It is sad that in our current era of church closings and widespread corruption, many of us have witnessed something we have never heard of before. Too often, mass and church are being used as weapons held over the heads of the laity. If we do not go along with or agree with the closure of our beloved churches or tactics and practices employed by the "new catholicism," we are repeatedly threatened with lack of holy mass and with the closure of our ancestral houses of God. Completely inappropriate and unholy strong-arming tactics abound, most notably in core team "processes" but also elsewhere. We have several specific incidents we could relay involving different people, but we will not do this since the principle stands on its own. The bottom line is that one should never threaten to withhold the things of God from people as a means of securing one's own wishes. This is immoral. The people of God have a right to the things of God, to the sacraments, to holy mass, and to the churches which they have built and maintained as fruit of their labors and sacrifices for the love of God. When this sort of threatening occurs, it causes one to wonder about a sad estrangement from the original call of God to holy orders. Have some lost that Vision? Let us remember to forgive those who have decided to employ such horrendous tactics since they are severely misled. We pray, as always, that we all are continually converted in heart and mind and remember to Whom our allegiance is owed, for in the end, it is before His throne we will be judged.

I received my most recent Coming Home Network International newsletter yesterday. In it, evangelical convert Keith Moore describes his journey into the Catholic Church. A combination of largely unchurched, Methodist, "nondenominational," and house church in background, he describes his first experience inside a Catholic church. He was visiting Washington state and attended mass at St. Aloysius, near Gonzaga University.

I will never forget walking into that beautiful Cathedral. I had never seen the Stations of the Cross. I had never seen such amazing stained glass windows, not just for their beauty, but for the stories they told of God's work in our lives. The statues were amazing...they suddenly seemed to me very important because of what they pointed to. I was almost trembling by the time we left that day.

St. Aloysius was built in 1911. How many "new" or modern Catholic churches have you seen that contain purposeful, beautiful, and inspiring art? I myself have seen almost none. That's not to say that it cannot be done, but that it usually is not.

What we have already in existence in the Diocese of Camden are churches that already have these things. St. Mary's, though small, has these things. It is not just a building, it is truly a house of God. It is through sacred art and the structure of a traditional Catholic church that we learn about the Faith. In and of itself, by virtue of its presence, it is a means of evangelization.

Beautiful churches draws in those who who know little about Catholicism, often without them even realizing why. In attempting to make our churches, and therefore our Faith palatable to those currently outside it, many have tried to lower the bar and create "spaces" that are less overtly Catholic and consequently less intimidating to those who do not understand the purpose of beautiful art inside a house of God. But in doing this we lose the very thing that makes our Church attractive to those who seek to join It. Our traditional Catholic churches are treasures that not only have historic merit, but serve an important purpose in our continual conversion.

When I am at mass at St. Mary's, I see all around me in the stained glass windows the saints who are interceding for us in Heaven, the angels who are witnesses at each and every holy sacrifice of the mass, and I am reminded of my place in God's order. Churches like St. Mary's should not be so flippantly dispensed with. They are God's silent tools of conversion.

We know that the church closures are not about money. Truly, whatever is lacking could surely be found. (The Diocese owns so much unused real estate and has plenty of money.) And besides, some of the most financially viable churches in the Diocese have been slated for closure. But many persist in believing the closures are about money.

Worse still, there are priests and pastors out there who claim that if a church cannot support itself, it has no right to exist.

(Keep in mind that debt is sometimes incurred due to the necessity of paying assessments to the Diocese and certain amounts to support local Catholic schools, whether or not parishioners actually make use of or can afford tuition at these schools. Barring these two things, most churches do not have any problem paying their utility bills and maintaining their properties. We should also remember that by virtue of threatening certain churches with closure, the bishop has scared off many Catholics from the Faith or their parishes altogether, causing a great deal of confusion, despair, and decreased church attendance, all of which affect collections.)

In any case, what we need to ask ourselves is this: As Christians, should it be the case that those churches who are wealthier deserve to exist, while those who are poorer do not? What kind of an attitude is that? Is it Catholic? Is it even Christian?

In fact, it is neither. Our Lord did not recommend that the poor go out and attempt to become rich, but that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus said that the treasure of the poor would be great in heaven, and that the Kingdom of God belonged to them, that the heavenly banquet would be theirs!

The burden of coming to the aid of the less fortunate parishes in a Diocese falls upon the wealthier ones. And it is the job of the shepherds--the bishop and priests--to see to it that all the faithful have churches in which to worship. The effort to evangelize, not consolidate, should be in the forefront of all of our minds.

