The NIMBY Priesthood

 Steve Skojec, for all his faults and character flaws, is if nothing else an honest man. I did appreciate his recent Substack, "When Religion Comes First," on the topic of those who put their God before their family. Steve explained that the essay was an extrapolation of a spicy Facebook post in which he wrote,

"If you love your religion more than you love your own kids, don’t be surprised when they grow up to reject the thing you always cared about more than them."

I've always felt sympathy for Steve and his "deconstruction" (to use Protestant nomenclature) since losing faith and leaving the Church. I reached out a couple times over the years, and was either met with non-response or a kind of exacerbated callousness (which is okay). The thing is, I think Steve makes some good points from this vantage point of now being outside the Church that are lost on a lot of the pious crowd still in (and attempting to raise their kids in it as well). He notes:

"I have become increasingly convinced that much of Catholicism is, essentially, a kind idolatry of religion. Since God is perceptually absent/distant/nonexistent, the Church and all her countless rules and rubrics and rituals swell to fill the space left by his absence.

We begin to worship the means of worship because the object of worship is inscrutable and inaccessible.

Worship becomes indistinguishable from the rituals that comprise it. Which is why (according to my theory) those rituals take on more and more significance in the minds of those who feel that they must always go deeper and seek more reverence so that they can try to commune with God."

Now, obviously I do not agree with Steve on Catholicism being a kind of idolatry, but I do think I know where he is coming from, and this seems more common with people to whom God was always elusive, far-off, "Other." It is a little hard for me to relate in some ways because this was the opposite experience for me: I encountered God personally first as a loving and saving Father, and then religion became the chalice to house the pearl. So, God was always worshipped first and foremost, and the external structure of religious practice giving that heart a body and a skeleton. I could shrug at the rituals and just assume they were the particular expressions of religious practice but were not little G gods in some way. But then again, I was kind of a blank slate coming into the whole thing, without much baggage, preconceptions, or religious trauma. 

I mean, I've alluded to this in posts like The Church Will Hurt You and Preventing the Scars of Religious Trauma in Your Children, that although my wife and I have always had the order of God first, Spouse second, Children third, there is a part of me that is reticent to be too strict or "religious" with force-feeding my children the faith, because there is also a part of me that recognizes the Church is rife with abuse and corruption, and what father in good conscience would put that before his own family? 

But I have not been burned beyond peripheral singes, because I have largely kept my distance from episcopal and diocesan machinations. I have been constantly spared from being employed by the Church, despite my best early and naïve efforts to work for Her. Years ago I wrote the vocation office about wanting to serve the Church as a deacon, and never even received a response, so dodged a bullet there. I have wanted nothing to do with parish councils, and though I have close relationships with a couple priests friends, I have kept a healthy distance and distrust of "just because he's a priest" thinking. In other words, "I can trust him because he's a priest," which is just another manifestation of clericalism. As a father of boys in a Church rife with mollittes clergy and homocentric seminaries, I don't think this is being imprudent. 

Now, I have often said priests are like farmers: No farm, no food. No priests, no Church. We're not Protestants. We are grateful for men who sacrifice and take on the cloth for the flock. There are bad priests out there, and many lukewarm company men. But there are also good men, imperfect but striving men, servants who want to carry out their calling for the glory of God and the tending of the sheep. And there are many bad and lukewarm status quo administrator bishops out there. But there are one or two good ones as well, who love as a father loves and not as a COO of DIOCESE Corp.

And yet, knowing all I know about our particular wasteland of a diocese and many others like it, I want priests for the Church but would never sacrifice my son to the diocesan grinder to become one. 

That sounds harsh, and I hate admitting it myself. When a man is called by God, he will only find peace when he embraces that calling. And so I would hope that if one of my sons was truly called by God to take up either religious or priestly life, that God would preserve him in that calling and make a way. But as a father, I would never push it or even encourage it. Kind of the way we know we need chemical plants and prisons in society, but we certainly don't want them in our neighborhood enclaves (NIMBY--not in my backyard). 

To lose faith is a terrible feeling. Which is why I feel for Steve. In many ways, I have kept my distance from "the Church" in order to maintain my faith. Awful, isn't it? And yet I benefit from Her sacraments, Her teaching, Her witness, Her priests and religious. But I am not willing to offer my son to the roll-call. I feel like I know too much insider info, and am too familiar with the dysfunction. Wed yourself to Christ, yes...but not the Church. 

We know some folks who have "assigned" their young children as religious and priests already--"oh, well so-and-so (age 4 or whatever) is going to be a priest, so..." I think this is terrible parenting and religiously manipulative, not to mention just unrealistic. Although we know this was how the Church was fed for years with nobles and large families "offering" one of their sons to the priesthood, whether or not they felt called to it. I think vocation offices have gone to the other extreme these days, though--not encouraging men to think about it enough (maybe because they know all too well the problems and burnout inherent in the role of priest), or the seminaries being effeminate and inconducive to healthy masculinity. And bishops not being true spiritual fathers, but many who are cold administrators who will throw you under the bus to preserve the Force at all costs. 

I want my sons (and daughter, of course) to remain Catholic. I don't care if they are "religious" or not, but I want them to have life, and have it abundantly (Jn 10:10). I want them to attend Mass of their own volition when they grow up, have a family if it be God's will for them. It's a fine line to walk between forcing your children to be "holy" and letting them simply be who they are and loving them for it. I can only be the example. I want him to be able to come to me with anything, know he can rely on me to never spurn him, to take him in when he needs a place to come home to. 

Will the Church do that for my son also? Can I trust the Church to preserve his innocence? Not feed him to the wolves? Or is it a corporation (albeit a religious one) just like any other, where the bottom line is the preservation of the company at all costs? 

No faith, no salvation. No priests, no Church. Lord, raise up good men able to endure the suffering that comes their way when they live out their vocation with nobility and integrity. We need true shepherds, not simply effective administrators and ecclesial ladder climbers and company men. We need a Church we can trust, and that trust must be earned. Until then, I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice my sons for Her.  May God judge me.

Confess Your Sins While You Still Can

 

One of the worst tragedies of the modern Church is the downplaying of sin--both its reality and its effects. The number of ignorant Catholics who have not been taught the necessity of repentance through the Sacrament of Penance to rejoin the chasm between our Creator and creature severed by mortal sin are legion. Even if one is not in mortal sin, but guilty of venial sin and imperfections, the Sacrament is a great grace to strengthen one's spiritual life and encourage compunction that should not be taken for granted.

Though individuals must answer to their Maker for every idle word spoken at the Judgement (Mt 12:36), there is also a great and terrible judgement reserved for those priests and bishops who did not do all they could to preach the message of the Baptist, the harbinger of the Christ: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (Mt 3:2). And likewise the words of St. Peter, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). And our Lord to St. John: "Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you" (Rev 3:3)

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die (Ecc 3:1), and we do not know when that hour comes (Mt 24:42). 

