Southern California is seeing a bit of a vocation boom. Roger Cardinal Mahony ordained twelve men for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles ranging from 29 to 49 in age. That is the largest group for the archdiocese since 1998, and the largest for any diocese in the United States this year. In the Diocese of San Bernadino, six men were ordained by Bishop Gerald Barnes, which is the largest number in its history. To the north, the Archdiocese of San Francisco will ordain two men in the coming weeks.
Comparatively, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis ordained nine men to the priesthood; Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston ordained four men; Francis Cardinal George of Chicago ordained eleven men; Bishop Michael Cote of Norwich ordained three men; Edward Cardinal Egan of New York ordained six men; Seán Cardinal O’Malley of Boston ordained seven men; Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison ordained five men.
But Mahony doesn’t believe in the “Real Presence”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just kidding… This is great news!
Does this mean Mother Angelica regards these men as not validly ordained? Hee hee…
Does this mean Mother Angelica regards these men as not validly ordained? Hee hee…
She’s a Donatist!
Just kidding… she’s still cute :)
She’s a Donatist!
Without accusing Mother Angelica, it is not without a degree of seriousness that we should take your comment. Semi-Donatism is quite prevalent within the U.S. Church today, especially among those who criticize bishops. These individuals would do well to consult Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome and St. Paul on the matter.
These individuals would do well to consult Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome and St. Paul on the matter.
And Cyprian!
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing bishops. This is not a sin.
Greg,
I think sometimes it is and I also think that it’s a sign of immaturity. The problem with criticizing bishops is that most people that I know of do not talk to the bishop himself or do not know the whole story. Frankly, I think those who criticize bishops a lot are living in some kind of weird utopia rather than a concrete presence, reality. For Christians, we base our hope, as Giussani said, on Presence, not utopia. As he said, either authority is given to us (a gift) or we choose it. A lot of us like to choose it, but this cannot be said to be the way God structured His creation.
It seems like this is very good news on the priestly vocations. The numbser seem higher in a lot of dioceses, and it seems like it’s not a one year thing. 4 in Saginaw (with many to follow), 7 in Rockford – that’s quite a bt given their size. On a down note, none of Chicago’s priests were born in the diocese. While I certainly welcome foreign priests – I’ve had some good ones, and the Polish and Mexican priests certainly will be a benefit for the community to whom they’re ministering, it seems like there is a problem with a diocese of 1.5 million Catholics that isn’t generating any priests of its own. The good news is that Cardinal George recognized this problem at least a couple years ago and has been working to correct it, although that’s probably a long term process.
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing bishops. This is not a sin.
Where can I read from an authoritative source that there is “nothing wrong” with criticizing bishops and that it is not a sin. I am bewildered over how eager some are to criticize a bishop (beyond truly gross imprudence), and equally over how eager some are to defend the act of criticizing a bishop. Again, St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, and St. Augustine are helpful in curing this ill.
Does this mean Mother Angelica regards these men as not validly ordained? Hee hee…
Maybe I’m missing the secret Vox Nova decoder ring, but was there some point when Mother Angelica suggested that Cardinal Mahony was incapable of making valid ordinations?
I recall there was a stink about ten years ago (which I followed because I lived in the diocese — I’ve probably watched EWTN at most half a dozen times in my life) in which Mother Angelica criticized a pastoral letter of Mahony’s for being confusing and vague (it was) and the two engaged in a media battle of sorts where the cardinal demanded that she apologize, didn’t like her “apology”, and at one point even threatened to take over the station. (It was almost as much fun as watching him wag the city council around by the tail about the location of the new cathedral.) Watching two strong media personalities square off always has a certain amusement value.
But I’ve never heard that Mother Angelica questioned Cardinal Mahony’s ability to perform sacraments. Did that happen, or is this some sort of progressive Catholic insider joke that the rest of us aren’t meant to get?
Maybe I’m missing the secret Vox Nova decoder ring, but was there some point when Mother Angelica suggested that Cardinal Mahony was incapable of making valid ordinations?
No, she did not, which is why it was intended as a joke. What Mother Angelica did, in fact, encourage was disobedience to Cardinal Mohany.
As an aside, I thought the pastoral letter was quite good and lucid.
Did that happen, or is this some sort of progressive Catholic insider joke that the rest of us aren’t meant to get?
