Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Padre Pio

Just returned from a nine day pilgrimage with 50 persons. Father Brighenti and I led a tour of San Giovanni Rotondo, Pietrelcina, Orvieto, Lanciano, Cascia and Rome under the excellent guidance of Mr. Luigi Falconeri, our tour guide from New Jersey. His fluent Italian and good humor in addition to his magnificent travel skills made our trip a complete success. While there, we met up with Joan Lewis, Rome Bureau Chief for EWTN. She has a spectacular view of the Vatican from her apartment.



Here is a shot from Joan's living room. BREATHTAKING, isn't it?








We left JFK on November 5th and arrived in Naples the following day via EuroFly Airlines (nice staff but lousy food). Then we travelled by bus to Pietrelcina to see the hometown and birthplace of Padre Pio. Our group was a wonderful cross section of NJ and PA residents as well as some nice folks from Idaho, Texas, California, Oregon, Montana.


After visiting the birthplace of the famous stigmatist, we went to San Giovanni Rotondo where Saint Pio is buried. It is also the location of the House to Relieve Suffering, the free hospital Padre Pio established to help treat anyone in need of medical assistance.



The only down side of our entire trip, however, was our stay at the Hotel Gran Paradiso in San Giovanni Rotondo. When we arrived, there was no porter to unload our luggage, so while the 50 pilgrims ate supper, Lou, our tour guide, personally took care of the baggage and delivered them to each room. Two hours later, he got his meal 15 minutes before the kitchen closed. The worst part of all was on our departure day from the hotel when one of our pilgrims had his laptop stolen from a locked hotel room. His luggage was placed outside the locked room while he and his wife went to breakfast. 45 minutes later, they re-entered their room to discover the laptop (in its case) had been stolen. When the hotel security chief was notified, his initial response was to question whether there ever was a laptop to begin with, although the victims in this case are both certified and licensed physicians. Two hours were then spent at the local police station where Barney Fife (the hotel security chief) was accompanied by the hotel owner. Now, their theory evolved into accusing a member of our pilgrimage of being the thief. How an American could get into a locked Italian hotel room was never explained. Meanwhile, several Italian housekeeping and maintenance personnel who had master keys to enter any and all rooms were never questioned. Father Brighenti and I do NOT recommend this hotel and warn all pilgrims and travellers to AVOID Hotel Gran Paradiso at all costs. Shameful that we had to have a theft on our religious pilgrimage (two priests, one nun, one deacon and 48 lay faithful) and in the town of Padre Pio, no less.



Monte Sant’Angelo, the cave where the Archangel Michael victoriously battled Satan, was the place Father Ken celebrated Mass before we left for Lanciano, the place of the Eucharistic Miracle. A lukewarm priest in the 8th century doubted the dogma of the Real Presence. When he celebrated Mass oneday, the Host turned into human flesh and the consecrated Wine turned into human blood (type AB, same as on the Shroud of Turn). Today, both are miraculously preserved.

Our next visit was to Orvieto, another Eucharistic miracle location, where a Host bled onto a corporal. It is also a center for fantastic white wine. We then moved on to Montefiascone where Saint Lucy Filippini is buried, founder of her order of teaching nuns. Later, we visited all four of the major Roman basilicas and made a side trip to the shrine of Saint Rita of Cascia, where we ran into a parish pilgrimage from the diocese of Joliet, IL. Another pleasant surprise was the visit of a nice young man Jeff from California who was spending some time in Venice. He joined us for a few days in San Giovanni. Jeff is a script writer who did some impressive work for Hollywood, notably several of the new Perry Mason made-for-TV movies. He told us of his friendship with the late Raymond Burr, and work he also did with Dick Van Dyke for "Diagnosis: Murder" series. You never know who you'll run into while visiting Italy.



Father Brighenti and I also concelebrated Mass at Saint Peter's Basilica with our group and then attended the Pope's noon Angelus message. It was the crowning gem of a wonderful pilgrimage. Despite a few bumps in the road and a couple of small inconveniences we still had a marvelous and memorable trip. The 50 pilgrims were fantastic, patient, kind, courteous and fun to be with, as well as being very devout and pious. We prayed the Rosary and Divine Mercy chaplet in the bus and we shared many delicious meals accompanied by entertaining conversation.


Fratelliandcompany was our tour company and we both highly recommend their services. We are both hoping to go on the Fall 2008 pilgrimage to Fatima and Lourdes. Next year is the 150th anniversary of the apparition of Our Lady to Saint Bernadette in 1858, France. Next year is also the 20th anniversary of ordination to the priesthood for both me and Father Ken. We want to thank Our Lady for getting us to the altar of God by visiting these two great shrines.







Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Catholic Clergy Ask Bishops to Keep Mass Holy

Contact: Father John Trigilio, Jr., President, CCC

MEDIA ADVISORY, October 30 /Christian Newswire/ --

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy denounces the recent letter from the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN) sent to the Bishops of the United States (USCCB). That letter called for the rejection of a literal and accurate English translation of the 2000 Roman Missal from its typical Latin text. The Missal is the official altar book used by priests to celebrate the Mass. It is second only to the Lectionary, which contains the Scripture passages chosen for each Sunday and weekday Mass.

Catholic worship centers on Word (Scripture) and Sacrament and the Sacred Liturgy, particularly the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass, is the 'source and summit of Christian life.' As such, it requires the clergy to celebrate 'digne, atténte ac devote' (worthily, with attention and devotion). This can be done only if liturgical books are accurately and literally translated from the typical Latin text.

Ritual (gestures) and Rite (words) make proper worship. 'Full, conscious and active participation' by the faithful in the sacred liturgy is only possible when pedestrian language and banal translations are abandoned once and for all. The congregation is more educated and sophisticated than purported by those who insist accurate and literal translations from the Latin into English would be confusing at best and frustrating at worst.

We live in a culture where the vulgar, crass and obscene are part of everyday conversation. It proliferates the media at all levels: radio, television, movies, theater, magazines, and the internet. Yet, good taste and graceful language are not archaic. Sacred worship requires a sacred vocabulary and nomenclature which expresses the value and need for reverence for 'the Holy' and which transcends the secular world and allows the worshipper to approach the threshold of heaven.

Accuracy demands that the word 'consubstantial' be restored to the Creed since the Council of Nicea (325) canonized the terms 'homoouios' (Greek) and 'consubstantialem' (Latin) rather than the current 'one in being'. Adjectives which predicate the divinity of Christ, prominent in the Latin, need to be reinserted into the English. 'Holy', 'sacred', 'venerable', and 'immaculate', etc., are not foreign terms to Catholic vocabulary. Edified language 'inspires' the believer to 'aspire' to those things which are holy and sacred. Banal and pedestrian language lowers us into the gutter.

We ask the bishops to preserve a poetic sacred language that uplifts the human spirit to seek the divine rather than being content with the mediocrity of mundane.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

CATHOLICISM FOR DUMMIES

now in Spanish


with foreward and imprimatur

from

Archbishop Jose Gomez
of San Antonio, TX

Sunday, October 21, 2007

JC Penney Catalog

Remember when you were a little kid and you spent hours looking through the JC Penney toy catalog the day it arrived in the mail? Pages and pages of items that Santa could never possibly carry in his sack without getting a hernia.


Here are some photos from a website Tridentium



Since the election of B16, a lot of the good stuff has returned or re-emerged. Hopefully, this is a trend and more prelates and ecclesiastics will initiate a renaissance of tasteful accoutrements and traditional paraphrenalia. We hope and pray that the moo-moo albs, burlap chasubles and ricky-relevant stoles of the 60's & 70's are once and for all BURNED and their ashes cast to the four winds.



MANLY lace




Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Priests' opposing views on Latin Mass

Matt C. Abbott

October 17, 2007

In recent parish bulletins, Father J. Patrick Wissman, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Bolivar, Mo., lashed out at Pope Benedict's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

read his incredulous diatribe here

Here is my response:
'This pastor was born in 1938 and ordained in 1964; hence, he grew up and was trained in the seminary according to the Tridentine Mass. Yet, most of his priesthood has been in the Novus Ordo. While he has experience of the extraordinary as well as the ordinary form of the Roman Missal, his statements and judgments about the motu proprio are totally non sequitur.'