So for those who lay sick and dying, who have been baptized as Catholics, one would think they would be desirous to confess their sins out of compunction and receive the grace of being washed clean. But alas, we often die as we live. Thankfully the Church in Christ's mercy is given the sacrament of Extreme Unction/Last Rites, otherwise known in the new Catechism as Anointing of the Sick. From the 1992 Catechism:

“The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal life” (CCC 1532)

And from the Catechism of Trent: 

"As all care should be taken that nothing impede the grace of the Sacrament, and as nothing is more opposed to it than the consciousness of mortal guilt, the constant practice of the Catholic Church must be observed of administering the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist before Extreme Unction."

And yet if we die as we live, it is not uncommon for modern Catholics today to 

a) either brazenly or ignorantly receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin

b) have gone for years without confessing their sins in the sacrament of Penance

c) feel no need to confess, either due to ignorance, faulty catechesis, or their culpability or willful refusal to make use of the Sacrament

So, when it comes to the hour of death, we are fortunate to have the grace of Extreme Unction/Anointing of the Sick to prepare us for our Judgment and final repose. 

But notice the bolding in both Catechisms (my emphasis): that the expectation is that if one is to receive anointing of the sick and receive the grace of forgiveness of sins though the sacrament, the inference (from the new CCC) is that if the sick or dying person IS able to confess and make use of the sacrament of Penance. If a priest is called in to anoint, the sick or dying person should be informed that the constant practice of the Catholic Church must be observed of administering the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist before Extreme Unction. 

This responsibility lies on the priest to inform the person of this necessity. But were the sick or dying person refuse to confess their sins, and had the opportunity to do so (after all, the priest is right there, and assuming the person was in their right state of mind, should ask him first to hear their confession) but did not and instead has the attitude of "just give me the anointing" (without confession)--isn't that a problem? And for the priest who were he to not ask the person "do you want to confess?" before anointing, or if he goes ahead with the anointing regarding confession unnecessary--is he himself not culpable?

It is not uncommon for those on hospice and those in hospitals with terminal illnesses to lose their sense of reason, in which case they may not be able to confess because they are not in their right mind, but can still make use of the Sacrament of Anointing. But I think this is a different scenario than one who has their reason and feels no need to confess, yet sees the Anointing as "covering all the bases" including forgiveness of sins without having to confess them.  This seems like a grave dereliction in my mind of both priests who neglect to insist upon Confession before anointing for those in their right mind and capable of it, and those ordinary Catholics who see no need for Confession but presume upon the forgiveness of sins without it. 

What do you think, reader? Am I reading too much into this? I am not trained in canon law or moral theology, but I would think the surest way--outside of perfect contrition, which is possible but rare--is to follow the good thief Dismas and confess with sincere contrition one's sins while they still are able, and to refuse to do so when given the opportunity is perilous. 

If a priest is available to anoint, he is available to hear one's confession. To spurn that opportunity thinking it is not needed seems gravely misleading. And for a priest not to encourage it and instead gloss over the need to confess (if one is in a state of mortal sin and able to confess) is culpable himself.  For no one enters the Kingdom of Heaven who is not sincerely penitent. God is both merciful and just. Dying is serious business, and it weighs on me in these kinds of circumstances that presumption reigns in the vacuum left by neglecting to preach the necessity of confession and conversion. 

Comments are open. I am, as well, to learning more and being corrected if I'm off base. I especially value the input of priests and religious more learned in sacramental theology than I am to shed light on this dilemma. 

The Laying On Of Hands And The Sins Of The Father

One of the great challenges for new Catholics and those coming back to the faith is the kind of cognitive dissonant tightrope one has to walk to reconcile seemingly disparagent elements of the faith. For the early Christians, especially during the Arian controversy, it was Christological: how can Christ be both man and God? In the post-Constantine era, it was "how are Christians to live as servants of God and subjects of the State?" In our present generation, the tension often comes down to the question of "how can the Church be called Holy when Her body is a rotting quagmire of corruption and filth?" Such a proposal is not only offensive for those who have been touched by the sullied cloth personally, but can often create a visceral gagging on the bone of hypocrisy. 

Once when I was doing street evangelization, I encountered a man who held nothing but contempt for the fact that we were out there, trying to spread the Good News of the gospel. It wasn't the Good News, of course, but the fact that we were regarded as agents of the Church, peddling rotten sacks of potatoes as healthy nourishment. It became clear after a few minutes of vitirol that his objections to our being there (and the Church as a whole) were not objective or theoretical in nature, but deeply personal. Although he didn't state it outright, I would wager this was a man who was himself Catholic and who was deeply wounded and scandalized by the abuse crisis within the Church and could not reconcile the reality of this abuse with anything good coming from it. I would even wager he may have been a victim of abuse himself at the hands of the Church. 

There is a saying that goes something like this, "Satan takes what is beautiful and tries to make it ugly. God takes what is ugly and makes it beautiful." I see so much beauty in the cleansing power of Christ to forgive sins, to restore our dignity as men, and to welcome us into his Kingdom. And yet, this often comes in the guise of having to look past the abject corruption oozing out of seemingly every pore in the Body of Christ, His Bride the Church here on earth. 

This is one of those posts where I'm reticent to "go there," in bringing something to light that may be best hidden or unspoken. I hope to do so delicately, but I may fail in that to convey the point. And the point is this: the smoke of Satan which has infiltrated the Church over the last century has mingled with the filth of the world to the degree that even the most beautiful aspects of Her mission has the potential to be corrupted in the minds of the faithful. Perhaps this is just me, some psychological perversion that I would be wise to keep to myself. For the more innocent among us, it may scandalize. For that, I will apologize in advance and perhaps even warn you not to read further. 

The thing people don't realize about the sins of the flesh beyond the obvious is that it perverts our vision of what is true, what is beautiful, and what is real even subconsciously. This is why it's hard to stomach what people like Joseph Sciambra try to convey in graphic detail about gayness--that beyond the Will & Grace persona, homosexuality is an ugly, painful, unnatural, and messy affair. It is also why, when I was evangelizing with him at the Pride festival in San Francisco a few years back, there was an overt religious ethos among the half-naked men gyrating on floats while wearing angel wings next to drag queens dressed as nuns (the so-called "Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence"). Satan loves to take what is holy and beautiful and make it ugly and profane. 

Because of the sexual abuse within the Church, and the atrocities commited by clergy in terms of pederasty and pedophilia, there has been a kind of spiritual and psychic-searing, the way one's eyelids may be fused shut if they get too close to an nine hundred degree oven. In those who have suffered such abuse at the hands of clergy, there is only one word that can qualify it: spiritual murder. It is the death of the soul, because it is a kind of death when one is raped or abused, but at the hands of clergy, it is not only a death but a deformation. How can anyone who has suffered like this be expected to show up for Mass next Sunday and sit through a homily by a man of the cloth without becoming physically ill (which is what Joseph has described experiencing).

