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

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.

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.

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.

Corporation or Family?

Remember Avery Cardinal Dulles' book, "Models of the Church"? Before the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was the standard many seminary professors used for ecclesiology (unless they resorted to the McBrien model of dissent and rebellion). Back then, the models offered were the Church as: Sacrament, Institution, Herald, Mystical Communion, or Servant.

While theologically ascertained, the implemented or used models, i.e., what is actually being done in the parish, diocese and universal church, are two very different and mutually exclusive paradigms. There is the CORPORATE model of the Church and the FAMILY model.

Voice of the Faithful and other militant lay groups consider themselves stockholders in the church, from parish level to diocesan. Since they donate the funds to operate the corporation, they feel entitled (as so called stockholders) to manage, direct, supervise and control the parish if not the entire dioceses.

Some diocesan bishops, however, choose to run and perceive their diocese as a corporation. We have bishops who see their role as 'manager' or 'vice president' with parishes being branch offices and the Pope as CEO. Councils proliferate the diocesan bureaucracy and policies, programs, and mission statements carry more weight and importance than the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law and the Roman Missal. Balancing checkbooks, ensuring solvency, creating capital, cutting costs, feasibility studies, etc. become the primary business of the diocese. Pastors end up spending inordinate amounts of time at meetings, listening to various committees give endless diatribes. Bottom line is making sure your diocesan assessment is paid in full and on time. That ensures the pastor keeps his job, otherwise, it is transfer time.

The family model, however, sees the Pope, the Bishop and the Parish Priest as a FATHER, not a corporate executive. A family is headed by the Father. Decisions are made and based on the common good of the entire family. Financial concerns are not the only nor the primary items on the agenda. Saving souls, accurately teaching the faith and reverently celebrating the sacraments are the pillars of the parish family, the diocesan family and the universal church family. Pope John Paul the Great did not come off as the CEO of Catholicism. He was our spiritual FATHER. Good bishops and good pastors know this. Middle management and perpetual bureaucrats shun fatherhood and the family model. They prefer BUSINESS. That is how the clergy sex scandal was handled. No bad publicity, hence, no problems exist. Sweep it under the carpet. Ignore the elephant in the room. Corporate executive types were intentionally blind and deaf to the reports from their lower personnel that seminaries were rife with heresy and homosexuality; that misbehaving clergy were being moved from place to place with no regard to treatment of problems (sexual, drug or alcohol abuse). Victims did not exist since the problem did not exist, i.e., no corporate executives wanted to ADMIT there was a problem, otherwise there is LIABILITY. Business model fears legal action and financial liability. Better to pretend, ignore, or worse yet, cover-up. Enron was not the only business infected with corporate ethical anemia. Bishops who ran dioceses on business mode fell into the same trap.

The family model, however, is not afraid of liability nor does it avoid RESPONSIBILITY, moral and economic. Bishops who saw their mission as FATHER and the diocese as FAMILY acted on revelations that a family member was sick, had been injured or abused, was the abuser, and so on. Political and legal answers would not satisfy the family model's need to correct faults and heal wounds. Treating clergy and laity as family is diametrically different from treating them as blue collar employees or mere stockholders.

JP2 and B16 are real FATHERS. Neither one is a CEO and neither one saw the Church as a business or corporation. Theologically, both view the Bride of Christ as Primordial Sacrament and as Incarnate Communio. Administratively, their role was that of Paterfamilias (Father of the Family). Parishes and Dioceses are not branch offices or satellite locations. The USCCB is not a Board of Directors, either. Corporate and Political models are alien to Catholic ecclesiology. The Mystical Body of Christ is founded on truth and grace, not profit, power, influence, or efficiency. Moral solutions rather than economic; ethical policies rather than convenient ones; these are the goals of our 'contemporary' church experience.