'First, he classifies the request for a Latin (and not just Latin but the usus antiquior, i.e., Missal of 1962) as being 'selfish.' That is an ad hominem attack to say the least. Are Hispanics 'selfish' for asking for a Mass in Spanish? Are Italo-Americans selfish for wanting an Italian Mass? Of course not. The desire and request for a Latin Mass, be it Novus Ordo according to the 1970 Missal or the Tridentine based on the 1962 Missal, is not selfish. What is selfish is the prejudicial attitude to refuse and to ridicule those who have a spiritual need for something the Church allows, permits and now encourages.'

'Secondly, he insults anyone who likes Latin as being 'disobedient' and being dissenters from the Second Vatican Council. Actually, priests and bishops who refuse to implement the papal motu proprio are the ones who are disobedient, not the faithful who have the right to request the extraordinary form of the Mass and the Sacraments. Selfish priests are the ones who refuse to provide for the spiritual needs of their flock just because their requests do not conform to his own personal preferences. The same papal authority which inaugurated the ordinary form of the Mass (Novus Ordo) also issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Benedict XVI is as much pope as was Paul VI. Both enjoyed full, immediate, universal and supreme authority, hence, one cannot pick and choose which pope or which act of papal authority to comply with and which to disregard.'It is not dissent to want and to request the Latin Mass, either. Vatican II did not mandate a totally vernacular Mass. It allowed the possibility of some parts of the Mass to be in the vernacular. Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) #36 states '[T]he use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.' It goes on to say in #54, '[I]n Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue ... Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.''So, how can the request for Latin be construed as anti-Vatican II?'

'Third, he resorts to the reductio ad absurdam fallacy in saying the pope is 'out of touch with the ordinary church' and that he risks creating a 'shadow church' which will divide the true church. The pope is head of the universal church and not just the church in North America. With several continents, cultures, languages and ethnic traditions within Roman Catholicism, some elements of unity need to be preserved. Latin language and Gregorian chant are not threats, nor are they antithetical to English or to contemporary church music. Whenever the pope visits a nation or presides at World Youth Day, it is amazing how many Catholics from outside the U.S. can pray and sing both in Latin and in their own mother tongue. Young and old can express both unity and diversity by sharing the same liturgical language (e.g., Hebrew in Judaism, Arabic in Islam and Greek in Eastern Orthodoxy) and by retaining some of their own vernacular.'Fourth, Pope Benedict acutely recognizes that Catholicism is the 'great religion of the Et ... Et ' (both/and) rather than the Aut ... Aut (either/or) found in other religions. Hence, we have both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; both faith and good works; both Eastern (Byzantine) and Western (Roman) rites. The motu proprio continues this process by affirming both the ordinary and the extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite. Father Pat, however, prefers to have it reduced to either/or. Either vernacular or Latin but not both, according to him. Pope Benedict and others believe differently.'

'Lastly, I find it most offensive and bizarre to blame Nazism on Latin. While it is true that Catholics in Germany had the Latin Mass before, during, and after 1933-1945 (Hitler's Third Reich), 62 percent of the nation was Lutheran and only 32 percent was Catholic. Germany also had the third largest population of Jews in Europe. Though he himself was born and baptized a Catholic, Hitler repudiated the Catholic faith and never received any other sacraments. He practiced no religion as an adult. There is no corollary between the Latin Mass and the Nazi rise to power, and Father Pat should be ashamed to create one. That's what is misleading, not Pope Benedict, not the motu proprio and certainly not Latin or the usus antiquior.'

'On the contrary, as Father [John] Zuhlsdorf has pointed out, there is a mutual gravitational pull between the ordinary and the extraordinary forms of the Roman rite. The 'old Latin Mass' and the 'new vernacular Mass' will reciprocally and beneficially affect each other since they come from one and the same Roman Rite. The dichotomous opposition is not intrinsic to either liturgical form, rather the focal point of animosity and foments of discontent originate in the paranoia of those who vehemently hate anything connected to Catholic tradition and custom. Catholicism preserves the best of the past while adopting the best of the new. It did so with Hebrew and Greek centuries ago and continues to do so with Latin and the vernacular today.'

'I find Latin a unifying rather than dividing language. Attend a papal Mass in Rome where millions come year round on pilgrimage. Despite the plethora of languages and cultures, everyone joins in the Sanctus, the Pater Noster and the Agnus Dei. Whether the Mass is entirely in Latin or just the common parts; whether the ordinary form (1970/2000 Missal) or the extraordinary form (1962 Missal); the beauty of Catholic Liturgy and worship is that it transcends time and space. Ironically, more irreverence and heresy have emanated from modern 'liturgical Nazis' who seek to impose their illegitimate abuses and agendas on the rest of the faithful.''

Tuesday, October 16, 2007


Fr. Jay Toborowsky
was recently in Rome and met with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. He is the host of a weekly radio program Proclaim the Good News produced in his diocese (Metuchen, NJ). Father Jay is also the co-author with Father Ken Brighenti and myself on the recent book, John Paul II for Dummies. This book is currently being translated in Polish just as our first book Catholicism for Dummies has been translated into Spanish (and Dutch, German, French). Fr. Toborowsky also has his own blog,
Young Fogeys. The three of us just produced a weekly series for EWTN entitled CRASH COURSE IN POPE JOHN PAUL II.
33333333333333333333
Father Brighenti and I presented a copy of JP2 for Dummies (Sep. 2006). He called us 'young' American priests. (ex cathedra ???)
He also remembered our other books which we had given him when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger (Catholicism for Dummies, Women in the Bible for Dummies, Everything Bible Book, 101 Things Everyone Should Know About the Bible, Catholicism Answer Book)


Monday, October 08, 2007

Catholic News Agency





www.catholicnewsagency.com/


National clergy group supports Archbishop Burke’s Communion refusal




Washington DC, Oct 8, 2007 / 09:41 am

(CNA).- The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of 600 priests and deacons, has issued a statement endorsing Archbishop Raymond Burke's position that clergy must deny Holy Communion to public figures who openly support abortion or euthanasia.


Part of the statement reads: "Archbishop Burke equally addresses politicians on both sides of the aisle. Whether Democrat, Republican or independent; executive, legislative or judicial branches; all public officials who publicly support, promote or give assistance to others to commit evil are cooperators in that evil."


Archbishop Burke, head of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, recently published an essay in a prominent canon law journal reiterating the duties of Catholics in public office to receive Holy Communion worthily. His essay further emphasized the duties of ministers of Holy Communion to ensure the Sacrament's worthy reception. He advised that clergy privately warn those potential communicants who are in manifest grave sin not to receive the Eucharist.

The confraternity's statement quoted a 2004 letter to American bishops from Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger): "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia." Therefore ""there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about war and the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." His letter insisted that the minister of Holy Communion "must refuse to distribute it to a Catholic politician [who] consistently campaigns and votes for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws."


The statement alluded to the parable in Matthew 22 where a man is physically removed from a wedding banquet for not wearing a wedding garment. It continued: "the man was 'speechless' and Catholic politicians have no excuse, either. If they openly support abortion and/or euthanasia, even if 'personally opposed', they are in fact publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion due to their cooperation in evil. Greater scandal is given when bishops, priests, and deacons do not protect the sanctity and dignity of the Most Blessed Sacrament by allowing public persons notoriously known for their positions which directly violate the Divine and Moral Laws."


The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy appealed to all bishops to support Archbishop Burke at the General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in November.

Catholic World News

US clerics' group backs Archbishop Burke on Communion Oct. 8, 2007 (CWNews.com)

Oct. 08 (CWNews.com) - A national association of American Catholic clergy has given its strong support to Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis in his argument that Catholic politicians who reject Church teaching should not receive the Eucharist.

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a group of 600 priests and deacons, urged the US bishops to adopt Archbishop Burke's reasoning at their November 2007 meeting.

