Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20017-1194
August 29, 2003
Your Excellency,
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy denounces the petition of the 163 priests of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee seeking optional celibacy in the priesthood of the Latin Rite. We declare our unequivocal support for the ancient discipline of priestly celibacy in the Western Church. Furthermore, we do not believe that modifying or abandoning mandatory celibacy in the Western Church, normative since the Council of Elvira (306 AD) and obligatory since Pope Gregory VII (1074 AD), is the answer to the current problems facing the universal and local church.
Unlike the Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches which have had a consistent tradition of optional celibacy, the Roman Church decided long ago to follow a different path. There is no evidence whatsoever, that ending mandatory celibacy would have prevented any acts of sexual misconduct, from pedophilia to ephebophilia. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of these heinous crimes are non-ordained, non-celibate family members.
The fact that some celibate clergy (bishops, priests and deacons) have sexually abused children and adolescents, however, warrants realistic remedies which conform to traditional discipline and defined doctrine. The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, founded in 1975, is composed of over six hundred diocesan and religious priests and deacons from the United States and Canada, and is committed to the ongoing spiritual, theological, pastoral and fraternal formation of the clergy. Unlike some national associations of priests, the CCC has no desire to interfere with the authentic teaching authority of the Magisterium nor do we seek to usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of the national or local hierarchy.
Optional celibacy is not the answer, nor is it the panacea; it is a placebo. It will do nothing. The current crisis in the Catholic Church in America is three-fold. Bad theology, bad liturgy and bad morality have caused the damage and like a malignant tumor, needs to be excised. Heterodoxy as taught by dissident theologians in seminaries and Catholic colleges, supported by liturgical abuses and an iconoclastic crusade to remove reverence from public worship, will inevitably produce immoral behavior. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex agendi.
We ask you and the entire Conference of Bishops to thoroughly, completely and systematically investigate and eliminate all vestiges of heterodoxy, homosexuality and liturgical abuse from all seminaries and to fully implement Ex Corde Ecclesiae in every Catholic college. We ask you and all the bishops as our chief shepherds to inaugurate a Catholic renaissance of reverent celebrations of the Sacraments, especially the Holy Mass, respecting the valid options allowed by the universal church; of conforming all teachers and their teachings to the Magisterium; and of fostering solid, manly vocations, obedient sons of the Church who will live chaste and prayerful lives. Only by restoring the sacred, by defending the revealed truths and by upholding the natural moral law can we achieve any victory over the current crisis of faith now affecting the Church.
You can count on our prayers and support in these endeavors. May Christ the High Priest and His Holy Apostles watch over, guide and direct all the deliberations and discussions held by the American Bishops.
Respectfully Yours,
Rev. John Trigilio, Jr., PhD, ThD
President
Michael Rose's controversial (but accurate) book, Goodbye! Good Men, concerns the up-to-now secret crisis in American seminaries which has lasted for a quarter of a century. Most on the left and a few on the right have attacked, repudiated, chastised, ignored, vilified, or denounced the author or at least have attempted to challenge and/or discredit the data and testimonies contained in the book. Many liberals and some conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon to condemn the author, criticize the scholarship, and rebuke the narratives.
Despite these efforts, those of us who actually survived the seminary experience know too well how true those tales really are. The problem is that no book can address all the issues and propose all the solutions. The horror stories Rose relates brings back many painful memories, but also sheds light on dark secrets which until now have been kept locked up in the basement. Like the pedophilia scandal, the seminary scandal was swept under the carpet for too long. Sadly, without the pressure of the media and the threat of impending lawsuits, this demon may not get the speedy and serious response as was given in Dallas by the Episcopal conference. Even though the Holy See has ordered a thorough investigation of all seminaries and their formation programs, whether or not it disintegrates into an impotent "visitation" like the last one may be an easy bet.
Were a sequel or volume two to come out, it could concern the improvements made by some of the previously bad seminaries and include more on the current good ones. The first book told stories from 10 to 20 to almost 30 years ago, and many of those places are now closed, the faculty members are deceased or have left the priesthood, or some seminaries have been pretty well cleaned up by subsequent rectors and bishops.