The corporate model was tried and deified in America for too long. We, the believers, clergy, religious and laity, NEED to remind our 'fathers' that our 'family' needs their paternal love, respect, and authority. We do NOT need nor want managers, executives, bureuacrats or politicians. As members of the family of faith, we want a family not a business solution.

the Black Biretta is a pun on the Scarlet Pimpernel and the "Black Adder" of British sitcom fame. Here you will find me opining on things ecclesiastical, but with a slight dose of satire as well.

Faithful priest answers dissident priest

Matt C. Abbott

Matt C. Abbott
October 6, 2005


In a September 9, 2005 column in The Tidings, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, renegade priest-professor Richard McBrien took a cheap shot at Father John Trigilio, author and EWTN television personality.

McBrien sneered: "...Indeed, there is a book, Catholicism for Dummies, co-authored by two priests who also lack theological credentials. But they are 'safe' enough to have a regular program on Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)...."

Trigilio, along with Father Kenneth Brighenti, is the author of Catholicism for Dummies.

Trigilio sent the following (slightly edited) e-mail to The Tidings in response to McBrien's column:

"Father Richard McBrien's ad hominem attack on me and my co-author, let alone the uncharitable and slanderous remarks against Mother Angelica and EWTN, are completely inappropriate for an archdiocesan newspaper. He launched a scud missile against Catholicism for Dummies, yet it alone has an official imprimatur, whereas the competing editions — The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism and The Everything Catholicism Book — have none whatsoever.

"He brings up the issue of theological credentials. If he means we are not dissident theologians who repudiate the official Magisterium like some of the illustrious academicians of some allegedly Catholic colleges and universities, then by all means we are not in that infamous league.

"We used the Catechism of the Catholic Church as our foundation and schema for the book, so if orthodox catechesis bothers Father McBrien, he should stay away from our book.

"Instead of a character assassination on Senator Rick Santorum, McBrien should reread the Catechism, especially the apostolic letter of Pope John Paul the Great, 'Laetamur Magnopere,' thereby promulgating the Latin typical edition. There, it explicitly refers to the Catechism as the 'authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith.' Perennial is the key word.

"The moral and doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church are perennial; they do not change. Disciplines may adapt with time, but doctrine, since it centers on truth, must be immutable. Whether it is doctrine of the male priesthood or of the Real Presence, whether it is the immorality of abortion or contraception, these truths do not change. That is why we have one Catechism for the entire universal Church.

"We are confident that our Catholicism for Dummies is more in conformity to that Catechism than McBrien's book, Catholicism, which conspicuously lacks an imprimatur in the recent third edition."

---

Matt C. Abbott is a Catholic columnist with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication, Media and Theatre from Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, and an Associate in Applied Science degree in Business Management from Triton College in River Grove, Ill. He is the former director of public affairs for the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League and the former executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee. He was a contributor to The Wanderer Catholic newspaper and had numerous letters to the editor published in major newspapers, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Sun-Times. He can be reached at

mattcabbott@gmail.com

Queen of Dissent

The notorious dissenter Sister Joan Chittister, OSB, made this obscene statement (April 20th, 2005) in the National Catholic Reporter:

"We’ve been living in an ecclesiastical tsunami this week. The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the position of Pope Benedict XVI has had all the force of a universal avalanche."