If it is believed that a prior pastor lacked the ability to financially manage his parish, then is it fair that the laity be forced to lose their church as a result? We of course know that this is only an excuse to do something we all know to be wrong, but the point is this: shepherds of  flocks in need should help them find ways to subsist.

Let us not delude ourselves. The role of a true pastor is not to persecute his flock, but to help them grow in Christ. He should be acting as a healer and not a henchman. No priest who plans on closing churches may be construed as a prophet unwelcome in his own country.

Let us look to St. St. John Vianney, one of the most unlikely saints of all. Thought to be a poor student, and having failed his seminary exams, he was finally ordained due only to his piety. He was sent to a teeny tiny French village called Ars:

Two decades after the French Revolution inspired massacres of 300 priests in France, there was a desperate need for priests....In a village of 40 houses, there were 4 taverns. Church attendance was very low, the farmers worked on Sunday, everyone spend their time drinking and swearing. It was a 'punishment parish' and the people laid bets on how long this new priest would last. But the new Cure of Ars surprised them all.

Someone peeked in his window and saw that he prayed all night. Others noticed that he removed all the fine furniture from the rectory and turned the parlour into a woodshed. He gave his clothes away to the poor and ate only two potatoes a day. Others reported that though his voice seemed to hurt their ears, his sermons stirred their hearts. He became part of the village life as well, visiting all the homes, and helping the villagers with their daily lives. He helped a shop owner with his bookkeeping, prescribed remedies for whooping cough, and when a tavern closed for lack of business, raised money for the owner to buy a farm, then tore the tavern down.

Twelve years later, people would say 'Ars is no longer Ars.' Everyone went to the three hour masses. The farmers prayed the rosary as they worked in the fields. When Father Vianney heard confessions, people would stand in line for hours....People travelled for miles and from around the world to make a confession to him. Sinners were converted at a few words from him. By the end of his life, he spend 16 to 18 hours a day in the confessional, and he was mobbed whenever he appeared. He heard 20,000 confessions a year, up to 300 a day.

In a country that had murdered great numbers of its priests, and discouraged the practicing of the Catholic faith John Vianney moved like a bright light, restoring faith and healing hearts....

The heroes of his youth were those priests who refused to submit to the French revolutionary government's nationalization of the Church, and risked martyrdom to celebrate Mass in secret in houses and barns of the faithful. John began to practice mortifications in imitation of these priests and as sacrifice for sinners from an early age.

When he was ordained and sent to Ars, he continued these austerities. He disposed of the fine furniture in the rectory, and used the money to help the poor of the parish. He spend hours in prayer, hours in the confessional and more hours serving the day to day needs of his parishioners.

In the entire village in which St. John Vianney lived, there were only a couple hundred people. Now a parish with 250 families is said not to have a right to exist! Oh how far we have fallen. This saint of saints and priest of priests spared nothing for his flock. What are the priests who should be imitating this great saint doing today? Busy figuring out how to close churches? We hope not. Let us pray that all priests, pastors, and bishops see the Light and heed the commands of Our Lord, to "preach the gospel to the poor."

I am fortunate to have a Eucharistic Adoration slot once a week. This gives me a little time for spiritual reading, among other things. I happen to love the many books written by Joan Carroll Cruz, such as The Incorruptibles, Secular Saints, and the one I had with me, which is called Miraculous Images of Our Lady. I was reading about Our Lady of Siluva (see also this link).

Our Lady of Siluva
In the early through mid-1500s, Lutherans and Calvinists were able to win over converts in Lithuania, but only among the nobles and ruling class. The peasantry (the vast majority of the people) remained staunchly Catholic, but were persecuted. Church properties were confiscated and turned over to Protestants. In 1570 the church in Siluva was similarly threatened and in his wisdom, the pastor, Rev. John Halubka, collected

some of the church's treasured articles including a few vestments, a favorite image of the Madonna and Child that hung above the main altar, and the church's records. Placing them in a metal-covered oak chest, he buried it a short distance from the church near a large rock. This was providential, since the church was soon seized by Protestants.

Finally, in 1588, a new law was passed which gave Catholics the right to repossess church properties unjustly taken from them, but the documents clearly proving previous ownership were required. For the church at Siluva, documents could not be found to prove that Peter Giedgaudas had given the land to the Church in 1457.

...in the summer of 1608...children shepherding their flocks, saw a beautiful lady standing on a large rock. Holding a child in her arms, the lady wept bitterly. Startled by the vision, one of the children ran to a Calvinist teacher, Mikola Fiera, who promptly claimed it to be an apparition of the devil who was trying to draw people away from Calvinism.