Even during the "dark ages" when dissident theology, liturgical abuse, and sexual immorality flourished at an all-time high, there were always in every seminary and diocese some champions of orthodoxy and decency who, although the minority, gave those of us who were in the trenches the courage to keep going and never quit. The good, orthodox, and holy priests (albeit a few), be they diocesan, Vincentian, Divine Word, or otherwise, who sustained us in some of the bad seminaries, or who now run the improved places, should never be forgotten or abandoned.
The most distressing aspect of this affair is that many good bishops, priests, and laity refuse to believe the magnitude of the problem. As Jack Nicholson said in the movie A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth." Goodbye! Good Men only scratched the surface, so a second installment could equally reveal more of the cancer infecting the Church. There were other seminaries not mentioned in the book and many tales not told. While it is true that the situation has improved in general across the nation and that the 1970s and 1980s were the absolute nadir of seminary life, nonetheless, theological dissent, liturgical abuse, and elements of homosexuality still permeate many places, though at a more subdued, discreet, and covert manner.
The lawsuits of today mostly concern crimes of the past, yet sins of the present are still being done and left untouched. The premise in Goodbye! Good Men is that many good men were sacrificed to the wolves so as to promote mediocre and in some cases bad men in their place. Good men who were manly, orthodox, pious, and obedient would often be targets while androgynous, heterodox, flamboyant, and very liberal "men" sailed through the seminary with flying colors. As long as the student accepted and embraced the theological lies being told and as long as he supported liturgical innovations and had a distaste for traditional and reverent ritual, then he would get sterling evaluations from faculty and peers alike.
This did not happen in every seminary nor all the time, but in enough of them and often enough to cause great harm to Holy Mother Church. Like Soviet sleeper spies or moles who would infiltrate the United States, dissidents from magisterial teachings on doctrine, liturgy, and morals tried to plant agents among the various dioceses, parishes, and religious communities to bring about the "revolution." This one, unlike the Russian Revolution of 1917, is barely political, but is predominantly theological, liturgical, and social. Proponents of married clergy, women priests, homosexual marriages and homosexual clergy, pedestrian worship, nontraditional ceremonies, erosion of the sacred and glorification of the banal, and independence from Rome are as much around in 2002 as they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago.
There is a second danger that since many good men who probably had a genuine priestly vocation were nevertheless turned away, thrown out, or converted to the "dark side," then another target will be many good Catholic faithful. Goodbye! Good Catholics might be the next book to hit the market.
Ironically, some at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) spend much time and effort trying to restrict and contain EWTN through complicated canonical regulations, while dissident theologians are not even remotely intimidated by the mandatum required by Ex Corde Ecclesiae. A bishop may or may not revoke or grant a mandatum to a particular theologian and he or she may or may not possess one, yet there is no mechanism to demand that only theologians with a mandatum can and ought to teach in Catholic colleges and universities. Having or not having the mandatum has little if any consequences for theologians, whereas getting the proper permissions from bishops and superiors just to broadcast a radio or television program is much more intrusive, manipulative, and will be done with more severity, you can be sure.
Teach heterodoxy at a Catholic college and you may or may not get your mandatum revoked, but you will still have your job, even though parents and students are paying obscene amounts of tuition for an allegedly Catholic and orthodox education. On the other hand, if you are on TV or radio and explain the unadulterated authentic faith as taught by the Magisterium, you still need permission slips from one to three bishops.
Good Catholics are being intimidated and discouraged when nothing or very little is ever said or written by the bishops concerning Catholics who do not regularly attend Mass, who live together before marriage, who use contraception, who openly support abortion and/or political candidates who also deny the right to life of the unborn. Politicians who are pro-abortion are never excommunicated, yet priests who validly and licitly celebrate Mass ad orientem are threatened with suspension. Cohabiting couples are allowed to have elaborate weddings with white gowns et al., while traditional Catholics who legitimately ask for the indult (Ecclesia Dei) Tridentine Mass are either refused or only given a token permission for one day a month on a Saturday evening.
Documents on global warming, nuclear weapons, economics, and so-called church art are prolific. Issues like waning belief in and reverence for the Real Presence, the abuse of general absolution, sporadic Mass attendance, gross ignorance of the faith among the post-confirmed faithful, rejection of papal and magisterial authority are never addressed.
Good Catholics who devoutly come to church every week, if not every day, and who reverently kneel before their Lord and God are now being bullied and insulted and harassed for not standing instead. Bad enough that the bishops approved of an emendation to the rubrics of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR) n. 160 which, as approved by Rome, will make standing the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion. Kneeling or genuflecting will be discouraged, but those who do so cannot be denied Communion.