Anticipating the argument that some American prelates raised during a similar debate in 2004, the CCC argued: "It is specious to say that denying Holy Communion causes scandal to the faithful." The group countered: "Greater scandal is given when any cleric does not protect the sanctity and dignity of the Blessed Sacrament."

© Copyright 2007 Domus Enterprises. All rights reserved.

Catholic Online Press Release


Confraternity Concurs on Communion Policy

10/8/2007 - 06:43 PST MARYSVILLE, PA, OCTOBER 8, 2007 - The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of 600 priests and deacons, publicly endorses the decision and rationale of Archbishop Raymond Burke (St. Louis, MO) to deny Holy Communion to politicians who obstinately and openly support abortion or euthanasia. We respectfully urge all his brother bishops to universally and decisively support this initiative at the upcoming annual Fall General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November.

We agree that a regretable situation exists where great scandal is given to the faithful by fellow Catholics holding or running for public office in government who also declare and give formal and/or material cooperation to grave evil. Abortion and euthanasia directly and intentionally target the innocent unborn or the terminally ill and seek to end their lives. These “are crimes which no human law can make ratified,” said Pope John Paul the Great in Evangelium Vitae, as quoted by Archbishop Burke in his recent article in Periodica De Re Canonica. The obligation to refuse Holy Communion to someone publicly unworthy or unable to receive is a most serious matter for it affects both the individual and the entire mystical body of Christ.

Canon 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law explicitly states that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” Giving consent to an evil act is de facto formal cooperation in evil and is as much a mortal sin as the person who commits the physical act itself. Those who support abortion are as guilty of sin as those who have or perform abortions. Equally culpable are persons who may classify themselves as being ‘personally opposed to abortion’ but who also provide necessary assistance for the evil to occur. This is clearly understood as material cooperation in evil. Immediate or direct material cooperation in evil is always a mortal sin. Hence, individuals who refrain from giving formal cooperation are nonetheless still guilty of grave sin when they provide necessary material cooperation, such as the politician who votes for legislation enabling others to commit the evil of abortion or euthanasia. They are no different than the person who knowingly and willingly drives the woman to the abortion clinic or the nurse who directly assists the doctor performing the evil deed.

We furthermore applaud Archbishop Burke’s consistent stand to defend life, especially when the most innocent and defenseless are in jeopardy. We also commend him for equally applying the injunction against giving Communion to notorious abortion and euthanasia supporters regardless of their political party affiliation. Whether democrat, republican or indepent; whether a member of the executive, legislative or judicial branches; all public officials who publicly support, promote or give asistance to others to commit evil are cooperators in that evil. When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, clearly stated in his 2004 letter to the USCCB (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”) that “not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” Therefore, “there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” He also states in that same letter that the minister of Holy Comunion “must refuse to distribute it” to “a Catholic politician [who] consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws.”

It is an erroneous and specious argument to say that denying Holy Communion causes equal or more scandal to the faithful. Some Catholics may indeed consider it a judgmental act or one void of pastoral charity and compassion. Recall the parable in Matthew 22:2-14 where the man is physically removed from the banquet for not wearing a wedding garment. Some might consider it unfair treatment since he was not one of the originally invited guests who refused to come, rather, he was asked at the last minute. Yet the gospel shows there is no excuse. The man was ‘speechless’ since it is presumed everyone had a wedding garment and to show up, even unexpectedly, without wearing proper attire, was an insult to the host. Catholic politicians have no excuse, either. If they openly support abortion and/or euthanasia, even though they claim to be ‘personally opposed’, they are in fact publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion due to their cooperation in evil. Greater scandal is given when bishops, priests, and deacons do not protect the sanctity and dignity of the Most Blessed Sacrament by allowing public persons notoriously known for their positions which directly violate the Divine and Moral Laws.

Contact: Confraternity of Catholic Clergy www.catholic-clergy.org/ PA, US Rev. John Trigilio - President, 717 - 957-2662

Friday, October 05, 2007





First Runner Up for office of
Papal Master of Ceremonies.


Should Msgr. Guido Marini not be able to fulfill his duties at any time ...

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Phony Papal Euthanasia Claim



Time Magazine is Irresponsible for Printing Pope John Paul II Euthanasia Article


Wednesday, September 26, 2007
By Father Jonathan Morris


Time Magazine has published a story that suggests John Paul II may have been euthanized by his doctors at his own request.


The article is blatantly irresponsible, for the reasons I will explain ...

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Sacerdotal Tepidity and Ministerial Malaise: The Spiritual Cancer of Lukewarmness

One of the most immanent yet diabolically latent threats to the priesthood is not the recent clergy sex scandals nor the alleged vocation crisis. The real, critical and urgent danger to many priests, whether young, old or middle-aged, is business. The current paradigm many parishes and dioceses use is a corporate business model in which the priest (or deacon; pastor or parochial vicar) defines his identity in what he does and not in what he is. Doing things, i.e., performing tasks, becomes the primary directive after ordination and it is the measure by which priests are evaluated by their superiors, their peers, their parishioners and even by themselves.

It is self-evidently true that a vocation to ordained ministry involves, entails and surrounds itself with service to the Church and to the People of God. Just as Our Divine Lord came not to be served, but to serve, deacons, priests and bishops are poignantly reminded at their ordination that they are called into a lifetime of self-sacrificing service. Nevertheless, there is a corresponding truth to this commitment to minister that in recent times has been overlooked, ignored or even opposed. The minister must minister unto himself as well as to his people. An effective and successful priest ministers to the spiritual needs of his people but he also takes care of his own spirituality, too.

Every cleric knows the importance and the obligation of prayer. The problem is when prayer becomes another ‘task’ to be performed. The canonical duty of praying the Liturgy of the Hours is morally binding on all in Holy Orders. All too often, though, the temptation arises to see and to do the Breviary as another job that needs to be done: celebrate Mass, hear confessions, visit and anoint the sick, teach RCIA and/or CCD, prepare a couple for marriage, prepare the Sunday homily, attend the Parish Council meeting (and the Finance Committee, and the Parents and Teachers Association and the Council of Catholic Women, etc.), and of course, get ready for the next parish fundraising event.

Most parish priests have the same routine day after day, i.e., they balance catechesis with sacred liturgy with administrative duties. Important work, by all means. Doing priestly things is very important but so is being priestly. Why do some priests burn out and leave active ministry after ten, twenty or more years? Why is priestly morale low in many dioceses? Why do some clergy seek artificial relief in escaping into sex, alcohol, gambling, etc.? The reason for many is that they never took good care of their own spiritual health.

Unless one is an workaholic, most priests faithfully take their weekly day off and their annual vacation. Many, though, cheat themselves and do not take the full day off (24 hours) and will only go away for half a day or skip a few weeks entirely. Some almost never take time to relax and unwind and their parish office staff often suffer for it. Irritable pastors are usually ones who rarely get away and without healthy leisure and regular relaxation, anyone can become a cranky bear who growls at everyone over anything.

The other phenomenon is the dearth of spirituality among the priesthood in general. Yes, most of us pray the Office each day, celebrate Mass reverently and attend to the myriad and plethora of needs of our parishioners while simultaneously trying to keep up with diocesan policies, regulations and other bureaucratic requirements that seem to multiply geometrically. But how many of us take and make time for quality prayer? The American Bishops issued an excellent document in 2001 entitled The Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests which was based on the mandates of the Second Vatican Council (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 1965) which called for ongoing post-ordination formation of the clergy. Pope John Paul the Great reiterated this in his Pastores Dabo Vobis and spelled out precisely by the Congregation of the Clergy in The Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests (1994).

Ongoing spiritual, theological, pastoral and human formation of the clergy is no option. It pertains and applies to the clergy since it enables the clergy to become better clergy and thus better minister to the People of God. Without ongoing formation, clergy become mere functionaries who perform tasks and who ‘do their job’ and know well what they do while slowly forgetting who they are. A priest is an alter-Christus who acts in Persona Christi. He can only act in the Person of Christ by virtue of his sacred ordination that ontologically changes him.