Hearing about the vision, people flocked to the rock. The Calvinist teacher continued to insult and riducule the people for paying any creedance to the children. But the Lady and Child appeared again. Fiera, the Calvinist, asked Her, "Why are you weeping?"

Sadly the vision answered, "Formerly in this place my son was adored and honored, but now all that the people do is seed and cultivate the land." Saying this, the lady and child disappeared.

The Calvinists tried to dismiss and argue against the apparation, but the people knew that they saw Our Lady and the Holy Infant Jesus. Shortly thereafter, Mikola Fiera left Siluva. The bishop had the matter fully investigated. A blind man, having heard about the vision,

remembered the metal-covered oak chest that the pastor had buried years before....when...taken to the rock, his sight was immediately restored. He was then able to indicate the exact location of the chest.

Inside they found all the contents, including a miraculously undamaged picture of the Virgin and Child. Now having the papers in their possession, the Catholics were able to get their church back, although it took years of court negotiations with the Calvinists. Because of the sheer number of people attending the church, it had to be expanded and expanded again in 1786 (picture left). By order of the bishop, in 1663 a chapel was built in the exact location of the rock, but again the sheer number of people required its expansion in 1818 and then in 1924. (The apparition was officially approved by Pope Pius VI.) The miraculous image has been credited with many countless healings.

We may even visit a shrine to Our Lady of Siluva in Washington DC at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where beautiful mosaics depict the story.
 

Our Lady's Desire
In the case of Our Lady of Siluva, She wanted Her Son to be worshiped, the church returned to Catholic hands. In the history of our Catholic faith, there are many such stories that have gone like this. I'm sure you might know of some others. What does Our Lady always do, without exception? She points to Her Son. She wants nothing more than for Her children to worship Her Son, Jesus. So when She miraculously appears, what does She so often request? She requests that a shrine or church be erected in a certain spot.

In the history of our Church, can you think of one single time that Our Lady has requested that a church faithfully dedicated to the worship of Her Son be closed? When has she said, "Knock it down! Cose it up! Replace it with a Wawa!" No, never. Not once. She has appeared miraculously in the obscurest of locations, in places where the church had long ago fallen into ruin. But no mere falling mass attendance deters Our Lady. The church can be laying in pieces on the ground and She requests it be raised up again and the worship of Her Son continue. And it does. Why? It is Our Lord's holy will, and Our Lady's desire. Of that we can be completely confident. Truly Our Lady weeps at such travesties as churches falling into disuse, disrepair, or closure.

At St. Mary's we know that Our Lady is with us. She is our much loved patroness, as She is the patroness of every Catholic. She is our Single Greatest Advocate in Heaven, our Queen, Mother of every saint, and our Mother. Most of all, She is Mother of the Church, Mater Ecclesiae, and she intercedes for the Pilgrim Church on Earth. This is why at St. Mary's over the past year She has granted us the grace of her miraculous image changing color before our eyes. In this small way, She has reassured us of Her loving presence and protection. "Our Lady of Malaga," Mater Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis!

Today, June 16th, is the feast day of Blessed William Greenwood, one of the Carthusian martyrs murdered by King Henry VIII. Because the monks and priests refused to show approval for the king's divorce and remarriage, and subsequent break with the One True Church, they died horrible deaths. Blessed William Greenwood died of starvation in Newgate Prison, and many others were hung, then disemboweled while still alive, and finally quartered. Check out this great website which will tell you a little more about a few of the martyrs at Tyburn. (It is the website of the Catholic Benedictine nuns located at Tyburn.)

Although their feast is not until the end of the summer (as one of the "Forty Martyrs of England and Wales"), and they died roughly 50 years later, this would be a good time to mention Saints Margaret Clitherow and Margaret Ward, pictured to the right in the painting above (left and right). Margaret Ward was executed for trying to rescue a priest from prison.

Margaret Ward was kept in irons for eight days, was hung up by the hands, and scourged, but absolutely refused to disclose the priest's whereabouts. At her trial, she admitted to having helped Fr. Watson to escape, and rejoiced in "having delivered an innocent lamb from the hands of those bloody wolves." She was offered a pardon if she would attend a Protestant service, but refused.