This excerpt from Nikos Kazantzakis' Zorba the Greek has stayed with me after reading it decades ago, and may help illustrate this picture of deformation:

"I recalled one dawn when I had chanced upon a butterfly’s cocoon in a pine tree at the very moment when the husk was breaking and the inner soul was preparing to emerge. I kept waiting and waiting; it was slow and I was in a hurry. Leaning over it, I began to warm it with my breath. I kept warming it impatiently until the miracle commenced to unfold before my eyes at an unnatural speed. The husk opened completely; the butterfly came out. But never shall I forget my horror: its wings remained curled inward, not unfolded. The whole of its minuscule body shook as it struggled to spread the wings outward. But it could not. As for me, I struggled to aid it with my breath. In vain. What it needed was to ripen and unfold patiently in sunlight. Now it was too late. My breath had forced the butterfly to emerge ahead of time, crumpled and premature. It came out undeveloped, shook desperately, and soon died in my palm.

This butterfly’s fluffy corpse is, I believe, the greatest weight I carry on my conscience. What I understood deeply on that day was this: to hasten eternal rules is a mortal sin. One’s duty is confidently to follow nature’s everlasting rhythm."

The sin here is not actually in forcing something to "emerge ahead of time," but that it should never have been forced at all. When innocence is stolen, it can never be brought back to life. It is eternally crippled, and can only be healed by the divine hand who created it in the first place. I don't think the weight of such sin can be overstated. It is why our Lord uses the imagery of a millstone. Millstones are giant. Were it to be tied around one's neck on their way to the bottom of the sea, it wouldn't just be a swift trip down. It would snap your neck like a twig in the first second due to the weight. And that quick death would be a merciful fate when compared to the judgement being rendered after death.

If the priesthood is the image of Christ as servant, it is to be holy. When it is not holy, not true to its calling, it perverts the image of Christ in the minds of the innocent. Such a weight of responsibility should make every man shudder, but especially God's chosen--his priests. The good ones recognize this, and in prayer and fasting, do their best to live out their calling in integrity. But like I said, Satan loves to make what is beautiful and holy, ugly and profane. 

Which is why when I witness the humble beauty of the laying on of hands during an ordination, I want to see what is true, what is humbling, what is beautiful and full of grace. But there is also the fallen part of me, all too familiar with our fallen world and the perversity of the flesh, that experiences a flash of what the abuse within the Church has wrought.

Because that very act of the ancient rite of laying on of hands in consecration has been abused and perverted in the laying on of hands of young men and young women, of children by way of the most heinous act of sodomy, which cries to Heaven for vengence.

You don't have to be a father of young children as I am to be repulsed by even the thought of such abuse, whether it occurs in the sacristy, the confessional, or some sordid bath or beach house. And if I were a more innocent person--one who had never swam in the rank waters of pornographic websites and voluntarily viewed things I can never unsee--this kind of flash imagry might not come to mind. I take ownership of that sin, and write about it now not because of how uncommon or rare it is, but of how pervasive and commonplace, how pernicious and virulent. Were I a more innocent person, I may not be so uncomfortable when I see a young priest kneeling before a bishop as the elder lays his hands atop his head at waist level. Were I more ignorant of the sordid realities of what happens in some seminaries, in some chanceries, in some diocesan retreat houses, the thought might never cross my mind.

But I read. I read about the McCarricks--one among many who have taken the image of Christ the High Priest and desecrated it by their lurid acts of sacrilege. And maybe it's better I don't read, keep my head in the sand like an ostrich. So that when I see a laying on of hands in an ordination, I don't "go there," if even for a moment, in my imagination. Can I say there's no grounds for such imaginations? These wolves in sheeps clothing have not only made the unthinkable a reality, but they even deny that they have commited the worst sacrilege--spiritual murder--compounded by their seeming lack of repentence or compunction. They shift blame, or deflect to protect assets. When in reality, they are perverts no parent of good conscience would leave their children with for even a second. 

I think it goes without saying that I am blessed to know many good priests, men of honor and integrity that would hold as abhorrent such stains upon the Church just as I do. And many of them know too that as priests, they have a target on their back--not by the culture, or the media, but by Satan himself.  They realize that if they are not fortified in prayer and fasting, continually living lives of virtue and accountability, they too may find themselves compromised if not careful. The spiritual war being waged against priests by the agents of evil is a reality. Even good men fall, when they never thought they would. It is no joke. Listen to what Our Lady (of Good Success) warns:

"The devil will work to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every way, working with baneful cunning to destroy the spirit of their vocation and corrupting many. Those who will thus scandalize the Christian flock will bring upon all priests the hatred of bad Christians and the enemies of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This apparent triumph of Satan will cause enormous suffering to the good pastors of the Church…and to the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth who, a prisoner in the Vatican, will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of God Our Lord, asking for light, sanctity, and perfection for all the clergy of the world, to whom he is King and Father.”

“Unhappy times will come wherein those who should fearlessly defend the rights of the Church will instead, blinded despite the light, give their hand to the Church’s enemies and do their bidding. But when [evil] seems triumphant and when authority abuses its power, committing all manner of injustice and oppressing the weak, their ruin shall be near. They will fall and crash to the ground.

“In those times the atmosphere will be saturated with the spirit of impurity which, like a filthy sea, will engulf the streets and public places with incredible license.… Innocence will scarcely be found in children."

As a married man, every act of intimacy with my wife demands chastity of mind, body, and heart. To the extent I am running through fantasies in my mind with strangers, playing things out I have viewed online in the past, I am in sin and sinning against my own flesh--that is, my wife, whom I have vowed to be true and faithful to til death. As a married man, I am called to complete and total chastity. This conversion of heart and mind is hard, but it is not impossible. The Lord can heal our memories. He can keep us present in the marital act. We can cooperate with grace by the exercise of the will with regards to chastity. 

For the priest, he must overcome not only his own sins, but must surpass the sins and failings of his predecessors. As the Lord says, "your righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees" (Mt 5:20). “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Mt 23:2-3). "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh" (Mt 18:7). 

What does a good father say when his child is in danger. Don't you lay a hand on him! What does a good Father do when the Lord wishes to multiply his spiritual progeny? He lays hands on him in the rite. What does a spiritual and physical abuser, when he is a man of the cloth, do to corrupt a youth, an innocent. He does just that--lays hands on him. How confusing it must be, how much torment must that innocent endure, to try to reconcile these violations by consecrated hands to keep his spirit in tact! Truly, it is almost beyond one's strength, were it not for the potential for divine healing by the Man whose integrity was never in question--Christ himself--who can make all things new, heal the brokenhearted, and restore dignity to those who have been robbed of it. 

Shame on this perverse generation. Shame on the men of God who have been corrupted by Satan and plundered the innocent. I pray they receive their due in God's just Judgement. 

But shame on us men, too, who perpetuate this seemingly unending roll of digital film through secret indulgence, through hidden sin. There is no victimless crime, no untouched region of the mind and body when it comes to unchastity. We wonder why not only the world, but the Church is in the state it is in. The smoke of Satan has entered. The only antidote is complete and total chastity, and the development of an absolute abhorrence of sin, as St. Paul says, "let there not be even a HINT of sexual immorality among you" (Eph 5:3). 

Heal our minds, Lord, and restore our innocence, so that we do not give what is holy to the dogs. Restore your priesthood, so that we see what is beautiful and holy for what it is, with innocence of heart. Restore our hearts and minds, rip up the soiled carpet of our hidden transgressions, so that we might repent of our misdeeds and perversity rather than burying them and buidling churches upon graveyard of inequity.  Let our righteousness exceed those of the scribes and Pharisees, and may our penance atone for their  sordid abominations, for the sake of our children, and our priests to come.