The corporate business model is no better than a mediaeval feudal model. The Church is more than a corporation and even in her role as institution, she always remains the Bride of Christ. Part of the horror of the clergy sex scandal was the way in which some bishops handled (or rather mishandled) the situation. Administrators can transfer personnel but a spiritual father must confront wayward children, both the victim and culprit. Justice tempered by mercy and motivated by charity would have spared many a nightmare whereas bureaucrats who seek merely to avoid legal liability are not serving the common good. When bishops and priests acts like the Church is truly a family of faith by acting like family themselves, the people respond tremendously. When clergy act like coporate officials and make decisions based on fiscal rather than pastoral needs; when pastors are treated and act more like lower middle management instead of local leaders of the faith community; then trouble is not far behind.

The priest himself, however, can be his greatest ally or his worse enemy. No matter how orthodox and pastoral the local bishop may be, the priest himself must minister to himself before he can effectively minister to his people. Bishops and Dioceses are beginning to recognize the necessity of ongoing formation of the clergy but the priest himself must also see and pursue it. If a priest is ‘too busy’ with parish work to make sure he himself gets quality time for daily private prayer, for regular confession, for monthly spiritual direction, and for an annual workshop, then his priorities are askew. A husband and father who functions as head of the family needs to take care of himself in order to best provide for his loved ones. That means that dear old dad must take care of his own physical and spiritual health and not just attend to financial matters by working longer hours and getting more pay. Likewise, a spiritually healthy pastor is more effective pastor.

This is why JP2 wrote Pastores Dabo Vobis in 1992. The priest is not an employee of the diocese nor is he branch manager or local sales representative. He is the loving spouse of his bride, the Church. His parishioners are not customers or clients, rather, they are his beloved family. Corporate business models do not fulfill the spiritual reality of authentic ecclesiology. Fiscal solvency may look good on paper, but a good pastor is doing a good job when souls are being saved. Many pastors easily fall into the temptation of evaluating themselves on the basis of how many parishioners did they gain or lose; did the weekly collection go up or down; is the parochial school enrollment increasing or decreasing; is the parish in the red or in the black; are parishioners happy or dissatisfied? All these can eclipse the real mission of a pastor, to preach and teach the unadulterated truth as authentically taught by the Magisterium and to reverently and properly celebrate the sacred sacraments so as to fully dispense the divine graces needed by the People of God. Eight to twelve years of seminary formation are designed around the latter while the former often become the primary directive of many pastors.

Despite the efforts of local bishops and dioceses as well as national and regional priestly associations to foster ongoing formation and sacerdotal fraternity, too many priests of all ages get caught up in the administratrive treadmill or they fool themselves into thinking that doing priestly things is more important than being a priest. Being a priest involves sacrifice. Sometimes it means the sacrifice of failure insofar as a plan, a project, a program, etc., despite the good intentions, just flops. No one attends. No support. Since we live a secular society which divinizes success, no wonder then it spills over into spirituality. Even priests seek to be successful but it cannot be as the world defines success. A successful priest is not the one who gets the best assignment, or is the bishop’s confidant. He may not be the one who is on any diocesan committee, board or council. He may not have been named a Monsignor or Papal Knight. He may get an occasional letter of complaint from some irate parishioner who is ignorant of canon law and tried to get a non-practicing divorced and invalidly married Catholic to be godparent to their newborn child. The truly successful priest will from time to time make some enemies if he preaches and teaches the truth and nothing but the truth. He will not be the favorite of the Chancery nor the most popular of parishioners. He will, however, be kind and compassionate and yet will also defend the teachings and the honor of Holy Mother Church.

Wordly success in the ministerial life is illusionary. Being pastor of the most enviable parish in the diocese or having great influence and connections with diocesan officials is not the real measure. Balancing the checkbook, lowering the debt, increasing enrollment are not bad things in and of themselves, for they show good stewardship for sure, yet, they should not become the priority of pastoral concern. Saving souls for Christ is what we will be judged on when we die, not the fiscal solvency or the number of buildings we erected during our tenure.

There is a new phenomenon where many good, solid, orthodox priests are still getting lost. They are not preaching heresy nor teaching dissident theology. They celebrate reverent Masses and follow the rubrics. They follow the rules of canon law and diocesan policy. They attend to the spiritual needs of their parishioners any day and any time. The problem lies in that many of them feel abandoned. Since the clergy sex scandals, people are more suspicious and some are just downright more rude and certainly less polite. Parishioners who rarely come to Mass and who barely support the church with their time or treasure often are obnoxious and beligerent in their demands especially when they cannot be fulfilled. It can be disheartening and disenchanting when unfounded rumors and gossip fly through the parish merely because a mediocre or lapsed Catholic has a grudge against the pastor when he upholds the disciplines or teachings of the Church. “No good deed goes unpunished” is often a colloquialism felt by many a parish priest when day in and day out the struggle is made to do the best you can do for others only to have them show disdain and contempt for your every effort. That could be tolerated if a two front war were not in play.

Frequently, priests must battle with foes inside the parish and outside. One or two squeaky wheels will get a response from downtown which is to be expected, of course. What is not anticipated, however, is the unconditional acceptance of their side of the story. Often, the priest, especially if he is the pastor, is considered guilty until proven innocent. While any and all credible allegations of abuse must be investigated, petty complaints which do not involve faith or morals, are sometimes treated as if the priest were a criminal before he even hears what he is accused of doing. Real instances of liturgical abuse go unfettered, real examples of heterodox teaching being proliferated and real occurences of immoral behavior among the clergy and yet who is called on the carpet by diocesan officials? Not those guilty of serious offenses, rather, the poor pastor or priest who stepped on the toes of an influential person of the parish or diocese.

When an apparent double-standard exists within the diocese, a good priest can easily get discouraged. He can tolerate the persecution of those who hate the Church and vehemently seek her ruin and demise. He can even bare wrongs patiently and remain obedient and respectful as long as there is no sign of duplicity or treachery. Yet, when it sems that being a loyal son of the Church gets you in hot water even with some officials in the Church, it can be very disconcerting to say the least. Only a solid, well grounded and bedrock spirituality will help these priests.
This is why all priests must aggressively take charge of their own spiritual health. The Bishop and Diocese can and ought to help by making it more convenient to get to regular confession and monthly direction just as they do for annual retreat. Days or even mornings or afternoons of reflection or recollection are most beneficial but they require proper planning.

A priest friend of mine sponsors a monthly afternoon of recollection for priests and deacons. Each month, a visiting priest (from the Personal Prelature of Opus Dei) comes for two to three hours. He gives a spiritual meditation/conference based on Scripture, Papal or Conciliar document. There is time and opportunity to go to confession. The Blessed Sacrament is exposed for adoration. The rosary and evening prayer are prayed before Benediction. Then there is some time alloted for fraternity, be it a small snack or perhaps a few guys going out to supper. Just an informal gathering once a month. Sadly, in a densely populated area where many orthodox and devout priests are less than an hour to forty five minutes away by car, many parish priests do not attend. Their reason? I am too busy. I have parish commitments. When your tooth aches, do you not make time to get to the dentist even though you still have plenty to do in the parish? If Father is sick in bed, he cannot do his parochial duties. Hence, priests need to tend to their physical health and well being. Likewise, our spiritual health is even more important.

Too many priests have fooled themselves into thinking that doing priestly things compensates for being a priest by taking care of my own spiritual needs. Canon Law mandates an annual retreat. Dioceses have mandatory workshops. What is wrong with making time for a monthly day or even just a morning or afternoon of recollection? A few hours with brother priests and deacons spent in prayer, study and fraternity will revive and revitalize our apostolate. The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy has continued its more than thirty year history of sponsoring an annual convocation where well known and reputable speakers, both ordained and laity alike, have given excellent talks on timely topics suitable for the typical parish priest. This organization has over six hundred members from across the USA and Canada. Less than fifty attend the annual conference. Whether East Coast or West Coast, whether Saint Louis or Chicago, the venue and the speaker roster, even the cost do not become the primary reason more do not attend. Bottom line is that most guys are too busy.