Instead of beating up the few faithful who devoutly kneel, especially at a Communion rail, or who momentarily genuflect, why not spend the effort and energy going after the faithful who show no reverence whatsoever? Communicants with dirty hands, sometimes with tattoos or pen writing all over them; those who refuse to observe the one hour fast before Communion; non-Catholics and persons invalidly married coming to Communion; and those who truly do not believe that the bread and wine have substantially changed into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ — these are the people the bishops need to correct, not the pious and reverent who give proper adoration to the Real Presence.
There are even parishes and dioceses which blatantly violate rubric n. 21 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (also n. 43 in the IGMR) which mandates the posture of kneeling for the consecration and in the United States, for the entire eucharistic prayer. Yet, nothing is done to enforce that law. Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez has clarified that each priest may celebrate Mass versus apsidem and not only and just versus populum, but see what happens if the local parish priest faces the tabernacle instead of the people.
The cover-up over transferred pedophiles eroded much confidence the laity had in general for the American hierarchy. The sex scandals themselves diluted a lot of respect and admiration for the priesthood. The only constant our people have is the true faith. Leaders, being human, will inevitably sin and make mistakes, but the divinely revealed faith is perennial, constant, and unchanging. Seven sacraments and the Deposit of Faith keep us all, clergy and laity, grounded in the one true Church.
Bad examples have always been with us. Even the first bishops were less than exemplary: Peter denied Christ, Thomas doubted, Judas betrayed Him, and 11 abandoned Him as He died on the cross. Yet, the Catholic Church survived. She endured the Eastern Orthodox Schism of 1054, the Avignon Papacy, the Western Schism and Three Popes, the Protestant Reformation, and so on. She will endure our current crisis as well. Those of us living in these times, however, cannot be inactive bystanders, either.
Pray for our bishops, show them respect, and obey all their lawful and licit commands. We are not Protestants who make themselves their own pope, and so, we must follow the chain of command but know what we are obliged to do and what we are encouraged to do. The Holy See (the Pope and the Vatican) and universal law outrank lower authorities. Hence, no priest or pastor can countermand or revoke a lawful order or decree of the local bishop any more than the local bishop can circumvent or ignore the legitimate authority of Rome.
If Rome says something is permitted, it is permitted all over the world unless Rome has specifically allowed local bishops to say otherwise (very rare). If the local bishop makes a lawful policy for the diocese, no individual pastor or priest has the authority to change it. If the diocese says no weddings on Sundays, then no priest can ignore that. If Rome says we kneel at the consecration, then no bishop or conference of bishops can say otherwise.
Before more good men with genuine vocations to the priesthood and diaconate are prevented or discouraged from being ordained and before more good Catholics are disgusted and discouraged as well and perhaps even stop going to church, why don't our shepherds fully commit themselves to an aggressive and thorough investigation and reform of our seminary system; to a comprehensive removal of all theological dissenters, liturgical abusers, and homosexual clergy and faculty, in all Catholic colleges, universities, and seminaries; to a renewal and renaissance of reverence and reaffirmation in the belief of the Real Presence by showing more respect for the Blessed Sacrament, i.e., moving the tabernacles back to the middle of the sanctuary (n. 314 "a noble, worth and conspicuous" location), allowing the option of receiving Holy Communion standing or kneeling (just as they currently have the option of in the hand or on the tongue), and enforcing the rule on kneeling for the consecration (and in the United States for the entire eucharistic prayer)?
Bad theology is supported by bad liturgy and both promote bad morality. Orthodox theology is supported by reverent liturgy and both promote holiness as well as good morality. Sound doctrine and reverent worship of the Real Presence always produce abundant vocations. Check the dioceses where many vocations flourish and examine the parishes those men come from. Places where the Blessed Sacrament is prominent and highly respected and where the authentic teachings of the Church as defined by the Magisterium are defended and promoted — these are the fertile grounds for priestly and religious vocations.