'Tames' In Clerical Life

A few years ago I stumbled across an article by way of an acquaintance that was published in Latin Mass magazine in 1996 (and reprinted in The Traditionalist in 2016). The author is an American cleric, published as Anonymous. I could not find the article anywhere online, and had it sent to me via scanned pdf, so I had until now been unable to post it due to formatting. 

The reason I am took the time to transcribe it (and cramped up my hands doing so) was that when I read it, a lightbulb went off; it offers a incisive psychological insight into certain, we’ll say, priest-personalities (I will leave it to your deductive reasoning to ascertain who might fit the description). I have abridged portions for the sake of brevity. 

Read it carefully, and feel free comment.

-------

TAMES IN CLERICAL LIFE

The profound problems that beset priestly life today have been discussed for the most part by means of categories that reflect the preoccupations of our time and the way in which the problems have come to our attention. Because sexual scandal has figured so largely in the contemporary crisis, the now conventional division of male populations into gays and straights has, not surprisingly, played a large part in these discussions. But the reality is considerably more complex than the standard vocabulary of “sexual orientation” would suggest. Though it seems contradictory, even the battles over issues of sexuality among priests may have their basis in personal factors in which sexuality itself plays a relatively minor role.

What is here proposed is that the contemporary priesthood exhibits a disturbingly high number of one particular sociopsychological type, to be designated by the neologism “tame,” and what follows is a first attempt to sketch a profile of the tame priest. The author is innocent of training in psychology and the data have been neither collected nor analyzed systematically; they are simply the result of twenty years of observing the subject at close hand. The description is addressed to the experience of those familiar with the current condition of clerical life, and to the common-sense intuitions of others. 

Perhaps the most universal and distinctive characteristic of tames is their paradoxical combination of great sociability with an incapacity for true friendship. Tames are great mixers at parties and all social functions, and they have the ability to join in almost all conversations and project friendly interest. In the jargon of the MBA they are abundantly endowed with “people skills.” Yet their friendliness itself makes them unfit for friendship. They exist on the level of superficial companionability, and lack the depth of personality and character necessary to make and keep a friend. Whereas most men in their late twenties unconsciously begin to narrow the number and deepen the quality of their friendships, tames preserve a kind of adolescent gregariousness and live on in the world of the fraternity or freshman dorm. While they tend to be cheerful on social occasions, the mask occasionally slips to show a characteristic expression of apprehension, hunger, and puzzlement. Strong friendships draw one apart from the crowd, and being out of the mainstream and on the margins is something a tame cannot tolerate. Tames prefer instead to exercise their talent in the public arena, where they can flit from buddy to buddy, chatting, telling jokes, fetching drinks and collecting from as many as possible external tokens of friendship. 

Being tame is not itself a sexual orientation, yet within the clerical life tames tend to behave politically, socially, and morally in a manner as uniform as that of gays. It is part of the syndrome that tames are not conscious of themselves as tames: there is no question of their forming a caucus as do gays. Yet because their responses to concrete crises and problems are so uniform tame comprise a black de factor, and have an influence in the Church disproportionate ot their number. In fact the defeats and frustrations visited upon straights in the clergy are primarily due not to gays but to tames. 

It is usually very hard to know whether a particular tame priest is heterosexual or homosexual. THey are seldom obviously effeminate; most laymen will assume, in default of indications ot the contrary, that they are straight. But they wear their masculinity as a businessman might wear a baseball cap at a picnic; his support for his team is not necessarily insincere, but you get the feeling that it is displayed as an emblem of good will--”I’m an easy-to-get-along-with kind of guy”--and not as a constitutive part of who he is. Tames never seem entirely at peace with this aspect of their lives and, in situations where gays and straights are clearly at dds, live in a kind of emotional No Man’s Land. This is not because tames waver between competing appetites like bisexuals, but because any definitive involvement risks isolation, and isolation terrifies them.

One external indication of the tame seminarian or priest is the changes of dress to which he will subject himself. Sometimes he will change clothes four of five times a day, depending on the activity planned and (more importantly) on who will be in the company. Tames will own the full array of clerical gear, but are also outfitted as laymen for a wide range of formal and informal occasions. Tames live in the present, in the “now”; they are extraordinarily sensitive to the people in the same room with them, they intuitively grasp the balance of power, the divisions of opinion, the dominant party or ethos. Their overadaptability in clothing is symptomatic of their overadaptability generally. Tames are capable of astonishing changes of opinion depending on the composition of their company-at-the-moment; it is not quite accurate ot say they are chameleons, because in a sharply contrasted environment they will not adapt themselves to the majority if the minority clearly has greater power and prestige. Always and everywhere, tames will go with a winner.

…

Tame priests are without exception worldly. Their worldliness, however, is always a nervous worldliness, and they never allow themselves to wallow in pleasures as do gays or simple hedonists. Tames dress better, dine better, drink better Scotch, take more expensive vacations, and generally entertain themselves at a higher level than their fellows, but their enjoyment is poisoned by constant reference to what others may think of their acquisitions and recreations. They are always on guard against equal and opposite dangers: censure for unbecoming profligacy or for unbecoming rusticity. Even at his favorite restaurant a tame is seldom at ease, not knowing who may walk through the door and see him: is the wine too common or too extravagant, his dress too clerical or too casual?

A ‘giveaway’ characteristic of a tame is panic. Tames live in terror of being caught out--of being discovered on the wrong side of an argument, backing the wrong horse, having committed too deeply to reverse course with grace. As a consequence a tame will often register a momentary flash of panic when something occurs to make him unsure of his surroundings--for example, the entrance of an unknown party into a conversation in which he has prematurely taken a stand, or the friendly approach of a pariah at a public function. Tames see failure and unpopularity as contagious, and will oil their way out of contact with either as soon as possible. In their dealings with equals tames often make them feel used--not because they deliberately and cynically set out to manipulate, but because they are virtually incapable of exchanging a human (or supernatural) good with another person.

Tames have a morbid lack of curiosity about the first principles of things: metaphysics, the grounding of moral arguments, dogma. This does not come from any lack of brainpower but is simply a reflex of their concern for the here-and-now. The functional/pragmatic/political is supreme. A tame may hold an office that obliges him to defend some moral or dogmatic principal as inviolable and he may do it competently, but always with an eye to the occasion; even defense of principle, for a tame, is itself not principled but simply a means to realize some practical good. In general, tames have a distaste for confrontation and avoid situations where they are forced into conflict. In most controversial situations tames hedge their bets by showing mild support for both sides as long as possible, only declaring allegiance when it is clearly to their advantage to do so. Tames are capable of professing directly contrary opinions within a matter of hours, and frequently shock others by their apostasies. Because they adapt so spontaneously to the environment they are sometimes unconscious of inconsistency and puzzled when it is brought to their attention. Tames are rarely capable of loyalty in the strict sense, but only the kind of loyalty salesmen show to their products of lawyers to their clients-of-the-moment; they are Company Men, spirited defenders of the institution in which they wish to advance.