What is frightening is that many believe that. Catholic Clergy, be they deacons, priests or bishops NEED to take care of their spiritual needs. Daily prayer we usually do faithfully as we were trained to do so in the seminary. Many priests have not gone to spiritual direction, however, since they left the seminary. Many priests only rely on the annual penance service during Holy Week (usually on the same day of the diocesan Chrism Mass) to get to confession themselves. We hear confessions of our parishioners week after week. We, too, need to avail ourselves of the graces of this awesome sacrament. Since we are in the confessional hearing other people’s confessions, it is logistically difficult for parish priests to get to confession, no doubt about it.

This is why it is most urgent and helpful were the local diocese to take ongoing spiritual, theological, pastoral and human formation of the clergy as serious as possible. Next to vocations, it should be of utmost importance. Diocesan workshops are indeed helpful but so, too, are the many offered year round by priestly associations, organizations, etc. Ironically, even dioceses that do not have mandatory workshops still budget funds so that any and every priest can theoretically attend a conference somewhere sometime during the calendar year in addition to his annual reatreat. Though the money and time are guaranteed, too many clergy say they are ‘too busy’ to get away. Here is where the Bishop and diocese can help. Not only in providing the financial means to go, but to ensure coverage so the pastor can get away. One week annual retreat and one week annual workshop (conference or convocation) can be achieved if the Chancery Office made the promise to find adequate sacramental coverage.

Monthly spiritual direction after seminary is rare but it can and ought to be done. While in seminary, the spiritual directors are in house and it is easy to accomplish. Post ordination, the seminary and the director are often far away and not conveniently located. Those who can drive to a nearby seminary may find a spiritual director available but the majority of priests are not so lucky. Again, the local bishop and diocese can help by recruiting several reputable spiritual directors and providing for their transportation, and at least make the opportunity available for monthly direction. Imagine, flying in five or six spiritual directors once a month and staggering it over a few days each month. While not everyone will or can participate, at least some will and some is better than none. Knowing that a spiritual director is available once a month or at least every two months is encouraging to a priest who lives too far to get to his old seminary.

Days, mornings or afternoons of recollection can be done easily. What it takes, though, is perserverance. Perhaps, if the Bishop initiated a few or advertized several in diocesan mailings, more fellows would attend. Two or three hours a month is nothing to ask in comparison to the nearly 700 hours a month that are spent on other things we priests do. We find time for the dentist, to get our auto’s oil changed, to get to the barber, to grab a bite to eat, etc. We need to make time for our spiritual life and get to confession reguarly (once a month), monthly or bi-monthly spiritual direction and annual retreat and annual workshop or conference.

If priests knew and saw the bishop doing these same things, he would get the notion that they are important essentials to spirital life. Private prayer, rosary, Liturgy of the Hours and annual retreat are already being done by many priests. The few who do not, do so at their own risk. What is needed besides wonderful documents from Pope and the Bishops, is an all out campaign at the national and local level to reawaken the clergy as to the importance of all these spiritual exercises. Optimally, if several diocesan priests could live in community as a Clerical Association of the Faithful, they could hopefully provide the occasional sacramental coverage so their brother priests in the diocese could take time away for retreat, spiritual direction and workshops. This same community could also be the focus point where any and all priests are welcome to spend some time in fraternal prayer, meals, study, or just relaxation.

When many priests are now in one man assignments, it is imperative for parish priests to have some avenue of fraternity which is obviously in-built with those in religious life who live in common. Most priests live, work and eat alone as priests even though they have very busy and hectic schedules. Here is where priestly fraternity is even more beneficial. If every diocese had what the Directory recommends (a house of clerics) where any priest could crash for an afternoon or evening, spend a day or overnight, share a meal with brother priests, watch a game on television, pray one one of the Hours together, engage in a stimulating theological discussion, etc., it would not have to be elaborate, fancy or luxurious. Just a friendly place where brother clergy can be brothers to one another.

It is too important to just hope and pray that individuals will take care of all the details themselves. We need the support and encouragement of the episcopal conference, the local bishop, and the diocesan presbyterate itself. National associations like the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, the Fraternity of Priests, and projects sponsored by the Prelature of Opus Dei and others can provide some viable avenues. If too many of us become too busy doing things and do not spend quality time being priests and being priests to and for one another, we will see more guys burn out, get discouraged and see morale decline over time.

While no one seeks public approval, what priest does not internally want at least the implied support of his bishop? When politics determines who becomes a Monsignor or who is made a Papal Knight, those outside the loop get no enouragement. There does not have to be an award dinner, either, where someone gets ‘pastor of the year’ award, yet some vehicle of affirmation would help morale if it were completely sincere and authentic. Once I suggested to my previous bishop that he take a young and an old priest along with him every time he went on his ad limina to Rome. No Chancery personnel, but just a parish priest, be he a pastor, parochial vicar or retired priest. Spending a few days with the boss in the Eternal City is more than an employee recognition opportunity. The bond between bishop and priest is special and when a priest experiences the acknowledgement that his bishop appreciates his work, it will help him in the weeks, months and years to come when he may feel alone or get a angry letter or phone call from a dissatisfied parishioner. If the bishop regularly spent one meal a month with a different priest, just man to man, priest to priest, would not the morale be strong?

All too often the parish priest only hears from his superiors when someone has written or phoned a complaint. Obviously, serious concerns and issues need to examined for the common good of Mother Church. At the same time, if a phone call or e-mail from His Excellency comes to the priest occasionally expressing personal approval and support, the esprit de corps of the presbyterate will be high. Even the annual Bishops’ meetings in November, if the local bishop brought along a different priest (not just to carry his luggage) each and every time, not only to see how things work at the national level but to just spend time with spiritual leader of the diocese, I think better relations would exist throughout the diocese. If only cronies and syncophants are part of the inner sanctum and if only the politically astute get promotions, then a different attitude permeates the diocese.

Priests are called to serve and to love their people. He can do so only if he himself is taking care of his own spiritual needs. Prayer, study, priestly fraternity, support and encouragement from his peers and his superiors, will all help. Ongoing formation of the clergy entails exposure and discussion on recent Vatican documents and statements, attending workshops and conferences, and having access to keen minds faithful to the Magisterium. It also entails solid spirituality grounded in daily private prayer, regular confession, monthly direction and annual retreat. Having places and opportunities to spend some time just being and enjoying being priests with brother priests might prevent some of the sad incidents where a few brethren have gone astray. Perhaps some would have avoided dangerous and ill advised behavior had there been a better alternative accessible. If we priests do not take care our ourselves and of our brethren in Holy Orders, we will not be at our best to serve the faithful we pledged and committed ourselves to for the rest of our lives the day we were ordained. The People of God deserve nothing less than the best we have to offer, not just in the work we do but also in the person and the priest we are.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Motu Proprio

I was ordained in 1988, the Marian Year. Within six months of my assignment as parochial vicar, I sent a formal application to the Ecclesia Dei Commission asking for faculties to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Before the end of the calendar year, I was informed that Rome no longer granted these but that the request needed to be sent to the local ordinary. Year after year I asked my diocesan bishop and year after year it was ignored. Even a request for Byzantine faculties (Ruthenian church) was overlooked.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI changed everything in 2007 through his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Deo gratias, priests and laity who love and appreicate the extraordinary form can get spiritual nourishment and sustenance. I also love the ordinary form when done properly, as at EWTN. The use of Latin and celebrating ad orientem is not limited to the ancient use.

As I mentioned on the EWTN Roundtable Discussion, Pope Benedict aptly described Catholicism as the religion of the great "et ... et" (Latin for BOTH ... AND) as opposed to other faiths which are primarily exclusive, the 'aut ... aut' (EITHER ... OR). Catholicism tends to synthesize and hence we have BOTH Sacred Scripture (Bible) AND Sacred Tradition as sources of Divine Revelation; BOTH faith AND good works as necessary for salvation; BOTH the Western (Roman Rite) AND Eastern (Byzantine Rite); and now, thanks to B16, we have BOTH the extraordinary form (Missal of 1962; Tridentine Mass) AND the ordinary form (1970 Missal; Novus Ordo of Paul VI) of the one Roman Rite.