It is no secret that colleges like Christendom, Thomas Aquinas, Franciscan University in Steubenville, and now Ave Maria are doing well since parents and students are assured of a high-caliber, authentically Catholic education and environment. Dioceses and bishops who are known for their orthodoxy and send candidates to solid seminaries which have reverent Masses, frequent if not perpetual adoration of the Holy Eucharist and thoroughly Catholic catechesis from children to adults, will provide the vocations for these dioceses as well as students for these colleges.
There is an old saying that it is superfluous to preach to the choir. It is also dangerous to beat up the choir as well. Instead of harassing devout Catholics for showing sincere eucharistic piety and rather than persecuting orthodox seminarians and instead of attacking priests loyal to the Roman Pontiff and Magisterium, why don't the successors of the Apostles correct the real offenders and culprits?
Dissent from doctrine is no different than dissent form the moral law. Dissidents who teach erroneous theology are on the same plane as perverts who prey on children. The former corrupts the innocence of the mind and the latter contaminates the innocence of the body. Zero tolerance for pedophile priests should include zero tolerance for heterodoxy as well as zero tolerance for sacrilege — which occurs whenever liturgical abuse and aberrations are consciously performed.
An old proverb says "the more things change, the more they stay the same." This is evident in the latest edition of the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law ©2000 by the Canon Law Society of America. Like its 1985 predecessor, this current version combines English translation of ecclesiastical jurisprudence with modern theology as well as contemporary commentary. Readers will find more than comments, however, as blatant heterodoxy, dissent and outright nonsense punctuate the book. Unlike other English commentaries (Opus Dei's Code of Canon Law Annotated, ©1993, University of Navarre, and the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland's The Canon Law: Letter & Spirit, ©1995, Liturgical Press) where orthodox commentary is accompanied by authoritative sources, our American versions on the other hand are a plethora of speculative theology, dissident opinion and at times crass impudence.
Book One, General Norms, which covers canons 1-203 is ecclesiastical jurisprudence in its undiluted form. It is canon law, pure and simple. Book Two (cc. 204-746) concerns the People of God, from the Faithful to the Hierarchy to Religious Life. Book Three (cc. 747-833), however, is where one finds blatant and overt dissent. Ironically, this section covers the Teaching Office (mundus docendi), i.e., the Magisterium. It is this part of the Commentary where open heterodoxy rears its ugly head. Canon 749 deals with the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and of the College of Bishops in union with him. The law is clear and succinct and is taken almost verbatim from Pastor Aeternus (DZ. 3065) of Vatican I and Lumen Gentium #25 of Vatican II: "By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith and morals is to be held."1
The new commentary opines "the narrowly circumscribed and almost-never-exercised prerogative of teaching infallibly, here attributed to the papal and episcopal offices, should be seen within the larger and more basic indefectibility and inerrancy of the Church itself . . . Nearly all of the vast amount of papal teaching, i.e., encyclicals, exhortations, letters, addresses, homilies, etc, is non-infallible."2 Obviously, the CLSA does not distinguish the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra Papal pronouncements and solemnly defined decrees of Ecumenical Councils) from the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. A footnote on the same page makes an even bolder assertion, or more precisely, a brazen attack when it says "the statement by the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since 'it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium' is an exaggeration" [emphasis mine].3 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in the Responsum ad Dubium (10-28-95) did not exaggerate the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, rather, he aptly pointed out that it is definitive and to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith and his assessment was authorized by the Roman Pontiff, Pope John Paul II. On November 17th, 1995, Archbishop J. Francis Stafford, concurred with the judgment that this was definitive and "infallible" teaching. The following day (November 18), the CDF issued yet another clarification on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that whereas the document itself is not an ex cathedra statement, nevertheless, the doctrine contained in it is considered infallible since it emanates from the infallible Ordinary Magisterium: "all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein."4