I don’t know about the progressive qualifier… but it is a joke based on truth given that Mother Angelica said she would “not obey” Cardinal Mahoney’s teaching outlined in the Pastoral Letter. She later apologized for it, but when you even think that it is OK to say “I would not obey” a bishop or a cardinal, then you are really implying something about the validity of the office of a bishop in many respects.
The “Hee hee…” was supposed to give it away as a joke!
Ah… I see.
I recalled the “I wouldn’t obey him for a minute” incident, but it didn’t strike me as all that similar to contending that a bishop was unable to celebrate valid sacraments. All in the eye of the beholder, I suppose…
In regards to the letter, Poli: I suppose I’d have to read it again at remove. I read it at the time, and suffered through our parish’s attempt to implement its liturgical directives. In regards to both the liturgical directives and the teaching behind them, the emphasis in the diocese was very heavily on a “the sacrament is not on the altar, we are the sacrament in all our love and diversity” message. And there was enough of that hinted at in the letter itself that I interpreted it as saying what everyone from the diocese and parish was saying it was saying. Perhaps one can get more out of it reading it cold and at remove from the circumstances.
I don’t know about the progressive qualifier
My apologies, incidentally, for the political terminology.
I don’t watch EWTN myself — even back when I had cable and a TV — but that’s mainly because the few times I’d seen it I hadn’t like the “and now we’re selling this handsome collectors plate” bits, and also it seem to tend toward a sentimental style of spirituality which didn’t personally appeal to me.
However, I’d been sort of surprised to find it on a public enemies list here a while back — so far as I can tell basicly for political reasons: not critical enough of the administration, conservatives, “Americanism”, etc.
Policratus & Apolonio,
There is such a thing as valid criticism and you don’t need an “authoritative source” either. With this type of attitude it basically follows that every prudential decision made by every pope and bishop is infallible. Nonsense. Let us hear from the great Dietrich Von Hildebrand on this exact matter in the “The Devastated Vineyard”:
A third false response, and perhaps the most dangerous one, would be to imagine that there is no destruction of the vineyard of the Lord, that it only seems so to us — our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says….
At the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church — that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught — then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church’s magisterium which we must accept as true.
But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. Thus the encyclical of the great Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, with its idea of a corporate state, differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI. But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required…. In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope.
The great Von Hildebrand speaks like a true prophet!!!
Greg,
As I have mentioned before, The Devastated Vineyard is the culminating of von Hildebrand’s disappointment and frustration with the Catholic Church’s practices. Much of the material is idiosyncratic and unbalanced. I think it is a book that showed that his allegience to the Church became more of an idea than a real force in his every day life. Trojan Horse in the City of God and The Charitable Anathema are much more solid, objective and practical critiques of post-Vatican II Catholicism. The Devastated Vineyard, unfortunately, puts a stink on his legacy.
If you are eager to defend the act of criticizing the bishops, then I question how much you really understand the extension of authority of bishops. No one said anything about “infallible” or fallible. No one said anything about about “complete loyalty.” One can disagree or disapprove without criticizing. That’s what you seem to be misunderstanding. You will not find the Church Fathers, saints or any real authority in the Church promoting such a distorted take on episcopal authority unless it is truly a grave, grave matter.
Policraticus,
I agree with you that way too much “armchair mitering” goes on in the Church today. I used to do it myself, armed with a TLM missal and a copy of the Remnant. I remember fuming about how a local Bishop wouldn’t shut down this convent of “new agey” nuns. Nowadays, I try hard to think of my Bishop as a family member. Just as I’m not going to write little tracts and editorials about all the silly mistakes my Dad has made over the years, I owe the elder of my heavenly family at least equal respect. But are there not occasions where it may be legitimate, or even necessary, to criticize one’s Bishop? Criticism surrounding the abuse scandals, for example, helped the Bishops formulate new policies and begin the process of healing. If Bishops are truly servants, it seems that they would welcome genuine criticism as a way to know what concerns and hurts need to be addressed in their diocese.
However, I’d been sort of surprised to find it on a public enemies list here a while back — so far as I can tell basicly for political reasons: not critical enough of the administration, conservatives, “Americanism”, etc.
Of course, all of the VN contributors see their political views as integrally connected to his or her faith. If I, for example, criticize EWTN for any of the reasons you cite, it is not for “mere” political reasons, but because I am a Christian.
I’d seen it I hadn’t like the “and now we’re selling this handsome collectors plate” bits,
hahahahahaha
I don’t watch EWTN myself … and also it seem to tend toward a sentimental style of spirituality which didn’t personally appeal to me.
