quos non licébat manducáre, nisi sacerdótibus, et dedit eis qui cum eo erant ? Et dicébat eis : Sábbatum propter hóminem factum est, et non homo propter sábbatum. Ítaque Dóminus est Fílius hóminis, étiam sábbati.Many Catholics are upset by the bishopry. I have noticed that many self identifying 'conservatives' attack everyone whom disagrees with the bishopry*. They do so automatically, and without consideration. All are not presumed guilty, all are judged guilty. This absolute absence of thought defines much of American conservatism.
And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the corn fields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward, and to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said to him: Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need, and was hungry himself, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him? And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also. — Mark ii. 23-28.
They display either a complete ignorance of the particulars, or they are absolute episcopal partisans, incapable of stepping out of their bunker, and they show contempt of parishioners equivalent to class snobbery. They seem to be ignorant of, or opposed to, the fact the Church is made up of all the baptised, and not of bishops alone.
In this greater issue, i see two points of debate/conflict: have the words of Matthew xviii. 20, "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" been abrogated in the contemporary American church?; is the episcopal power within a diocese equivalent to the that of faro in Egypt, wherein the bishop and faro are the only citizens in their realm, and are absolute despots? Now, that last part would indicate that every bishop has the right to create a schism, and if that is furthered, does every bishop have the right to be a heresiarch?
Their explanations are boilerplate rubber stampings. One is that the laity 'lack proper formation', which means they have not been successfully brainwashed. If a popular priest, is scandal free, and beloved, but comes into conflict by the bishop, he engages in 'a cult of personality'; of course such a charge is never reflected at a bishop. Anything labelled 'liberal' is always negative, it is equated to heretical, or worse.
When people try to conserve their rights, and property, against a radical activist with aggrandising demands and diktats, they are the conservatives, to the point of reaction. The people who refuse such a bishop are the conservatives, they are attempting to keep a status quo, and refusing the imposed arrogations and exactions.
I have seen the parishioners of St. Stanislaus Kostka St. Louis, St. Peter Cleveland, and others defined as protestant. No, they are not protestant, they are in conflict with episcopal greed and tyranny. They may become separated, and then be schismatic. But that is using accurate language, not something the accusing, thoughtless, 'conservative' is in habit of doing.
St. Peter's is not in schism [not upon this writing, at least]. Their ordinary, Richard Lennon, has attempted their suppression, and has evicted them from their campus. Before this was done, and following all procedures, St. Peter's had appealed to Rome. Their appeal (as others) has been repeatedly extended. March 2012 formally ends their latest extension. Until the appeal has ultimately been withdrawn, or ruled against, the parish remains open and in existence. The parish is still a functioning parish in the diocese of Cleveland. That is accurate and true. What is also true, is that, Lennon is not happy with this. Lennon has sent a letter to the parishioners threatening them. That is where it stands. We may know more soon [or not], since to-day is his last day of the ad limina meetings for the bishops of Ohio, and Michigan.
I went off on a tangent. One may choose to leave the Catholic church, but the Catholic church counts all those baptised in the faith (and those that enter afterwards) as Catholic. Once baptised, the mark on the soul is indelible, it can not be undone. Luther was an heresiarch, he remained a Catholic priest even while being the first Protestant.
There is ex-communication. That is not expulsion. One is still required to attend Mass. One is denied the Eucharist (Communion), and cannot take an active rôle in the Mass. These pseudo-Conservative church police may desire those they attack expelled, they could also wish to grow a horny carapace, or a second snout; but alas they have not the ability.
These ever vigilant, never lenient, nor merciful, self-appointed church police are supporters of totalitarianism. When transferred to a like minded political movement, they are fascists. Perhaps, if they are injured, then they may have another viewpoint. They do not worship God, but absolute authority without restriction. What a stupid, and mean idol to worship.
*There is at least one exception, many 'conservatives' hate Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. They are taught this by political neo-conservatives such as the dishonest George Weigel. Peace and social justice issues are anathema to these Pharisees. In their world Mars and Mammon are faultless, and their critics more than suspect.