Classifying the official interpretation of the CDF as an "exaggeration" is offensive to say the least and has no place in a commentary on canon law. Canon Law reflects and implements the theology of the Magisterium; it does not create or interpret it. Yet, this cavalier attitude is seen again in the commentary on canon 752. The authentic Latin text reads: "Non quidem fidei assensus, religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium praestandum est doctrinae, quam sive Summus Pontifex sive Collegium Episcoporum de fide vel de moribus enuntiant, cum magisterium authenticum exercent, etsi definitivo actu eandem proclamare non intendant; christifideles ergo devitare curent quae cum eadem non congruant."5 CLSA translates it thus: "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it."6 Whereas the 1985 version renders "obsequium" as "respect" [religious respect of intellect and will . . .], the 2000 edition concurs with the other two English translations and uses the term "submission" [religious submission of intellect and will . . .]. The new commentary, though, contradicts itself when it says "an exact translation of obsequium is difficult but 'submission' is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin."7 Austin Flannery, O.P., on the other hand, found no problem rendering obsequium as "submission" when he translated Lumen Gentium #25 in his monumental work, Vatican Council II; The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Costello Publishing, 1998). Not only is "submission" rejected, but an even more diluted concept of a "respectful religious deference [emphasis mine] of intellect and will" is proposed in the next paragraph.8
Why the soft language? It is clear when we read the proposition that "the canon [752] leaves room for dissent when such honest disagreement is based on preponderant evidence."9 A footnote in the New Commentary on this very passage states: "the book of readings edited by Charles Curran and Richard McCormick, listed in the bibliography, provides a thorough discussion of the issue of dissent in the Church."10 Obviously, the line of reasoning is that anything which is not a formal statement of the Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra papal teaching or solemn decrees of Ecumenical Councils) is open for debate and possible dissent. This faulty logic is refuted by canon 750 as well as by Lumen Gentium #25 where it states categorically: "A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium [emphasis mine] . . ."11 Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would be vulnerable to dissent according to this commentary, which violates the very teaching of Lumen Gentium #25 and the Catechism #892.
The teaching authority of the bishops is then treated in canon 753 where it is reiterated that the bishops "individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility of teaching."12 "Religious submission of mind," however, is to be given to the authentic magisterium of the bishops by the Christian faithful. Again, the New Commentary in the footnote accuses "submission" as being "too strong an English translation of obsequium."13 Pope John Paul II explained in Apostolos Suos (May 21, 1998) that individual bishops as successors to the Apostles possess the fulness of the priesthood and therefore authentically teach, govern and sanctify in their own dioceses as "ambassadors of Christ" who exercise his three-fold office of priest, prophet and king. Episcopal (national or regional) Conferences, on the other hand, do not have the same autonomy as do local bishops in their own respective territory and they cannot bind or limit the member bishops without prior recognitio of the Holy See or where specifically mandated by canon law. As Vatican II pointed out, bishops by themselves or as a conference must always be in communion with the Head of the college of bishops and its members around the world in order to exercise that authority. (Lumen Gentium #25) Paragraph 22 of the apostolic letter goes on to say:
Canon 754 deals with the non-infallible but nevertheless authentic teaching of the Church. "All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth."17 The editorial is then made: "the canon comes from an age when it was thought that truth could be imposed and error proscribed by edict."18 This is a non-sequitur argument since it is only logical that the same authority which possesses the fullness of teaching authority (i.e., the Magisterium) would also have a jurisdictional right to identify certain errors and heresies which threaten the deposit of faith.
The Profession of Faith covered by canon 833 has another pejorative commentary. When the code was promulgated in 1983, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with a 1967 addition was the official Profession to be used, for instance, when an apostate was reconciled into full communion. Shorter than the additions after the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, this one stated after the Creed: "I firmly embrace and accept all and everything which has been either defined by the Church's solemn deliberations or affirmed and declared by its ordinary magisterium concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, according as they are proposed by it, especially those things dealing with the Holy Church of Christ, its sacraments and the sacrifice of the Mass, and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff."19
"However, in a hasty action on February 25, 1989, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published in L'Osservatore Romano a new, theologically ambiguous and controversial formula."20 The validity of this harsh criticism evaporates when the actual text is examined. The CDF substituted these words at the end of the Creed to complete the Profession of Faith canonically required by those persons listed in canon 833:
1. With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
2. I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing that is proposed definitively by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
3. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.21
The papal motu proprio of 1998 confirming the CDF adjustment of 1989 underscores the clarity and lack of ambiguity of this formula, yet the 2000 Commentary makes this unfair assessment nonetheless.