Tames tend to be dutiful in the same way that they are loyal. They are “responsible citizens” in the places where they live and work. They are team players and willing to work long hours; they are eager not to give others cause for complaint, and they tend to make themselves--if not indispensable--important worker bees in the machinery of the chancery or seminary or office of religious education. In addition to the energy that comes with ambition, tames have the sort of managerial affability that attracts favorable notice in any bureaucracy. They are relatively unlikely to leave the priesthood; thus, if tames make up only 30% of a seminary entrance, they may well compose 70% of those still working as priests ten years after ordination.

…

In the contemporary Church tames serve the agenda or gays in the long run, even though they sometimes find themselves forced to take a contrary stance. Tames are extremely susceptible to emotional blackmail of all kinds, and gays are adept at putting a thumb on the emotional windpipe of weak men in order to manipulate them. Of course this takes many forms; one of the simplest (playing on the tame avoidance of conflict) is to engender a stormy atmosphere in a room in which the gay agenda is under discussion, with the threat of outrage and vengeance if the correct conclusion is not reached. Tames will often sell the pass to avoid the risk of having ot fight for it before a wider public.

Gays have also pulled tames into their service by the gambit of discussing chastity and sexuality in terms of “affective maturity.” This is how it works: first, one wins the admission that “affective maturity” is the principal gauge of authentic celibacy. Once this is conceded, it is stipulated that the condition sine qua non of affective maturity is “comfort” with one’s own sexuality (mature men are comfortable being themselves), and this in turn is seen to preclude disgust or moral censure directed at a “sexuality other than one’s own.” ...The paradoxical truth is that tames are more effective agents of the gay agenda than gays themselves; on one hand they are more presentable advocates (uneffeminate, good at reassurance, good at string-pulling), on the other they are motivated by a terror of the either and of being thrust to the margins of the institution--a terror stronger even than the hopes and anxieties of gays. The tame commitment to be noncommittal is the engine that powers progress in the Church.

…

The public arena brings forth from tames another side of their personality. Tames lack the resources of character to remain indifferent to hostile news media; moreover, the techniques of evasion and equivocation refined earlier in their lives are largely useless as bishops, when the media (and general public) reflexively attribute to them as their own the positions of the Catholic Church. A few tames are able to charm the media into a kind of truce: good ink in exchange for a blind eye toward heterodoxy; several others can be seen to engage in a disastrous cycle of appeasement and recrimination. They sue for the favor of the press by taking pains to portray themselves as moderates and by lashing out at more aggressive conservatives, causing dismay to many of the Church’s friends and giving delight to her enemies. 

…

From this provisional attempt at description it will be clear that the distinguishing characters of tames are for the most part destructive of what they Church needs to accomplish through her clergy. The U.S. Church may be especially instructive in this regard. Seventeen years into the pontificate of a “conservative” Pope, concerned to appoint dutiful and orthodox bishops, the problems of clerical homosexuality and pedophilia, doctrinal dissent of the professorate, liturgical abuses, acceptance of contraception, etc. have improved in no respect and worsened in many. It is reasonable to assume that there is not a single cause for this strange paralysis, but it is worth asking whether the prevalence of the tame priest does not go far to explain the combination of outward managerial competence and personal moral cowardice that has examined these problems so often, so “professionally,” and never lit on the obvious steps toward their solution.

The Faithful Bishop: A Meditation

 This afternoon was a little strange, in a hand-of-God kind of way. 

I had taken a day off from work, as we had a homeschool evaluation scheduled for our kids at 10 o'clock. I also had a call with a priest from the Avila Institute for spiritual direction at noon (which was scheduled back in January--a four month waiting list). 

The conversation with the priest was rather ordinary and commonplace. I gave him some of my background, a bit about my prayer life (how I struggle with discipline and consistency), and mentioned my negative experiences in spiritual direction in the past. He was a good listener, measured in his speech, and simply stressed the importance of regular mental prayer (half an hour per day) where we pray in silence and meditation, and converse with God. He discussed a little about the dangers of pride as well, and how we have to be faithful to our vocations (in my situation, to my wife and children). 

It was nothing I didn't already know, but that's actually what I found most fruitful about the half hour phone call/session--that the spiritual life for most of us is rather--well, uncomplicated and rather mundane. We may have particular struggles or issues during times of transition, but really the crux of his advice was "mental prayer at least a half hour per day," "be faithful to your vocation," and "be flexible" (meaning, have a plan B if your plan A for prayer is derailed). Most of us will never reach the precarious heights of spiritual perfection and ecstasy, and will struggle to advance beyond the first or second castle of the interior life (to use St. Theresa's terminology). But a lot of that largely is on our shoulders. Have I been doing a half hour of mental prayer a day? No. Am I surprised then that I have largely plateaued in my own spiritual life and advancement in virtue? 

So, after our session I figured, "well, no better time to start than now," and asked my four year old if he wanted to go with me to visit Jesus at the Adoration chapel, since my wife was taking the other two to their theater auditions. We left the house around 12:45 and pulled up and entered the chapel right around one o'clock. I saw a woman from our parish who was leaving at the time I came in, who thanked me profusely for my letter to the bishop, which had been making the rounds. I was a little embarrassed with the people who did the same after Mass on Sunday. Maybe it stuck a chord, said what others were thinking. I don't know. In any case my point in writing it was to encourage our bishop and be true to what I would say I would do: pray and fast for him, his intentions, his office, and the particular situation he finds himself currently with all eyes on him as the bishop overseeing the diocese in which the President of the United States attends Mass and calls home.

Though I had every intention of spending a half hour of personal mental prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, this was somewhat derailed by a handful of retirees starting a vocal devotional. So, it was on to my "plan B" and I decided to just roll with it and join them, figuring there was a reason we arrived when we did. What's funny is that it was an hour long prayer session specifically for priests. Bishops are priests, right? Hm.

I decided to devote the next hour of prayer to our bishop, specifically. One of the retirees hands me a book, devoted to praying for priests. Odd. We end up praying the Divine Mercy chaplet, reading the message of Fatima and the paricular Marian locutions in this book, and other prayers of petition. But we begin with the rosary, praying the Sorrowful Mysteries. As I meditated on each mystery, I called to mind our Lord, but also our bishop and the priests in our diocese standing in persona christi. What would happen were our bishop be moved by prayer and conscience to take a similar stance to that of the Archbishop of San Francisco, on the cusp of a possible overturning of Roe V. Wade, and forbid communion to politicans who advocate for abortion (which includes our President)?