Since it is BOTH the extraordinary form AND the ordinary form, neither one is inferior to the other. Both are valid and licit. Both will enhance each other, as Fr. John Zuhlsdorf of What Does The Prayer Really Say commented in his erudite observation. He sees both forms as having a 'gravitational pull' on each other so that mutual appreciation for reverence, adherence to proper observation of the rubrics, and dilgent care that these celebrations edify and inspire those who attend to aspire in their spiritual lives to truly seek and live HOLINESS and SANCTITY. Liturgical worship is primarily giving praise and adoration to God but secondarily it is giving encouragement and strength to believers so they can incorporate the sacred mysteries of faith into their daily living. KNOWING the faith comes from catechesis; GROWING in the faith comes from prayer and spirituality, especially the Sacraments and the Sacred Liturgy; LIVING and PRACTICING the faith comes from living morally good lives and performing the spiritual and coporal works of mercy as often as possible.

There is no contest between the two forms. The ordinary form is such because most Catholics today know and are familiar with the Novus Ordo as they were too young to remember the older form commonly called the Tridentine Mass. Nevertheless, in calling it the extraordinary form, Pope B16 is not making it a second class type of worship. In fact, his letter requires pastors and bishops to do what they can whenever the faithful express their need and desire for the ancient form, be it the Mass or even the other Sacraments. Like the Eastern Rite Churches in union with Rome, their people deserve equal treatment and equal access to their traditions. Yet, they may participate in Western liturgies and vice versa. Similarly, Roman Rite Catholics can attend Byzantine liturgies or the extraordinary or the ordinary form of the Mass in the Western Church.

Without mixing or assimilating rites, all valid and licit liturgical traditions and rituals only enhance our CATHOLICITY (universality). Eliminating liturgical abuses, innovations, and other aberrations will hopefully result in the demise of the infamous Liturgical Nazis who for the past four decades raped our churches and sanctuaries of real Catholic art and music and replaced them with pedestrian and banal noise, space and activity. We can have a real Liturgical Renaissance thanks to Pope Benedict and his motu proprio.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Response to 18 Catholic ? Democrats

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA ADVISORY
Catholic PRWire

Dear Legislators,

MARYSVILLE, PA, MAY 22, 2007 - Your letter of May 10th is self-incriminating. While criticizing the Pope for doing his job as supreme pastor, you yourselves betray your own duplicity as Catholic lawmakers. The supreme pastor of the universal church has jurisdiction over every Catholic Christian in the world. Canon Law makes it clear that every baptized Catholic is under the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Hence, when the Roman Pontiff upholds and enforces the Divine Positive and the Natural Moral Laws, he is not interfering with man-made civil law, rather, he is reminding you of its subservience to the higher laws to which it must conform for the common good of all.

Canon 1398 states that “a person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” Anyone who supports abortion is a formal cooperator in evil while those who ‘personally oppose abortion but uphold a woman’s right to choose abortion’ are material cooperators in evil. When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict sent a letter to the US Bishops in 2004 which said “a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.” He also said that Catholic politicians who consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws are formal cooperators in evil and they are “not to present themselves for Holy Communion.” Our words and actions make us worthy or unworthy. Church law merely ratifies our decision by telling us to refrain from Communion when we should not be taking it.

The Pope has the right, the obligation and the duty to enforce the moral law, which is superior to all municipal, state, federal or even international law. The Nuremburg trials proved that when Nazis were convicted of the heinous evil and injustice of genocide despite the apparent civil legality at the time. The government enacted immoral laws which society and decency said should never have been upheld or enforced.

Your letter insinuates that the Bishop of Rome is interfering with American jurisprudence. He is not. Pope Benedict is merely reminding Catholic Americans that their first and foremost loyalty is to God and the common good. Any and all civil laws which contradict the Divine and/or the Natural Law are invalid and have no obligation upon anyone. If that were not the case, then slavery, segregation and anti-Semitism would have to be tolerated if some legislature or court upheld laws supporting these atrocities. Thankfully, even the evil of apartheid is finally gone though it had been legal for centuries in South Africa.

Learn from history and remember that it has usually been religious people of faith who have convinced lawmakers and judges that immoral laws must be abolished no matter how ‘constitutional’ they may appear. Our inalienable rights do not come from any document, not even the Constitution nor are they bestowed upon us by any government. The right to life comes from the Creator and once given, it cannot be unjustly taken away. The unborn children murdered by abortion have had no due process yet their civil rights have been denied them. Even though they are in their mother, the unborn are no more ‘property’ than was any slave. No one owns another human being, whether in the womb or out of it.

On the one hand you state “advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission,” yet you remonstrate the spiritual leader of our one billion member church simply because he reaffirms the innate evil of abortion. How can you advance ‘respect for life’ and the ‘dignity of every human being’ without a complete and total ban on all abortions? Reducing abortions and providing moral alternatives, like adoption, are very laudatory, but they are not enough.

All abortions must be outlawed and Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned once and for all. Would abolitionists and African-Americans been satisfied if slavery had merely been ‘reduced’ rather than abolished? Of course not. Though shamefully our nation legalized slavery at one time, limiting and reducing an immoral evil and a civil injustice was not enough. Even though the Supreme Court issued their infamous Dred Scott and (1857) and Plessy v. Furguson (1896) decisions, slavery and racial segregation remained unjust, evil and immoral, despite their apparent ‘legality’ by the highest court of the land. Likewise, Roe v. Wade (1973) may have ‘legalized’ abortion across the land, but its inherent injustice to the unborn human child remains a moral and civil evil upon our country.

Catholics, whether politicians, judges or voters, need to act responsibly. If they give direct and proximate material cooperation in evil, from abortion to euthanasia, then Divine Law, Moral Law and Canon Law say they are ineligible for Holy Communion. You do not need an official excommunication, either. Hopefully, more bishops and pastors will remind their people and enforce this so as to discourage any and all cooperation in these moral evils.

Rev. John Trigilio, Jr.
President

Sunday, November 19, 2006

If Ye Be Lukewarm I Shall Vomit Thee Out of My Mouth

A growing phenomenon among the faithful clergy is a potential pandemic of spiritual APATHY. Many of us who had to fight long and hard for many years just to get ordained, who suffered and were persecuted for our orthodoxy and our loyalty to the Roman Pontiff and the Magisterium, have now hit middle age. In our youth, we fought the heretical professors, we did battle with the dens of iniquity which tried to indoctrinate us into the false religion. As newly ordained junior clergy, we stood up to the old liberal guard who ran the parishes and chancery offices. We declared our loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and to the actual rubrics of GIRM. We then had the Catechism to defeat the status quo of the catechetical elite who proliferated the church as DRE's and who deified existentialism as the savior of catechetics while they simultaneously pooh-poohed doctrinal formation and memorization.

During seminary days (which many of us referred to as the Russian Siberian Gulag or Nazi German Stalag 13) we had a common enemy, heterodoxy. Like Christians in third century Rome or Catholics in Elizabethan England, we strategically remained undercover while clandestinely studying the truth from outside sources like Opus Dei. After being ordained and surviving the first parish assignment, usually with one of the most liberal pastors of the diocese, many of us longed for the day we would be pastor ourselves and finally could do what had to be done and do it the proper way according to canon and liturgical laws.

After ten, fifteen or more years for many of us, they could no longer delay the inevitable and we were made pastors and could now call the shots so to speak. When we were younger and more idealistic and less cynical, we went to our annual Opus Dei priest retreats at Arnold Hall. We subscribed and read orthodox periodicals like 30 Days, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register and of course, the bedrock Wanderer. We cheered when Mother Angelica dumped the modified habit after the Miss Youth Day impersonated Christ at a living Stations of the Cross performed in Denver for the late Pope John Paul the Great. We watched attentively as the Poor Clares in Irondale donned the wimples and full veils and sang like angels as they chanted the familiar Latin parts of the Mass as Vatican II had originally envisioned.