Moving on to Book Four: The Sanctifying Office (munus sanctificandi) of the Church, is covered by canons 834-1253. A subtle discrepancy can be located in the commentary on canon 910, the Minister of Holy Communion, 910.1 states that the ordinary minister is the bishop, priest or deacon while 910.2 speaks of the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. The Latin text uses the word "extraordinarius" which the CLSA English translation renders as "extraordinary," yet the commentary cites an obscure ICEL translation of "special" minister which "avoids the connotation of the English word 'extraordinary' meaning 'unusual.'"22 Article 8 of the Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest explicitly states that the Extraordinary Minister may distribute Holy Communion only when there are no ordained ministers present or when there are particularly large numbers of the faithful. "This function is supplementary and extraordinary."23 The Congregation for the Clergy and seven other Roman Discasteries with the approval of the Roman Pontiff evidently consider it "extraordinary" and thus should be more "unusual" than normal (as practiced in many parishes in the U.S.).
Canon 914 unequivocally mandates First Penance before First Communion for children. "It is the primary duty of parents . . . as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the age of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, [emphasis mine] are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible."24 Paradoxically, the New Commentary mentions that "in the years following Vatican II there was widespread experimentation with the practice of delaying first penance until after first communion, but the Apostolic See repeatedly ordered these experiments be halted,"25 yet it also encourages disobedience by suggesting "if the parents, who have the primary responsibility for the child's catechesis, should determine that their child is not yet ready for first penance but is ready for first communion, the child should not be denied the right to the sacrament."26 Once again commentary is replaced with innovation.
Canon 938 concerns the tabernacle. Paragraph two reads that "the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is to be situated in some part of the church or oratory which is distinguished, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer."27 The New Commentary insists that liturgical laws "strongly recommended a separate blessed sacrament [note the lack of capitalization] chapel as the most fitting place for eucharistic reservation."28 It even footnotes the notorious Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (EACW) which is bizarre when one considers the vocal opposition to this liturgical committee statement by the general assembly of the NCCB. The bishops themselves emphasized the fact that only documents approved by the entire episcopal conference have any weight and Apostolos Suos would further decree that only unanimous statements have binding authority (subject to papal recognitio).
Note that the revised GIRM #314 states that the tabernacle should be reserved in a part of the Church which is noble, worthy, conspicuous, well decorated and suitable for prayer. Paragraph 315 goes on to say that the tabernacle should be placed (a) either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in the most suitable form and place, not excluding on an old altar which is no longer used for celebration; (b) or even in another chapel suitable for adoration which is integrally connected with the church and is conspicuous to the faithful. Inaestimabile Donum #24 required a location for the tabernacle which is very prominent, truly noble and duly decorated. The option of a separate chapel is mentioned as a third alternative, not the primary, and the exhortation to move the tabernacle from the sanctuary to a chapel is clearly absent in recent official documents. Ironically, the New Commentary hearkens to out of date policies which sought to create small adoration closets instead of fostering healthy latria for the Real Presence among the entire congregation and parish at large.
The lamentable aspect is that the good commentary from orthodox contributors and authors contained in this new edition will be overshadowed by the deficient and sometimes dissident notions of their colleagues contained in other chapters of this book. Some astute and brilliant scholarship and sound jurisprudence can be found, however, the overt and veiled repudiation of recent authoritative decrees of Cardinal Ratzinger's office in Book Three on the Teaching Office is offensive, to say the least. The Machiavellian maneuvering in some of the commentaries on the sacraments (Book Four) to promote an agenda is further distasteful. As a former member of the CLSA, I wish that the good authors would have been forewarned about their confreres "philosophy" and that the organization as a whole reform itself by absenting from creeping heterodoxy and subtle dissent.
During the 10th century, the Holy Spirit blessed the Catholic Church with Pope St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand) and the Abbey of Cluny, which precipitated a much needed renewal and internal reform. A thousand years later, we are now blessed with a saintly Pope John Paul II and the Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests. Promulgated in 1994, this document from the Congregation of the Clergy is the logical conclusion and practical extension of the Second Vatican Council (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 1965) and Pastores Dabo Vobis (1992) of John Paul II.
As the Church and the world prepare for the end of the 20th century and the advent of the third millennium, the priesthood, especially at the parochial and diocesan level, is in need of a true spiritual renaissance. Plagued by declining vocations, disgraced by the sexual scandals of a few of its members, often discouraged by onerous bureaucracies and saturated with stress and anxiety of never-ending pastoral needs, the average parish priest desperately requires fundamental rejuvenation.