I used to watch EWTN and it does have good programs that were really helpful to me… I can’t watch it anymore, because I refuse to pay for cable that has more than the local channels. I’m a 100% with you in regard to the “sentimental style of spirituality”… that was me a few years ago when I started going back to the faith and then I realized that I needed more, so that is one of the reasons I started watching EWTN less and less (other than not having cable!), because I felt that I needed something more.
One of my main criticisms of EWTN is what you said is that they are very one-sided and only show the face of middle-class-American-Catholicism, which is just not representative anymore of what being a Catholic in America is given the increasing immigrant population and different needs that ALL Americans have. I think EWTN needs to be complemented with more. They’ve improved a bit, I mean, they have the Spanish programs (at 4:00 am!) and so forth, but there is a lot more to be done.
“If you are eager to defend the act of criticizing the bishops, then I question how much you really understand the extension of authority of bishops.”
I wouldn’t say I am “eager” to defend criticizing policies of bishops or popes. But Catholics are endowed with reason and the Church is greater than simply the hierarchy. You seem to be holding the opinion that the laity are incompetent and incapable of recognizing a bad decision or violations of canon law. Are we to greet every prudential decision of the pope with joy? Can we not express our disagreement with such decisions as altar girls and communion-in-the-hand?
Witness how various bishops such as Ranjith are criticizing communion-in-the-hand — why can they criticize publicly but not the laity? Are we not allowed to criticize the quality of the Latin translations of the Novus Ordo — you of all people should know how inadequate they are. Yet this was the translation given to us by the bishops and, therefore, according to your reasoning we should remain silent.
You seem to be holding the opinion that the laity are incompetent and incapable of recognizing a bad decision or violations of canon law.
No, you seem to be attributing this opinion to me. Why would I want to champion an incompetent laity when I, myself, am a lay person?
Are we to greet every prudential decision of the pope with joy?
Did I say this? If you will recall, I stated that one can disagree and disapprove.
Can we not express our disagreement with such decisions as altar girls and communion-in-the-hand?
Since neither is forbidden, why would you want to express your disagreement? What good does it do the Church for you to complain over such trivial matters?
Witness how various bishops such as Ranjith are criticizing communion-in-the-hand — why can they criticize publicly but not the laity?
Given that the bishop is the source and guardian of the Eucharist, I think it is perfectly fine for him to express his mind on the matter. As a lay person, why not just receive the Eucharist in your preferred manner and move on?
Are we not allowed to criticize the quality of the Latin translations of the Novus Ordo — you of all people should know how inadequate they are. Yet this was the translation given to us by the bishops and, therefore, according to your reasoning we should remain silent.
As a Latin teacher, I find the translations to be adequate, capturing the sense and force of the Latin. I find the quibbles over literal translations to be rather silly, unedifying and divisive.
Greg,
Again, no one is saying that someone cannot disagree. The problem with most people is that they simply see the issues you gave or other issues as an abstract thing. What they have in mind is this concept of Tradition that is separate from the present experience of the Church. Many times people criticize the bishops on the Mass or something on the internet but when it comes to a person right in front of them, they do not know how to handle the matter. What is important is to understand the reason why you go to Mass in the first place. In my experience, most of the people I ask don’t really have a good reason why they go to Mass. And to simply say “Christ is there” won’t do it because Christ has become an abstract idea to them as well. What is needed is a criterion where we judge our experiences correctly so that we become certain of why we go. Only when this is done habitually can we see the real errors of the world. But if you’re going to give me the whole textbook of the Old Mass and Vatican 2 of how it should be, you’re giving me a utopia. You don’t really understand what the Church teaches. Plus, you can know a person is living in a utopia when he finds it hard to accept “obstacles”. The fact is, unless the Church is some way an obstacle to you, an obstacle you must follow, you are not following the real Christ.
Given that the bishop is the source and guardian of the Eucharist…
Careful! They ain’t the source! ;)
If you are eager to defend the act of criticizing the bishops, then I question how much you really understand the extension of authority of bishops.
But it’s OK to
speak ill of them
when they’re dead, right?
But it’s OK to speak ill of them when they’re dead, right?
Linking to someone else’s comment in an effort to catch an inconsistency in what I write isn’t quite reasonable is it?
Poli – HA obviously cannot distinguish between a critique of ideas and “speaking ill” of a person.