Margaret Clitherow (1556?-1586), whose feast day is March 25th (individually) also has a very interesting story. From Bert Ghezzi's Voices of the Saints:

St. Margaret Clitherow became a convert at her hometown of York in 1573 when it was dangerous to be a Catholic in England. Pope Pius V had excommunicated Queen Elizabeth in 1570, provoking an intense persecution of Catholics. Mass was outlawed, priests were regarded as traitors, and harboring them was a capital crime. Margaret disobeyed the law, keeping secret rooms in her house and at a neighbor's house where priests hid and celebrated Mass.

On March 10, 1586, sheriff's men raided Margaret's house. They found a schoolmaster with her children, whom they mistook for a priest, but he escaped through the secret chamber. The officers terrorized an 11-year-old Flemish boy who lived with the family. The frightened child led them to the priests' room, where they found vessels and books for Mass. So Margaret was taken to prison to await a hearing.

John Mush, Margaret's biographer, report that she accepted her persecution lightheartedly. She and Anne Tesh, her friend also betrayed by the boy, laughed so much that Margaret said, "Sister, we are having so much fun that I'm afraid unless we are separated we shall be in danger of losing the merit of our imprisonment." And just before she was to appear before the judge, Margaret decided to cheer the 35 other Catholic prisoners across the hall. "She looked out of a window towards them," writes Mush, "and she made a pair of gallows on her fingers and pleasantly laughed at them."

In the above picture, St. Margaret Clitherow is in the foreground, towards the center, just to the
left of the gallows, wearing the red and lavender dress. Margaret Ward is standing on the left,
just in front of the tree, with the red head covering. I presume the white-clad figures are 4
of the Carthusian monks martyred.

Margaret was charged with harboring and maintaining priests. When the judge asked her if she were guilty or not, she declined to enter a plea. The judge warned her that the law required the death penalty for anyone refusing to plead. He told Margaret that she would be stripped, arms stretched out and bound to stakes, and pressed to death with a sharp stone on her back. "I am not worthy of so good a death as this," was her reply.

Margaret believed that her death was inevitable. Had she pled to the charges, her husband and children would have to testify against her and her neighbor's guilt would have been exposed, possibilities she could not bear. Her love for her family intensified her suffering, but did not deter her. "I love my husband next to God in this world," she wrote.

"And I have care over my children as a mother ought to have. I trust I have done my duty by bringing them up in the fear of God, and so I trust now I am discharged of them. And for this cause I am willing to offer them freely to God who sent them to me, rather than I will yield one jot from my faith."

Thus, on the Friday in Passion Week, 1586, she was pressed to death under 800 pounds of weight. Fittingly, she must have thought, she died like Christ, with her arms extended, as on a cross.

Supposedly St. Margaret Clitherow was also pregnant at the time of her death. She was publicly stripped and humiliated, as Christ, prior to her barbaric execution. Later on, her two sons became priests and her daughter a nun in France.

The English martyrs are an inspiration to all of us. May we be granted the tremendous faith they had, and may we be willing to lay our lives on the line for the sake of the Truth if necessary. May we always be willing to defend our precious Faith.

Blessed Thomas Greenwood and Saints Margaret Ward and Margaret Clitherow, pray for us!

Divine Mercy Sunday was a full day at St. Mary's. It was kicked off, of course, with Saturday afternoon confessions and Saturday evening anticipated mass. But on Sunday there was CCD, the two normal masses, and an additional mass at 3:00pm, the hour of mercy. We were blessed to have Fr. Romanowski saying all of the masses (he must be exhausted!). After 11:30 mass, we sang one of my favorite hymns, "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" and then prayed the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, as usual. (We had been praying the Novena of Divine Mercy over the past days as well.) Following that, there was a baptism! What a grace it is to see so many babies at St. Mary's. I just happened to be lingering, taking pictures around the church after mass and got to see the sweet little girl and her family gathering for the blessed event. We are truly blessed at St. Mary's to have such a variety of people of all ages and backgrounds, even people originally from different places or who travel a distance to attend St. Mary's. There are also not an insubstantial number of converts and "reverts," and I believe this is a testament to how Our Lady draws souls to the Church by using St. Mary's. After the baptism confessions were heard by our wonderful Fr. Gannon (if you have not met Fr. Gannon you must!) and Fr. Romanowski and there was Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament until 3:00pm mass.

Below you can view a little slideshow of St. Mary's. These are just a few pictures from around and within the church on Divine Mercy Sunday. You may wonder why I included a few pictures of the parking lot and street. That was just to show that despite having four masses, our small church still has full attendance. Though I only attended the 11:30 mass this weekend, I heard that the other three masses were full as well.