The evangelization of the 21st century is contingent on the spiritual renewal of the local church, first begun with the universal Church at Vatican II. As dioceses and parishes around the globe initiate programs to effect a revitalization of ecclesiastical life at the local level, the Church herself recognizes the fundamental role of the parish priest in any and all renewal. As Trent and the Counter-Reformation did for the priesthood with the seminary system, Pope John Paul and the Directory now hope to achieve in our own time.
Ongoing formation is the Rosetta Stone, so to speak, whereby that which was begun in the seminary is further cultivated, nurtured and enriched. Today, more than ever, priests need perennial support throughout their whole lives as ordained ministers configured to Christ.
Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua aptly described the present milieu in which the contemporary priest and seminarian (as a future priest) find themselves. In an address in October 1995 at Rome, for the synod on the 30th anniversary of Presbyterorum Ordinis, Cardinal Bevilacqua pointed out the following realities, previously nonexistent, or at least not as pronounced as in the time and climate before Vatican II.
Rampant divorce, increase of single-parent households, urban violence, epidemics of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and an evaporation of cultural moral values (particularly in the areas of human life and sexuality) — all of these factors "have compounded the need for seminary formation programs that engage candidates on a deeply emotional and relational level as well as attending to their spiritual maturity and theological education. Many of those same candidates and recently ordained priests enjoy little family and community support for their vocational journey and often enough stand against family and relatives in their pursuit of faithful Christian living, let alone a life of priestly service."[1]
The cardinal went on to say that, unfortunately, some newly ordained are still not adequately prepared for priestly ministry even after five to nine years of seminary formation, no matter how well-designed a program. Why? Because "more of our candidates and then priests come from families with little active practice of the faith, they bring with them seriously underdeveloped catechetical and spiritual backgrounds, and they have much less familiarity with ordinary parish and church life than could frequently be assumed in past years."[2]
Concurrent with these phenomena is the sharp shift in the public's attitude regarding the priesthood in general, from respect to distrust: "Problems and scandals involving priests are not reported with a sense of sadness at human failure so much as with a kind of glee at having finally learned 'the terrible truth.'"[3]
The priesthood as a career, let alone as a vocation, is not as esteemed nor as honorable in the eyes of the secular culture. Sacrifice, truth, obedience and simplicity — which the priesthood offers the world — are now rejected and refused, often with hostility and venom. The obvious factors of a decreasing number of priests and an increase of demands on fewer healthy and active clergy further compound the situation. As the cardinal put it:
Pope John Paul II addresses not only the scarcity of priests, but other critical factors as well. Among these he includes the lack of knowledge of the faith among many believers; an incorrectly understood pluralism in theology, culture and pastoral teaching; an attitude of indifference toward the magisterium; and the phenomenon of subjectivism in matters of faith. He concludes that we now face a situation which "gives rise to the phenomenon of belonging to the Church in ways which are ever more partial and conditional, with a resulting negative influence on the birth of new vocations to the priesthood, on the priest's own self-awareness and on his ministry within the community" (Pastores Dabo Vobis, no. 7).[4]
The shadow, however, can be conquered by means of renewing the clergy so as to foster and promote healthier (mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically) and happier priests. Although demoralized and disenchanted priests deter many potential seminarians from pursuing their call, enthusiastic and vibrant ones engender zeal and attract more recruits.
The archbishop of Philadelphia frequently refers to the Directory as a source and inspiration for viable priestly renewal.
Those primarily responsible for this new evangelization of the third millennium are the priests, who, however, in order to realize their mission, need to nourish themselves a life which is a pure reflection of their identity, and to live in a union of love with Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest, Head and Master, Spouse and Pastor of His Church. They should strengthen their own spirituality and ministry with a continuous and complete formation.[5]
Cardinal Bevilacqua cited four essential dimensions of ongoing formation by which priests of the 21st century can meet such challenges — namely, human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral:
If we are to be faithful to the vision of Pastores Dabo Vobis and the Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests, the program of continuing formation designed in each diocese needs to include and harmonize these four. . . . The integration of these aspects of formation must be carried out in such a way as to assist each priest in the development of a full human personality matured in the spirit of service to others, intellectually prepared in the theological and human sciences, spiritually nourished by his communion with Jesus Christ and his love for the Church, and engaged with zeal and dedication in the pastoral ministry to which he is assigned [cf. Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests, no. 74].[6]
Consequently, just as the Cluniac Reform called for a new strategy to address new problems, likewise this current era requires some innovative solutions. The "house of clerics," mentioned in the Directory (no. 84), is but one of these. This would optimally be a centrally located place in the diocese whereby the local clergy could avail themselves of ongoing formation at the human, intellectual, spiritual and pastoral levels. "Institutes of study and research centers of spirituality . . . constitute many reference points for theological and pastoral updating, oases of silence, prayer, sacramental confession and spiritual direction, healthy rest including physical relaxation and moments of priestly fraternity."[7]
A place to go for these necessary activities within the diocese warrants that some location be found or established. Although many local churches and dioceses are downsizing like the rest of corporate America, the overall benefit in the long term to the presbyterate and to the diocese outweighs and eclipses the minimal cost of beginning and sustaining such an enterprise.