There are times when it may be necessary to communicate a criticism to the bishop. A few weeks ago, my diocese advertised a course on ethics, offered by the diocese and given by a University professor (a woman) whose teaching is heretical. She follows the feminist liberation theology and replaces the Christian Trinity with a feminine trinity, amongst other things. So I wrote our bishop to make him aware of this and request, respectfully, that he verifies more closely the kind of religious education provided by the diocese. He gave me a call to acknowledge my letter, but nothing is to be changed. This course is mainly intended for the formation of pastoral assistants who, in turn, are in charge of preparing the young for the sacraments. This is a very sad situation and not only in our diocese I am afraid.
Policraticus,
Are you criticizing the bishops involved in Vox Clara when you say their efforts (quibbles?) to introduce a revised English translation of the mass are rather silly, unedifying, and divisive? I find many aspects of the current translation to be less spiritually effective than the Latin or than translations other than English. It appears that many of our current bishops agree, although others do not. If I express my support for the liturgical ideas expressed by Cardinal George and Cardinal Pell, in opposition to those of Bishop Trautman, am I being defiant and quibbling?
HA obviously cannot distinguish between a critique of ideas and “speaking ill” of a person.
Yes, when you referred to Bishop Sheen as a “syncretist of the most dangerous sort” on matters of war and peace, that wasn’t speaking ill of him. Got it.
Linking to someone else’s comment in an effort to catch an inconsistency in what I write isn’t quite reasonable is it?
Only if you assume I was trying to catch an inconsistency in what you yourself wrote. For the record, that wasn’t my intention. I think Michael made my point for me in his follow-up, though I suspect he will be among the last to agree.
(I also should have linked to Michael’s comment directly in the first link, instead of Chris’s citation of it.)
HA – What? Did you make a point? Must have missed it.
Policratus,
If Archbishop Ranjith has criticized Communion-in-the-hand how can it be a trivial matter? Are you trying usurp his authority as a bishop by saying what is and what isn’t important in Church policy? According to your own logic, laymen are not supposed to make such decisions nor even express themselves publicly.
Are you criticizing the bishops involved in Vox Clara when you say their efforts (quibbles?) to introduce a revised English translation of the mass are rather silly, unedifying, and divisive?
Nope, I was was speaking of lay people.
If Archbishop Ranjith has criticized Communion-in-the-hand how can it be a trivial matter? Are you trying usurp his authority as a bishop by saying what is and what isn’t important in Church policy?
It is a trivial matter, and “Communion-in-the-hand” has an historical precedent in the early Church. Bishop Ranjith is not my bishop, I will not criticize him directly, and I will be obedient to my own bishop and the Pope on liturgical matters. If his Congregation issues a directive, I will obey if it is implemented by own bishop.
As I said twice (and now three times), disagreement with a bishop on some matters is licit. It is criticism of a bishop with which I take issue (unless it is a grave issue).
I don’t think this distinction between criticism and disagreement does justice to reality. Sometimes disagreement requires criticism. Think of Cardinal Law, or other Bishops (Mahony!) who covered up sexual abuse. Sure , the issue was complex and Law certainly bore his cross. But he screwed up. Many Catholics were reluctant to criticize him long after the media stories broke. Only when the pressure was unbearable from the outside did the consensus within shift against him.
Nor does the “grave issue” qualification help very much. Who determines what a grave issue is? By and large, priestly sex abuse was not considered a grave issue in the Church until the media made it one.
Elise,
What you did there seems to be just because what you did was talk to the bishop directly and not go off on some blog.
Where can I read from an authoritative source that there is “nothing wrong” with criticizing bishops and that it is not a sin. I am bewildered over how eager some are to criticize a bishop (beyond truly gross imprudence), and equally over how eager some are to defend the act of criticizing a bishop. Again, St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, and St. Augustine are helpful in curing this ill.
Quotes please? Quotes demonstrating that criticism of a bishop is a sin, that is.
Apolonio,
You are totally missing the point. I fully realize there is not a utopia of the 1962 Mass or Pre-Vatican II Church. Give me a break — I am not that unrealistic. But you and Policratus are advancing the unheard-of-rule that lay catholics can’t publicly discuss policies of the Church and whether they are beneficial or detrimental to the Church. According to your line of reasoning, every Church decision is good and, although one can disagree with it, one cannot express this disagreement publicly. And if you do express it publicly, you are either disloyal, disobedient or schismatic (or all three). Take your pick. Of course that means all of the Catholics at Adoremus are disloyal because they take issue with the quality of the Latin translations in the Novus Ordo. It means James Hitchcock is disobedient because he wrote in CWR that Gaudium et Spes was overly optimistic. It means Dr Lauren Pristas (Dept Chair of Theology at Caldwell College) is disloyal because she dared to be critical of the collects of the Novus Ordo. And heaven forbid any lay person express reservation at the number of annulments granted in the US! Of course, when someone of the stature of Dietrich Von Hildebrand expressed publicly his disagreement with some of the policies of the Church, Policratus is quick to dismiss him as an old crank. Whatever happened to the Sensus Catholicus of the laity? Are we a bunch of uneducated, ignoramuses who can’t think for ourselves?
