I received the following comment, fairly typical of the local dissenter crowd, in the latest post about the NCR's article on Fr. Kleba. I post it here with my immediate response:
The only people who think Fr. KLeba looks bad go to the Oratory for Latin Mass. Also, Louise Lears received nothing that resembled due process. The reason that the Canon Law process hides behind silence is not to protect anyone. The silence only protects the process itself in which the Archbishop is judge, jury and prosecutor. In which someone like Louise Lears doesn't even get to present her final case before the final verdict is given.ev
Not the only people, ev.
The thing is not a question of liturgy-- I cannot comment on St. Cronan's liturgy because I have not assisted at one. Though to apply the maxim of St. Prosper, "lex orandi lex credendi" (the law of prayer is the law of belief), one can have strong suspicions of what it would be like, liturgy is not the immediate issue here.
This is pure and simple about assenting with the will and mind to the teachings of Christ as given to HIs Holy Church.
I welcome a statement from either Fr. Kleba or Sr. Lears, or both, stating they unequivocally accept the infallible truth that it is not possible for women to receive priestly ordination. Please, ask them to send it to me and I will publish it here.
It may go a long way towards the reconciliation they need and the Church desires.
And the extent of due process given Sr. Lears is well-documented. To disagree with the outcome is not the same as to have a well-founded belief that the process was unfair.
(39*) Cfr. Conc. Trid., Decr. de I reform., Sess. V, c. 2, n. 9; et Sess. I XXlV, can. 4; Conc. Oec. Decr. pp. 645 et 739.
(40*) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denz. 1712l (3011). Cfr. nota adiecta ad Schema I de Eccl. (desumpta ex.S. Rob. Bellarmino): Mansi 51, I 579 C, necnon Schema reformatum I Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, cum I commentario Kleutgen: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Epist. Tuas libener: Denz. 1683 (2879).
(41*) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 1322-1323
164 Cf. Mt. 13, 52.
165 Cf.2 Tim. 4, 1-4.