Middle age does something to men. Laymen, especially married men, often experience a crisis and need to act out some stupid immature fantasy, whether it is buying a flashy red sportscar he cannot afford, or getting married on the spur of the moment at a Chapel of Love in Las Vegas or in the extreme of abandoning a wife and children for some bimbo he met on a chatline via the internet. Mid-life crisis they call it. Priests are not immune to it. Some, run off an marry a divorcee with children, a few sadly run off with the church organist (and it ain't a she if you now what I mean). Others take an indefinite sabbattical and no one hears from them again.

A majority of middle-aged clerics just get into a slump. Their zeal and fervor have been tempered over the decades by diocesan policies and parish soap opera antics. Increasing fundraising, tedious and incessant meetings, enormous budget concerns, personnell problems, psychotic parishioners, incompetent volunteers, unrealistic and severe assessments, et al. rob your priestly soul of the original dream you had when you decided to enter the seminary and began dreaming of BEING a priest. We still DO priestly things like celebrate Mass, hear confessions, anoint the sick, hatch-match-and-dispatch (baptize, marry and bury), etc., which we love to do, but our days get more and more infected with managerial tasks which are governed by corporate principles and techniques. Increase prodcutivity is what is demaned from us, not saving souls, not dispensing God's grace via His sacraments or teaching the truths of revelation.

Worse of all, I can see in many of my colleagues the slow, slow death of their enthusiasm for the priesthood. When the bishop and diocese see and treat you as lower management and when you see incompetent sycophants rewarded with promotions, good assignments, ecclesiastical honors, and so forth, while orthodox preachers and reverent celebrants are ignored at best and are socially ostracized by the rest of presbyterate at worst, then many question is it worth it? Faith is not lost but the zeal has evaporated.

When attempts are made to network orthodox priests in the same geographical region by having monthly days or just afternnoons of recollection, the novelty wears off quickly and after six months.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Response to Commonweal Editorial

As President of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (a 31 year old national association of 600 priests and deacons) and as a pastor and a diocesan priest ordained for more than 18 years, I personally and professionally repudiate the premise contained in a November 3, 2006 Commonweal editorial (Tomorrow's Priests). I entered the seminary in 1976 after graduating from eighth grade (parochial school) and continued from high school seminary to college seminary to major seminary until ordination in 1988. During those twelve years of seminary, I saw and heard a lot. Likewise, in the subsequent eighteen years of priesthood, mostly in parish ministry with a brief stint in Tribunal and Hospital Chaplaincy ministry, my experience is certainly not insignificant.

First, the assertion that two major groups exist(ed) in the seminary (either doctrinally orthodox to Rome or pastorally open to collaboration with the people) is inaccurate at best and deceptive at worst. During the later years of the pontificate of Pope Paul VI when I entered High School Seminary, there was a general malaise prolific in many minor and major seminaries. Faculty members who had hoped the reforms of Vatican II would have led to further and more revolutionary changes (priestly celibacy, women's ordination, etc.) were hoping that P6's successor would open the doors and not just the windows (as did J23). Faith and morals were considered 'fluid' and 'malleable' in that they could and needed to adapt to the times, or so this group thought. Immutable doctrines and absolute moral laws were relics of the past, they maintained. Many of these theological and liturgical 'hippies' were the ones who ran the seminaries and therefore sought to remake the mold used to form the contemporary priest.

Collaboration with the laity was not their real agenda anymore than was subsidiarity. True, this group was unmistakably prone to dissent from Magisterial teaching (as evidenced by their enthusiastic embrace of Charles Curran and his dissent from Humanae Vitae) and were certainly not concerned or preoccupied with loyalty to Rome. Yet, they were not the populist saviors they purported to be. Recall in Church History when Martin Luther inaugurated the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. He convinced Bishops, priests and laity to rebel against Papal authority with the simultaneous rebellion of the kings, princes, and barons against the secular Imperial authority. Once the Pope and the Emperor were out of the way, however, those in power made sure the dominoes stopped falling. The Peasant's Revolt was mercilessly crushed by the aristocracy with the full support and encouragement of Luther and other clerics. The poor peasants only followed logic when they saw the episcopacy revolt against the papacy and saw the aristocracy revolt against the monarchy. They were unaware of the fact that revolutionaries often depose authority so as to replace it with their own brand. Likewise, some of the extreme radicals of the post-Vatican II church sought to sever their doctrinal and disciplinary obedience to Rome but to keep intact their own fascist control over their subordinates.

Prior to the papacy of JP2, the other group in the seminary was indeed loyal to the Magisterium and obedient to the Roman Pontiff. Sarcastically labeled as 'traditionalist' or 'rigid,' those of us who wished to be faithful to the hierarchical structure intended and founded by Christ when He personally established the Church with Saint Peter, were in the minority and had no influence whatsoever. Those who rejected infallible doctrines and absolute moral laws, embraced and promoted dynamic doctrines that adapted themselves to become more appealing to non-Catholics. They also embraced an amorphous morality which would open the doors to contraception, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, corruption, graft, etc., since there were no more ethical absolutes. Many of the problems and scandals inside the seminary and afterwards in the parishes after some of these guys got ordained can be traced to BAD theology and BAD morality. Both were sustained, sadly, by BAD liturgy (lex credendi, lex agendi, lex orandi). The raping of the Catholic worship resulted in the intentional loss of reverence, sacredness, sacrifice and worship of the divine. Liturgical aberrations and abuses promoted the dissident theology and adulterated morality by glorifying man over God. Human nature was deified while divinity was dethroned. Concupiscence was no longer the effect of Original Sin, but a natural inclination which needed to be understood and nurtured. The only official deviancy was the old regime and the few new recruits who sought to restore Peter to his chair which had been stolen from under his seat.

It is a false dichotomy to say one had to choose between loyalty to Rome and collaboration with the people. Ironically, it is the people who are often more Catholic than their clergy at times. Like the days of the Soviet Union, Communists claimed to represent and cooperate with the people (proletariat) after they had overthrown the bourgeoisie. The reality was that the new order had no intention of sharing authority with the people and in fact sought to control and manipulate the masses. Anyone who disagreed was sent to a Gulag or simply eliminated. Dissent from party policy was dealt with severity and swiftness. The Kremlin and the KGB did not share power nor did they tolerate unconditional adherence to their rule.

Similarly, the ecclesiastical radicals bragged about their disdain for the Pope, the Vatican and the Magisterium. Academic freedom and liberty of conscience were their mantras. Yet, if someone under their authority dared to disagree or worse yet, disobey the disobedient, then the fascist side of them emerged. While there was no equivalent Peasants' Revolt, we did have in the seminary those who refused to be disloyal to Rome. It was not the people in the pews who faithfully went to church for Mass and confessions who demanded that their parishes remove statues, communion rails or whitewash their sanctuaries. The liturgical Nazis imposed iconoclasm on many parishes and they even deported Christ by removing Tabernacles and placing them in obscure, small, and covert 'Eucharistic chapels' instead of the main worship space.

If the ultra-reformers (those who feel V2 did not go far enough) were truly collaborative, they would not be the ones who bully and harass the elderly woman who chooses to kneel for Communion. Paradoxically, the same bullies are too timid to refuse Communion to politicians who openly support abortion. Bishops who remained silent when local 'theologians' publicly espoused heterodox teaching or even overtly dissented from Humanae Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, or who refused to enforce Ex Corde Ecclesiae by requiring and monitoring the mandate needed to teach theology, are often the very same ones who quickly and with ferocity impose sanctions (such as suspension or interdict) on those who dare question their prudential judgments. Disagree with the Pope, even from the pulpit or in the classroom, and nothing was done. Disagree or question a diocesan policy, however, and incur the wrath of Khan. Authentic collaboration are the bishops, priests and deacons who listen to and respond to the spiritual needs of the parishioners who SUPPORT and who ATTEND the local church.