She should be grateful that this was not the Middle Ages when the Holy Office of the Inquisition would have turned her over to civil authorities for trial on the charges of slander, sacrilege and apostasy. Instead, the Benedictine nun lives in the 21st century where enemies of orthodoxy, the Magisterium and the Roman Pontiff can openly attack the Vicar of Christ with impunity, vitriolic rhetoric and diabolical motivation since Satan wants nothing more than to divide and conquer; to destroy the unity of Holy Mother Church. Pope John Paul II was and now Pope Benedict XVI is the personal sign of unity in the church as chief pastor, teacher and shepherd. He possesses full, supreme, immediate and universal authority the moment he became pope and that has been consistently taught by Vatican II, Canon Law and the Catechism, if Sr. Joan ever bothered to read any of those official documents. UBI PETRUS IBI ECCLESIA said Saint Ambrose, so an attack on Pope Benedict XVI is an attack on the Catholic Church. As Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Ratzinger staunchly defended the infallible teachings of our holy religion as taught by the Magisterium. Imagine a grammar school teacher instructing her students that there were only 20 letters of the alphabet instead of 26. Would parents tolerate such academic pluralism? Or a geography teacher telling his class the world is really flat. Truth is the conformity of the intellect (mind) to reality and not vice versa. Laws of grammar, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc., are like divinely revealed truths: immutable. Water is H2O whether on earth or on Mars. The immorality of abortion and euthanasia is as perennial as the immorality of adultery and murder. No exceptions. The error of female ordination is as untrue as 2 + 2 = 5 but in Sr. Joan's universe, doctrinal and moral truths are changeable and that would make as much sense as a physician who thinks open heart surgery can be done with a local anesthetic or that cigarette smoking is non-lethal. If recalcitrant miscreants like Chittister don't like the truth, they can deny it but do so OUTSIDE the church. At least Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli and Cramner had the decency to leave the Roman Catholic Church when they disavowed her doctrines and disciplines. Radical feminists who spew their heretical rantings can start their own church and religion and leave ours.

Pope John Paul the Great
the Luminous Doctor


Following in the footsteps of Pope Saint Leo the Great and Pope Saint Gregory the Great, it is evident that history and Holy Mother Church herself will one day not only canonize our recently departed Pope John Paul II, but also impart the rare title of “the Great” as well as declaring him a Doctor of the Church. Before the Good Lord called the Servant of the Servants of God home at 9:37 pm on April 2nd (the vigil of Divine Mercy Sunday), Karol Jósef Wojtyła reigned as supreme Roman Pontiff for more than 26 years, made 104 international trips, beatified 1,338 and canonized 482 saints; authored 14 encyclicals, 15 apostolic exhortations, 11 apostolic constitutions, 45 apostolic letters, and five books.

Just as Saint Bonaventure is known as the Seraphic Doctor and Saint Thomas Aquinas as the Angelic Doctor, it stands to reason that John Paul II should be given the title Luminous Doctor or the Doctor of Light and Hope. The first words of his pontificate, “be not afraid” were mirrored by his prolific writings and speeches, his pastoral visits, his popular Word Youth Days, and his courageous battle with disease, illness, assassination attempt and old age. “Fear not” and “be not afraid” were spoken by the Archangel to Our Lady and to Saint Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus Christ who Himself uttered those sentiments to His disciples after the Resurrection when they thought they were seeing a ghost. Pope John Paul II dispelled the fear which crept into the church following the Second Vatican Council. Not that Vatican II caused the fear and doubt, but the powers of darkness successfully distorted and diluted the Council documents so as to promote the alleged ‘spirit of Vatican II’ rather than the ‘letter of Vatican II.’

Ultra-liberals called him an archconservative and ultra-conservatives thought he was not traditional enough, but John Paul II was not sympathetic to either classification of liberal or conservative, progressive or traditional. He was just orthodox. A true son of Vatican II, it was under his reign, at his command and with his guidance that the Church was given some invaluable and precious pearls which sadly some swine do not appreciate. He gave us the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983 which had not been updated since 1917. He gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 which was only preceded by the Catechism of the Council of Trent four centuries earlier. He gave us epic encyclicals like Redemptor Hominis, Mater Redemptoris, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Laborem Exercens, Familiaris Consortio, and Ut Unum Sint but of all these, Evangelium Vitae, Fides et Ratio and Veritatis Splendor stand out as his greatest masterpieces and were the beacons of light which emanated the sublime truths of our Catholic religion. They alone warrant him the title Doctor of Light and Salvifici Doloris and his indefatigable courage to battle the Nazis, Communism, Secular Humanism, materialism, moral relativism, sexual permissiveness, et al., merit him the title Doctor of Hope.