"Associations of priests," as suggested by Vatican II,[8] "priestly secular institutes"[9] and "clerical associations of the faithful"[10] are a few vehicles by which a house of clerics could be maintained. A few diocesan priests living in community, for example, could fulfill the mandates of Presbyterorum Ordinis, Pastores Dabo Vobis and the Directory, while assisting the local bishop in his ministry to his own local clergy.
In such a place, opportunities for regular and frequent sacramental confession and spiritual direction, especially for the typical parish priest, could be offered. Monthly days of recollection, Eucharistic Holy Hours, communal celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, Marian devotions, silent mental prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, etc., could all be made convenient for the average diocesan parish priest.
Unlike his religious counterpart, the diocesan priest does not have the intrinsic support of community life and the rule to guide and sustain him. Rectory life is not the same as life in community, nor should it be. While not called to solemnly profess the evangelical counsels and live in community, the diocesan parish priest nevertheless needs to emulate the religious treasure and heritage in his own way. Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law allow and encourage parish priests to associate with other priests for their mutual sanctification, to enhance their sacerdotal ministry and to further strengthen their bond of obedience and respect to their bishop.
Theologically, parish priests need to continue their intellectual formation — as in medicine, law and science. The evolution of personal computers and the Internet now permit access to material formerly available only in large college and university libraries. Papal encyclicals, conciliar decrees, curial and episcopal-conference letters — not to mention selections from the patristics, Summa Theologiae, Catholic Encyclopedia, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other resources — are now available to anyone with a computer and modern. Were a diocese to provide a few computers for use by local clergy, this area of formation could be approached quite easily. Monthly or bimonthly lectures, periodic seminars and workshops, etc., could also be done by such an association, and at times most convenient for the parish priest. Sacramental and other pastoral duties often fill up a priest's entire morning and evening. Afternoons, generally speaking, are more suitable for brief but convenient and frequent encounters with other priests to discuss and learn and study. Lastly, parish priests are in need of strong fraternal support. Colleagues leaving or getting involved in scandal; constant telephone calls and growing demands from parishioners; bureaucratic blizzards of mail from various diocesan offices and committees — all of these things (in addition to the increasing number of one-man assignments, lack of affirmation and low public appreciation) make fraternity an invaluable commodity. Successful projects like the Emmaus Program, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and others have shown the fruit of healthy "networking" between brother priests.
Were a diocese to provide a place where local clergy can gather for social, spiritual or intellectual needs, that would be of great benefit to the entire presbyterate. Knowing that there is a place nearby where a priest would not have to eat alone or could spend some time relaxing and experiencing fraternal kindness, a place where he could spend the afternoon or evening or even a day or two, might preclude some from total exhaustion, frustration and depression.
All of the means mentioned of providing ongoing human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral formation can be done in every diocese with a little effort and small investment. The final outcome, of course, is the revitalization and renewal of the parish priesthood, so as to make it as dynamic and as attractive as possible for this and the next generation.
The unknown demands of the third millennium can only be met by a robust presbyterate. As stated in the Directory: "Ongoing formation is a right-duty of the priest and imparting it is a right-duty of the Church. . . . [It] can never be considered finished, neither on the part of the Church which imparts it, nor on the part of the minister who receives it."[11]
As this profound document described the necessity of priestly devotion to the Virgin Mary[12] and closes with a prayer to the Mother of Priests, how can any priest or diocese not have recourse to her at this time of need? As she helped usher in the beginning of the first millennium of Christianity, she will certainly be there as we cross into the third.