If many post-Vatican II clergy need to be re-educated it was not because they were poor students while in the seminary. Some just got bad or poor education because they were not given the unadulterated truth. There was no Catechism prior to 1992. I was ordained in 1988. We had the Code of Canon Law since 1983 but even that was criticized in class, as in the case of mandating first confession before first communion (#777 and 915). The Documents of Vatican II were not taught but the ' spirit of Vatican II' was invoked all over the place. Thankfully, some of us went underground and learned the truth by secretly reading Denziger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, the Summa Theologica, and attending annual seminarian conferences sponsored by none other than Opus Dei.

What was not taught in the seminary besides orthodox doctrine and morality was business management. The corporate model of ecclesiology was never explained or taught but extensively used as many of us discovered once we were ordained. The hierarchical institution model was always ridiculed but the servant, herald, mystical communion or community of disciples while promoted to one degree or another, did not reflect the reality outside the seminary, however. Many priests who find themselves discouraged, disenchanted or even demoralized are so because they do not feel, see themselves or are treated as spiritual fathers of a local family of faith. Instead, they are often employees of the corporation. Pastors spend more time doing fundraising, attending committee meetings, and reading and completing diocesan paperwork than they do celebrating the sacraments. Often, we are treated like branch managers of the company and the bishop is the senior vice president, surrounded by his board of directors in the chancery office. Policies to protect assets, and increase revenue and reduce expenditures are certainly prudent and required by good stewardship. Sadly, these often become the high priority while the teaching of orthodox doctrine and the reverent celebration of the sacraments are put on the back burner if at all.

When parishioners ask for devotions like Divine Mercy, Eucharistic Adoration, Public Rosary, Novenas, Processions and the like, often the so-called 'collaborators' ignore or insult them. When parishioners utilize their legal option to receive Communion on the tongue or to confess anonymously, their legitimate choice is denied. When someone is known to be a member of Opus Dei, Familia or Regnum Christi, they are often prevented and prohibited in some dioceses from joining Parish Council. So much for collaboration. Often, parish council members are 'elected' like Stalin and others were in the former USSR, i.e., no other candidate was allowed OR the party merely told you who were elected before any vote took place.

Seminarians do not need administrative or managerial skills or training. They need orthodox theological and sound philosophical education within the context of solid spiritual formation founded on prayer and proper celebration of the sacraments, especially the Holy Mass. Instead of running parishes and dioceses like businesses and corporations, we need to return to the familial model. Pastors and Bishops should be paternal and not middle or upper management. Many of us clergy long for the day when competent and qualified deacons and laity can handle most if not all of the mundane business of the parish, like budgets, committee meetings, fundraising, employee relations, labor disputes, diocesan bureaucratic paperwork, et al. I would rather spend time teaching the faith and ministering to the sick rather than worrying about salaries, benefits, insurance, decreasing offertory income, rising expenditures, etc. Here is where real collaboration can take place. Unlike Trusteeism which turned the parish over to the lay trustees who could hire and fire the pastor and other clergy, real lay collaboration is using the gifts and talents of the parishioners, especially those who have accounting, financial and managerial training and experience. The pastor still represents the authority of the local bishop but the division of labor is such that he is assisted by the wisdom and experience of the laity who help him with their expertise. Tampering with doctrine, morals or the sacred liturgy is not the prerogative of either the pastor or the parishioners.

Real faith communities are not places where the clergy have abdicated their authority to teach and govern and be mere sacrament dispensers. Real faith communities are FAMILIES of faith where the pastor is the spiritual FATHER. Collaboration and cooperation occur in the diverse apostolates of the parish, like teaching the faith to children and adults, keeping the church clean, planning and celebrating reverent liturgies that conform to the traditions of our church. Ironically, it is the other side which unilaterally imposes liturgical aberrations and illicit innovations upon the parishioners whether like it or not. This is not a battle between liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists, pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. The issue is whether to abandon or entirely embrace the 'corporate business' model. Many of us choose to restore the ancient family model which was never democratic but always hierarchical yet always in an atmosphere of charity, justice and mercy. Since the wonderful reign of Pope John Paul II and his current successor Pope Benedict XVI, we have two exquisite role models and one marvelous vision. Many of the bishops these two have appointed are superb choices and in fact shepherd their diocese like a father leads his family. There are some, however, who still use a business model and prefer the role of executive to that of father. Disobedient children cannot be ignored nor encouraged in their folly, especially when it endangers the rest of the family. Redefining doctrine or reinventing sacred liturgy are not viable options. Sentire cum ecclesiae (think with the church) and ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the church) are our best roadmaps.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

USCCB Fall Meeting 2006

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln said the obvious this week at the annual Fall meeting of the American Bishops. Episcopal Conferences have no magisterial teaching authority unless it is a unanimous statement of the entire conference OR a majority of bishops approve a document AND it subsequently receives recognitio from the Holy See. This clarification came from Pope John Paul the Great in 1997's Apostolos Suos.

The Holy Father wrote that the true purpose of an episcopal conference "requires that an excessively bureaucratic development of offices and commissions operating between plenary Sessions be avoided." He went on to say that "commissions and offices exist to be of help to bishops and not to substitute for them." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, explained this document at a Vatican press conference attended by several senior curial officials: "Episcopal conferences do not constitute per se a doctrinal instance which is binding and superior to the authority of each bishop who comprises them."

B16 said, "if doctrinal declarations emanating from a conference are approved unanimously by the bishops, they can be published in the name of the conference itself, and the faithful must adhere" to them. "If this unanimity is lacking, a qualified majority alone of the bishops of a conference cannot publish the eventual declaration as authentic magisterium of the same (body) ... unless such a document approved by a qualified majority obtains the 'recognitio' of the Holy See."

One major problem is that truth is not defined by consensus. When the majority of the world believed the earth was flat, that did not make it so. Likewise, wheen the USCCB issued a brochure a few years ago (2003) on marriage, the final document approved by the majority of bishops never once used the words "sin", "sinful" or "evil" to describe same-sex unions, homosexual 'marriages' or even homosexual activity. The only line in the entire piece that uses an ethical judgment is found in section six: "Christians must ... oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons."

The recent document "Married Love and the Gift of Life" is another example. The words "sin", "sinful" or "evil" never appear in the document. Only ONCE is found in the text: "contraception is objectively immoral" Cohabitation is not overtly condemned nor is fornication and invalid marriages are never mentioned at all.

“Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper” lists sins which if not confessed prevent someone from receiving Holy Communion:

• Believing in or honoring as divine anyone or anything other than the God of the Holy Scriptures

• Swearing a false oath while invoking God as a witness

• Failing to worship God by missing Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation
without a serious reason, such as sickness or the absence of a priest

• Acting in serious disobedience against proper authority; dishonoring one’s parents by neglecting them in their need and infirmity

• Committing murder, including abortion and euthanasia; harboring deliberate hatred of others; sexual abuse of another, especially of a minor or vulnerable adult; physical or verbal abuse of others that causes grave physical or psychological harm

• Engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage

• Stealing in a gravely injurious way, such as robbery, burglary, serious fraud, or other immoral business practices

• Speaking maliciously or slandering people in a way that seriously undermines their
good name

• Producing, marketing, or indulging in pornography

• Engaging in envy that leads one to wish grave harm to someone else

The bishops voted NOT to include artificial contraception even between married persons as another example of mortal sin which would prevent someone from worthily receive Holy Communion. Furthermore, the public scandal of a notorious supporter of abortion, especially a politician, casually coming forward and being given Holy Communion in a Catholic Church by an authorized minister, is avoided and not mentioned in the text. The official response to such situations by priests, deacons or extranordinary ministers of Holy Communion is NOT stated at all.

When consensus is sought, truth is often softened, diluted and influenced by popularity. As Bishop Bruskewitz reminded his brethren, these documents are not Magisterial and do not enjoy that level of teaching authority. The Catechism, however, is an official Magisterial document and the teachings contained in it are infallible (mostly ordinary magisterium with a few coming from the extraordinary magisterium). More episcopal statements are not needed, merely more emphasis and implementation of what is already contained in the Catechism, in the Code of Canon Law, in the Roman Missal and in the Natural Moral Law.

My Blog List

Blog Archive