He would find himself in the Garden, feeling as if he would sweat blood for fear of the choice before him--to take up his cross in order to be faithful to Christ, his Bride the Chuch, and his priestly office. Why was he in this position? Why did God put him in this diocese, at this particularly volatile and acrimonious point in history? Was it to maintain the status quo in an objectionable luke-warmness like his predecessor? Or was he being called to follow Christ on the road to Calvary? Couldn't someone take this chalice of decision-making from him, spare him from this fate? Couldn't he just live out his vocation in comfortable anonymity, rather than in the spotlight of public condemnation? Why, Lord, why? He would think in agony. I don't want to do this. I don't want to be here. I don't want to make these decisions. When I followed you til now we enjoyed the palms being laid on the street, the mingling, the working miracles and helping people in service. But this? There is no one here. There is no one else here to make this choice. I am alone, and I am scared. I can feel the mob, the newspapers, the politicians, the angry people breathing down my neck. I can feel the eyes of the faithful on me; I want to be faithful, I want to follow you--but not to this. Please, take this chalice from me. 

After rising, he would be turned over and led to the blood soaked pillar in the public square. His hands would shake uncontrollably as they were bound with chains and his clerical garb stripped from his torso. You want to play dirty, do you? the politicians in the box seats above think to themselves, Well, we'll show you who rules this house. With a waive of the executive finger, they signal to the brutes below to commence with the scourging. Tax-Exempt status? Stripped. How many people were depending on me to not rock the boat?, the bishop winces to himself as the lashes paint stripes on his back. Who do you think you are? the Most Powerful Man In The World asks him incredulously. Don't you know I have the power to grant you your freedom or nail you to a tree? I'm a good Catholic. Just who do you think you are? The man of God endures lash after lash, scourge after scourge, until he can hardly stand under his own weight. If it weren't for his hands chained to the pillar, he would have slumped over to the ground after the first few blows. 

Every wound needs some salt, his executioners surmise. And so after his public lashing, the pain of humiliation begins. The press, the news outlets, start their digging. They're out for dirt. Who is this Bishop So-and-So. Didn't you ___ ten years ago? Isn't that a little hypocritical of you? Aren't you a Christian? The glaring flashes of the cameras, the microphones shoved in the face. Anything I say they will twist around, he thinks to himself, and recalls the scripture, "He opened not his mouth." They weave a mocking crown and press it firmly upon his bare head. The blood runs into his eyes, he grimaces while trying not to cry from the pain of humiliation and the piercing. I just want to do Confirmations and bless the CYO baseball games in my miter, he laments. But instead here I am, crowned with thorns of shame instead. And for what? For trying to be faithful to Christ. For being faithful to his office, his priestly calling, and the sheep in his care...including the one in office putting him through all this.

Next, he is paraded through the streets. He's not used to this. He spends much of his time in the chancery reading angry letters from parishioners who are upset at parish closures, and those requesting his presence at the KOC golf outing next weekend. Now the weight of the cross made custom for him is being laid on his shoulders and he is commanded: walk. He doesn't understand why this is happening. Hasn't he been faithful? Hasn't he been a good priest, a good (albiet, newly ordained) bishop in this new diocese? He puts one foot in front of the other, barely able to hold his head up. He hasn't had any water, his back is lacerated and he can hardly see from the blood from his head running into his eyes. From the jeering crowd a man steps out, proscripted by one of the agencies, to make sure he makes it to the final destination. Is he going to hit me too? the man of God thinks to himself. He recognized him though--one of his sheep. The man is embarrassed--embarrassed to be there, embarrassed to have to help this traitor to the state, this priest who thinks he is Christ incarnate. But in obedience to his conscriptors, he pushes a shoulder under the cross and takes the weight, if nothing else to get this thing over with. The man of God is relieved to avoid being crushed to death, and to not be alone in this ordeal. As they walk, the man from the crowd shakes his head incredulously, pierced by conscience. He had been a lukewarm Catholic all his life, and here is this priest, this bishop, literally living out the bible stories his mother had read to him as a child. He hadn't been to Mass in years; confession, decades. Step after plodding step, they say nothing, but as they make their way up the hill, his burning shame gives way to courage, to conviction, that what this man of God is enduring is worthy to be followed. 

When they arrive at the end of the long, winding road, the man of God can hardly stand. His limp hands are forcefully yanked, his knuckles hit the wood of the cross and his fingers are spread. When he sees the size of the nails, he almost faints...but instead, he begins to pray. Father, Father... It dawns on him the words of scripture, "You do not have many fathers." How many times have his flock called on him: Father, Father. And now he is calling on the Eternal Father, the one who has given him this privelege to suffer as his son suffered. He looks around from above the ground, in agony, as he is raised up with ropes. There is nothing but vicious hatred towards him, towards his Church, that has all of a sudden decided to take a stand for something. He looks for his friends, and finds only his own mother and a few faithful sheep praying their rosaries silently, mouthing prayers on his behalf. He is too weak to speak, to hold his head up, to pray even. This is not what I signed up for, he thinks in a moment of weakness. Isn't it? the words come to him in a haze. Is this not what you were called to--to follow my son wherever he is led, to be His hands, His feet. And now your hands and feet are united with his. The man of God prays only to endure to the end; his fate is sealed in the world, but his soul is still in limbo. The one who has been roaming the earth for the past hundred years, given free reign, is vying for him. I can make all this go away, he whispers. Just give him the bread, and tell your priests to do the same. It would be easier, wouldn't it? the man of God agonizes. And who am I to judge anyway. 

But in his final hour, he is filled with something, like a wind. He knows he only has a few breaths of life left in him. The wind speaks to him in silence; he is fortified. I come to do your will, he echoes the words he has read hundreds of times before, but now that will is costing him everything--his good name, his health, his retirement, his Church, and now his very life here on earth. He has made a mess of things, it seems. Father, he prays, please take my spirit. But when you do, let the spark of my life fall to the ground below and ignite your Church. Fill them with the fire of your love. Do not let my ecclesial death and my life as a priest be wasted. 

All I ever wanted was to be faithful, the man of God thinks to himself. All I wanted to be was a good priest. And as he closes his eyes, he is carried off by the quiet words of repose, 

Well done, good and faithful servant. You have fulfilled the vocation I have set out for you. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Spare Not The Rod: A Letter To Our Bishop Concerning Canon 915

Most Reverend William E. Koenig

Your Excellency,

It was a pleasure having the opportunity to meet you at your installation Mass last summer, as well as at the Diocesan synod meeting this Fall. My wife and I include you in our intentions in prayer every morning, and our local men's group does as well. We hope you are acclimating to the area, and are getting the chance to "smell the sheep" under your care through various pastoral visits and events.

I write to you today as a lay Catholic father and husband after reading the news of Archbishop Cordileone's recent instruction to House Speaker Pelosi that she is not to present herself to Holy Communion due to her persistent and long-standing advocacy for abortion. If I'm being quite honest, it was a glimmer of hope for me as someone who came into the Church 24 years ago who had been convicted that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth. That integrity (of the Church) has at times been tested by those who claim to live the faith and yet act in opposition to what She teaches. I couldn't understand it as an 18 year old, newly minted Catholic and I still struggle to believe it today. 

Nowhere is this more blatant and scandalous as it is with Catholic politicians baptized into the faith who advocate in direct contradiction to Church teaching. While this could encompass a myriad of issues, the clearest offense against the sanctity of human life, the Natural Law, and our future existence is abortion. 