So when exactly do we obey? When the bishop teaches in “conformity with Tradition and the teachings of the Church”? Is that when? Again, the question you are missing is whether you choose authority or authority is given. I mean, the example you gave of communion in the hand is such a bad example that I don’t even think you realize the bigger problems in the Church. In a practical manner, what is better for the Church, writing an article against such and such or talking to the bishop? Again, those who live in the real world will say the latter.
I’m part of an ecclesial lay movement and you know how a lot of bishops are suspect of them. That’s fine. But what does John Paul teach us? That the way to maturity is fidelity to ecclesiastical authorities. Not because we agree with everything a bishop might say, but because the bishop is the objective link to the experience of the apostles. You can justify your want to criticize all you want, but it just shows a lack of maturity, a lack of simplicity of your heart.
Totally a side note, but:
As a Latin teacher, I find the translations to be adequate, capturing the sense and force of the Latin. I find the quibbles over literal translations to be rather silly, unedifying and divisive.
As a classics major and former Latin teacher, I must sound at least a note of caution on the current translations. Yes they’re “adequate” of course — they perform the sacrament and do not depart from the meaning of the Latin in a gross fashion. But they do let a lose a lot of the richness of the original Latin. (In that sense, I’ve found it a great devotional aid to read the Latin side of my Daily Roman Missal — the full Latin text can be read as a more devotional gloss on the rather spare English.)
Now perhaps what you’re rightly reacting against is the excesses of many of those who make it their business to complain about the translation in the online world. You could well be right on that, but it’s a bad idea to form one’s judgements simply based on reaction to the excesses of others.
Apolonio,
I believe you are missing the point. Never have I counseled disobedience on anything. I am not sure how one can be disobedient to Communion-in-the-hand but whatever. And I don’t understand how you can say such issues are unimportant. Did not the late, great theologian Father John Hardon say Communion-in-the-hand led to a loss of belief in the Real Presence? I believe he did and I certainly don’t think it is unimportant if a person of Fr John Hardon’s stature speaks against it.
Are we to ban intellectual discussion from the Church? Can intellectual discussion no longer be critical? Is this what JPII wanted? No.
Please, do not accuse me of “lack of simplicity of heart” and “lack of maturity”. This is simply unncessary.
And speaking of obedience, it is interesting that if one goes back to the Council Document Sacrosanctum Concilium, it specifically states that Latin is to preserved in the Roman Rite. It also states that Gregorian chant is to be given pride of place. Apparently, obedience to Council documents is optional.
Re: criticizing bishops:
Hearken back to your girl/boy scout camp days and remember this refrain:
“If you don’t bear the cross then you can’t wear the crown.”
And, if the words of the Great One of First Things ……
The problem of clericalism is composed of several problems. It is the problem of a caste that arrogates to itself undue authority, that makes unwarranted claims to wisdom, even to having a monopoly on understanding the mind of God. The consequence is the great weakening of the Church by denigrating or excluding the many gifts of the Spirit present in the people who are the Church. The problem of clericalism arises when “the church” acts in indifference, or even contempt, toward the people who are the Church.
Richard J. Neuhaus, June 1989.
[...] Christian blog Vox Nova has reported (here) that vocations to the priesthood are increasing in certain dioceses in the United States. It [...]
This is in response to Greg who mentioned my name in a July 3 post that I just saw, and for anyone else who is interested in that discussion.
Although some may think otherwise, I have not criticized the Church. Rather I have published scholarly articles in scholarly journals which present comparative examinations of particular liturgical texts and then discuss their relative merits and deficiencies. I have maintained throughout that the revised rites have the approval of the Church, deserve the utmost respect, and are a blessing for the faithful.
I do what I do as a scholar in communion with the Church, and whenever something of mine is published I send a copy with a note to my own bishop, the bishop from whom I received the mandatum, and, often, officials at the Roman congregations who are responsible for doctrine and worship.