I was in High School Seminary when he was elected Pontiff in 1978. The first two years were during the final years of the then ailing and aged Pope Paul VI. Vocations were declining, Mass attendance and confessions were dropping, dissident theology was proliferating Catholic colleges and seminaries, and other cancers were infecting the church for several years after Vatican II. Tabernacles were hidden, religious garb was discarded, catechisms were watered down, sacraments and sacred liturgies were irreverently innovated and the faithful were raped of sacred art, orthodoxy and solid leadership in many corners of the world until a man was sent from God named “John Paul II.” Since his election as Bishop of Rome and 264th Successor of Saint Peter, JP2 has encouraged many vocations, conversions, reversions, and initiated a true Catholic Renaissance.

Sure, liturgical and doctrinal abuses continued in the sanctuaries, colleges, seminaries and sadly even in some rectories (where children were abused) but there has never been a period of human history where there is no sin and no evil. These aberrations would have occurred regardless of who was Pope at the time since human free will is not limited to one time or place and men of the church, just as men of the world, can freely choose good or evil. It is unfair and unjust to blame Pope John Paul for the clergy sex abuse scandal when it was the fault of the perverted clergy who actually committed the abuse of children and teenagers and the bishops and seminary faculties which looked the other way when these deviants were under their authority and supervision. Lex ordandi, lex credendi, lex agendi. Bad liturgy and bad theology will feed and support one another and will inevitably lead to bad morality and behavior. Liturgical abuses, dissident theology and heterodox doctrine will spawn moral depravity and other evils. At the same time, reverent (valid and licit) liturgy combined with orthodox theology (based on the Magisterium) will also promote and sustain pious and holy lives, for clergy, religious and laity alike.

Pope John Paul II was neither perfect nor impeccable but he was infallible as Pope and exercised his supreme teaching authority in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which closed the debate once and for all on women’s ordination. He was human and had his weaknesses like the rest of us but he had more courage, piety, devotion, patience, prudence, intelligence, wisdom, compassion and integrity than anyone else of the last century. He gave the Church a banquet of truth in his teachings, much like the Summa of Aquinas which is even today still producing good fruit. Sadly, modern man and modern Catholics are content with the bare minimum of spiritual life support rather than feasting on the fullness of grace, truth and tradition Holy Mother Church offers and which was offered in an exquisite presentation by Pope John Paul II. It would be like someone opting to have an intravenous solution drip in their arm when the alternative would be a seven course gourmet meal with every vitamin, mineral and necessary nutrient inside.

When he gave the Church the five new Luminous Mysteries to the Holy Rosary, it also symbolized the light of hope he brought to the Church during his 26 year pontificate. Our loss is heaven's gain.

Rev. John Trigilio, Jr., PhD, ThD
President, Confraternity of Catholic Clergy
www.catholic-clergy.org

Letter from CCC to USCCB President on Celibacy

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

Goodbye! Good Catholics

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.

New Commentary, Old Nonsense

(from an article in HPR, March 2001)

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:

. . . when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial.¹⁴

The New Commentary makes a sharp criticism in a footnote to the following paragraph: "After the Council there was some controversy about the teaching authority of episcopal conferences. In light of this canon [753], the authentic and collegiate teaching role of the conferences in the Church's magisterium seems obvious."¹⁵ Then at the bottom of the page we read, "as obvious as it might seem, [emphasis mine] an apostolic letter issued motu proprio by John Paul II on May 21, 1998, Apostolos Suos, . . . circumscribed the teaching authority of the episcopal conferences very narrowly."¹⁶ Implied here is that the Holy Father who as Supreme Lawmaker issued the Code in 1983 somehow contradicted himself 15 years later.

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.

Renewing the Priesthood

(from an article in Priest, March 1997)

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.