For a new Catholic entering the Church today, they may wonder "Why has it taken this long?" to simply enforce, in spiritual charity, Canon 915 which states, "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."  This canon is punitive but for the purpose of repentance and conversion of heart, which is a spiritual good. I don't know the interior motivation for Archbishop Cordileone's recent action, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was made not as a political statement but for the good of Ms. Pelosi's soul, and the benefit of the faithful at large. It shows, for us on the ground, that maybe there is hope that we were not sold a bill of goods in coming into the Church, or persisting in believing in the wake of scandal after scandal. And it is truly a scandal that pro-abortion politicians (among others) present themselves so presumptuously to receive our Lord, eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves. 

As a father of three, I know that if I "spare the rod" (to speak proverbially) for my children because of the blowback I know I will get from them, it shows on my part a lack of love, as scripture says. As a father, I discipline because I love my children. I also know better than they do what is good for them at this young age. 

My vocation is not holy orders, but matrimony. But for those ordained, you also are fathers. And many like myself, lay Catholics trying to be faithful, trying to be good, fasting and praying, have often felt bereft, like wayward children without a spiritual father because we were not pushed and instructed sufficiently to live the faith in this godless age. We kind of learned on our own, many of us, and with the help of grace.

But what the Archbishop has done is set a jarring precedent that the Church actually stands for something, and that he will not "spare the rod" so to speak in this particular circumstance. This will have an undoubted ripple effect not only for the faithful, but the hierarchy and Church as a whole. And, your Excellency, as I'm sure you are well aware, you are at the epicenter of this political and spiritual storm, at an unprecedented moment in history. 

Our President--arguably the most politically powerful figure in the Western world--with many other Catholics like Ms. Pelosi who advocate for that which is contrary to the faith, present themselves (in this diocese) in the same sacrilegious manner, scandalizing the faithful, undermining the credibility of the Church, and damning their own souls. I am, of course, not unaware of the implications which such actions (the enforcement of Canon 915) would have. It would fill me with trepidation. But to the degree to which I fear men more than I fear God, I would have to question myself. "Who shall we fear?" King David writes, "The Lord is my light and my salvation." 

I am, of course, not in your shoes. It is not easy shoes to be in, to be quite honest. I may not envy you in this role, but I most certainly pray for you. Because with prayer, all things are possible, as it says in scripture. And certain demons are not driven out without prayer AND fasting. 

For that reason, I, my wife, and a contingent of those in our local men's group, will be doing so much more intentionally during this political firestorm that is certain to touch us all at some point or another. We often feel like "lambs led to slaughter" as faithful Catholics in this diocese and in the secular world at large. But we have faith, hope and charity! We can do all things in Christ who strengthen us. Whom should we fear?

I can see you are a man of faith and prayer. I would, in closing, ask you to pray for your fellow bishop, Archbishop Cordileone, and consider his example which gives courage to the lay faithful to live out the faith in an acrimonious culture. The Church will not be renewed without witness, and witness will not come without suffering. What better witness than to live out in each of our respective vocations, the teachings of Christ and his Church? What more honorable way to enter Heaven than covered in the stripes our Savior himself displayed out of love for his sheep? The enforcement of Canon 915 in this diocese will give you those lashes, undoubtedly. That is for your discernment, of course. Courage must be seen to be lived out by those in the pews. 

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter; I hope it will be received with the charity in which is was written. You will most certainly be in our prayers.

Sincerely in Christ,

RM

 

Bishops Are Born Of Families

 I have never been to Rome. People keep telling me I have to go to see St. Peter's, the Vatican, the plethora of liturgical wonders and beautiful art, and experience the history of our faith. After twenty three years as a Catholic, it is a bit strange that I have never really had the desire or inclination to make the trip. 

I don't know if this is a conscious or unconscious dis-inclination. I'm not a history buff, though I am open to learning in order not to be ignorant. I can appreciate fine art, but can't say I'm a connoisseur by any means. And most of all, I'm really not a "churchy" guy.

I have to qualify with that, because I have been writing about the Faith for half my life so one would think a love of all-things-church would go hand in hand with trying to live a life of faith. But I've always found myself following the St. Benedict Joseph Labre / St. Francis / St. Juan Diegos of the world in my journey of faith, rather than hanging around gold-gilded ambos or immersing myself with Church or diocesan events. It has just never been a draw.

So I was a little out of my element when our family was asked to formally greet and welcome the new bishop of our diocese at his installation Mass this afternoon. I also suffer from severe liturgical stage fright (which is probably why I was never an altar server and bombed out of being a lector at our old parish). Liturgical pomp and circumstance is not my thing. 

But this was a big deal. It was the first time in over one hundred years that a priest (a monsignor in this case) would be ordained a bishop in our diocese (His predecessors had all been ordained as bishops prior to being assigned here). In addition to every single priest in the diocese being present at the Mass and ceremony, there was a large cadre of bishops, two cardinals, and a Vatican nuncio present. It was as close to a pontifical type ceremony as I would probably experience apart from being in the Eternal City itself. 

Complicating things a little was the fact that this was only the third Novus Ordo Missae I had been to in almost three years; though I had retained the muscle memory of it over the years, my children were largely unfamiliar with the New Liturgy, having been raised up in the TLM exclusively. We didn't play a large role in the ceremony, obviously, but we were still a part of it, and my kids were on the same knowledge level of the NOM as 5th graders in a CCD class.

Complicating things a little more was the fact that this is the President's home diocese, and while it was not the focus of the appointment and ceremony (and rightfully so), it has to be in the back of people in the larger Catholic world's mind--just what is his intention in addressing the "issue at hand" that the USSCB is discussing? Just what (if anything) will he do as bishop? Will he be "one of the good ones?" Etc.

People are savagely critical concerning "the bishops" and not always without good reason always either. But this is our home diocese, and we have a new shepherd who is new in the role, in a new part of the country, in a political-sensitive situation that is the envy of no one. As more traditionally minded Catholics who have come to love and cherish the traditional liturgy, we have a stake in the game on the local level, especially as talk of the motu proprio looms large. We want to see Tradition thrive and grow. And so, I reasoned, the least we can do is extend a warm welcome on a basic human level to this successor to the apostles as members of his flock, and be the best representatives of joyful traditional Catholics we can be, to let him know we are here--not as a "force to be reckoned with" but simply as sheep in his care among a diverse flock.

Though I don't know much about him, after meeting and talking with him briefly, the new bishop seemed to have a genuine, pastoral spirit, was approachable, and seemed to be an overall good man. Again, this is just first impressions base on limited knowledge. It's okay to say such things though, I think--to extend a degree of courtesy on a basic human level and not immediately cut a man of the cloth at the knees just because you don't think he's doing enough or is "spineless" or what have you. At least give the man a chance to get settled for a day or two and get his bearings before unloading on Catholic Twitter if you feel the need to do so. Ha!

My wife and daughter veiled as they usually do, though they were pretty much the only ones I noticed who did so, and we all received Communion by dropping to our knees on the marble and receiving on the tongue (which was not an issue, though most received in the hand). The Mass and ceremony was almost four hours long. I was running on two hours sleep, and our kids were champs but were begging to melt near the end due to churchy overload, not to mention hunger and tiredness. My three young kids were three of....four. In the entire church. There were some older teenagers, but largely it was middle age and older (sometimes much older) Catholics in attendance. I was thinking, "Where are all the families?" only to realize a four hour ceremony in the middle of the day on a Tuesday may preclude fathers who are working or young mothers with young children who may not have survived it. 

As the bishop addressed and thanked all the dignitaries and ecclesial members that came before him and who formed him as a priest, and spoke to the religious communities and laity of the diocese that he is to serve, and as I looked at row after row of priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. (whom I am grateful answered God's call to Holy Orders), it occurred to me that every last one of them came not from some spontaneous ecclesial progeneration, but from a family--a mom and a dad who were called to the married state.  They not only gave these men life, but formed them in the faith so that they might respond to the call from Our Lord to be shepherds of, well, other families. From Our Lord Himself to St. Peter, the first pope, to the Apostles on down, it was the same story--they came from families. Families are the building blocks of societies. 

I'm fond of the saying, "No Priests, No Church." But another saying also holds: "No Families, No Priests!" Families are the stock from which our Lord calls his priests out, to leave father and mother and forsake marriage and families (in most cases) to respond to his call and follow him. 

When looking around the church at all these ecclesial V.I.P.'s, I caught myself from time to time during the ceremony thinking, "I'm just a husband and father, a layman." Of the hundreds of other people in the church among the laity, it was just me and another dad there with small kids (in his case, one son). Our priests are aging--so many elderly priests! Most Catholics parishes are aging as well, and not being infused with new life. But the hallmark of a traditional parish is just that--lots of lots of families, young families, with kids (sometimes lots of them!). Sometimes, often, they are also shepherded by young priests, with young seminarians stepping on deck. It's not a demographic cliff being rote, but a sign of hope and rebirth. And at the root of it is--you guessed it: the family.

Bishops don't exist in vacuums. They aren't formed in test tubes. They are born of families, they are formed by their fathers and mothers, and they also have to learn their jobs and how to pastor as well from their brother priests. There can be a symbiotic relationship I think between our celibate clergy and the families they serve when the families themselves live out their vocation as witnesses to the faith proper to their vocation, and the priests see it and are fortified in their own vocation when they know who it is they are serving and shepherding. 

It's not an easy job to shepherd. Sheep are constantly straying, and you have to keep them in line with the firmness of a father who disciplines those he loves without being so heavy-handed that it borders on abuse. In a culture of relativism and lukewarmness and religious ignorance, it becomes even harder. I realize there are lousy bishops out there who do damage to the Church and her witness by their ecclesial malfeasance. But I also think there are good men just trying to do a hard job, and to do it for the Lord when there's often no instruction manual. 

We don't expect them to be supermen, or solve all the local diocese's problems, or simply serve as the whipping boy or target for our angry letters (although that's how we treat them sometimes). We just want them to shepherd us as a spiritual father so that biological fathers like me can raise our own kids in the faith and live our vocation in marriage in a way that pleases God and serves the Church. That may mean more faithful families as offshoots of the family root (grandkids! great grandkids!), or it may mean supplying the Church with the men who go on to become seminarians, priests, bishops, cardinals, and even popes. To the degree we do that well, as fathers of our families, is the degree to which we re-infuse the Church with the faith, and supply the clergy from healthy spiritual stock for future generations. Let's be sure to remember to pray for our bishops, both the good ones and the bad ones. 

No families, no priests. No priests, no bishops. No bishops, no Church. No Church, no hope!

A Watershed Moment For The Successors To The Apostles?

A friend sent me a tweet from a bishop the other day condemning this or that action. We are living in an age where the bar of expectation is so low that we see a "courageous" tweet as worthy of admiration.  

I'm sad to say I have stopped expecting much of anything from our bishops except a kind of administrative functioning. I wrote in a past article somewhere that I stopped thinking "the bishops have our back" long ago. I also have grown weary of "strongly worded statements" as I wrote in Converts Are Made By Witness, Not Pastoral Letters.

But it looks like the bishops may have a chance to redeem themselves if they are to take a unilateral and unequivocal stance in denying, in a spirit of charity and for the salvation of their souls, pro-abortion politicians who obstinately persist in advocating for such egregious threats to life and formenting the sin of public scandal. The bishops have the chance to not only draft some kind of statement, but actually enforce it on a national level. 

Will they do so? It remains to be seen. My thinking is that ship has sailed a long time ago, but if given the grace of courage and fortitude, they have the opportunity to surprise us and salvage what credibility they may still possess by nature of their divine appointments. 

My friend Peter Kwasniewski expresses my own thoughts well on the matter:

"Can one watch the USCCB without horrifying fascination at its dialectic of paralysis and its bureaucratic inefficacy?

Here is a body of men entrusted with upholding the divine law, the natural law, and the law of the Church, voting democratically whether or not they will teach and enforce the divine law, the natural law, and the law of the Church. Here is a body of men who inherit the name and power of apostles, deliberating about whether or not the slaughter of infants in the womb is enough to merit the withholding of the glorified Body of Christ, which is eaten by heretics to their damnation.

The USCCB makes it possible at once to perpetuate the useless documentation of platitudes and to hamstring the real efforts of individual bishops to proclaim and protect the truth. Those who say that the issue of communion for pro-aborts must be left to the discretion of individual bishops are effectively shelving the entire question, because politicians are from one diocese but live and work in another (or in several). The responsibility falls through the cracks. 

What is needed here is a unanimous and exceptionless national policy. The lack of such is perceived, rightly I would say, as an implicit statement that the Church's teaching is of little or no importance and may not even be true, and, moreover, as an implicit denial of the Church's own authority in this area, which is superior to that of the State in regard to the moral law, divine revelation, and ecclesial government.

Now that certain pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians are boldly defying the bishops, we will see if they are capable of concerted action as befits successors of the apostles, or if (once again) they will settle for the mouthing of idle reminders sponsored by a mere majority in a voting body. The truth of Christ should never be seen as the subject of a voting body."

There is no doubt if they do not back up their words with action, they will be railroaded over and dismissed just as easily as they always have for the past half-century. If they do, they will endure a beating in the public square, and I'm not sure all of them are up for a pummeling. 

There is a great scene in Of Gods And Men where the old Trappist monks in Algeria are put in this position of having to dig in and take a stand. The Abbot acts like a true father, but the monks are still rightly scared and concerned for their future. The monks are asked "do we stay or do we leave?" And they vote to stay.

I hope and pray our bishops will do what's right and have the courage to lay it down in a way that backs up what most of us who believe in the True Faith have been trying to do on our own, but without the office or clout. They have it, and canon law supports it. They are in a difficult position, in large part to their own decisions over the past decades not to enforce something that should have been enforced all along, and need prayer. If they don't do something meaningful, they will lose whatever shred of credibility they possessed, and such pro-abortion politicians will be emboldened and act like the Philistine Goliath taunting the Living God. If they do back up their "statements" with meaningful action, they will take a beating for it for sure. But maybe it will help contribute to a renewal in the Church in the end. After all, converts are made by witness, not pastoral letters.