You will also see that in one of the pictures Fr. Romanowski is kneeling beside the altar. This was during our consecration prayer. After every mass we say a special prayer in which we consecrate ourselves, our families, and our parish St. Mary's to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. We pray that we are under the protection of the Two Hearts! We are so privileged to have a priest as committed as Fr. Romanowski who gives so much to us and to Our Lord every single day.


Created with flickr slideshow.

My son and I stopped by to visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament today and were happy to see that Fr. Romanowski has begun Perpetual Adoration at St. Mary's. What a true privilege it is to have Perpetual Adoration of Our Lord. May God the Father have mercy on any bishop who is nonsensical enough to close a church--no matter the size--committed enough to have Perpetual Adoration of Our Eucharistic Lord. We will beg Jesus to protect our parish and others.

Don't get me wrong, St. Mary's continues to be packed at Sunday masses, but what difference does it make if there are thousands of people in attendance at a mass if those in attendance have no love or devotion to God? Any parish capable of the kind of Adoration that goes on at St. Mary's--three and four days a week for twelve consecutive years--is a special place.

How unfortunate it is that Bishop Galante believes social services are what constitute "vibrancy" when what we have at St. Mary's (and other parishes he has chosen to persecute) is true Christian community, authentic devotion to the Blessed Trinity, and genuine love for the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy, Tabernacle of the Infant Jesus. Please beg Our Heavenly Queen for her intercession for Bishop Galante, that he may be totally converted. All things are possible with God and Our Lady is our greatest advocate with Him!

I snapped a few pictures while visiting. Enjoy the slideshow.

Well, I decided to look into that Cardinal Newman quote again, and it seems I hit jackpot! The mysterious quote is actually accurately attributed to him. However, the poor man is oft maligned and the quote completely decontextualized, as I suspected. How annoying is it when people misuse the words of great saints to suit their own warped purposes, like the closing of churches??? Oh, sooooo annoying! The good Cardinal Newman must be rolling in his grave.

Anyway, guess what I found? An article on EWTN written by...Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now our Holy Pontiff. Find the essay here.

In the article, our Holy Father says

It is known how Newman's insight into the ideas of development influenced his way to Catholicism. But it is not just a matter of an unfolding of ideas. In the concept of development, Newman's own life plays a role. That seems to become visible to me in his well-known words: "...to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often".
Throughout his entire life, Newman was a person converting, a person being transformed, and thus he always remained and became ever more himself.

(Continued:) In the idea of "development" Newman had written his own experience of a never finished conversion and interpreted for us, not only the way of Christian doctrine, but that of the Christian life.

So Cardinal Newman, himself a convert to the Catholic faith from Anglicanism, was referring to one's continual conversion and growth in the Lord. We are all called to conversion of life, as Benedictines know well since it's one of the vows that they take. Cardinal Newman was in no way implying that Truth somehow changes.

Today at a rally outside Holy Family Catholic Church in Sewell, NJ--in which the unholy "merger manual" was handed out and dozens of priests filed inside--a priest barked out to some of us protesters, "To live is to change. To be perfect is to change often." I responded, "Oh, did Christ say that, Father?" To which he responded, "Yes, actually. It was Cardinal Newman." I laughed audibly because I am all too familiar with the decontextualized, stock phrases whipped out of the back pocket of liberals. They like to quote well-regarded saints, etc. to justify their actions. Of course, the devil himself can quote Scripture for his purposes, as we all know. Since I must be running off to work in a few minutes I do not have long to research this phrase, but I did find this, also from Cardinal Newman. You may read the entire section here, but I will share with you one of the most relevant sections for our purposes:

For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of Liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often.

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy.

Honestly, does this sound like the kind of may who would advocate the type of liberal and superficial changes that Bishop Galante would implement? Does Cardinal Newman seem like the type of man who would advocate we change, change, change for the sake of change? Surely not. I will continue to research the "change" phrase, but I do find it odd that in fifteen minutes I cannot find it in context or with a date. The only thing I see, by and large, are liberal using this quote and attaching it to Cardinal Newman, which is of course a red flag. More on this to come.

Update 9/11/08: I again looked online for the quote and came up empty. I can find no definitive attribution to Cardinal Newman. I checked CCEL (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, for those of you unfamiliar) and elsewhere. Google gives me only a handful of references to the quote, and none of them are reliable or contextualized sources. Hmmm. I wonder if anyone said this, or if he said something like this once. I'm stumped.

...and now we're hearing it again.

I am currently reading a 1993 article about one Fr. Grubb. Fr. Grubb was on the forefront of the hippie masses and went just about as far as one could go with this back in the 60s and 70s, even going so far as to bake pot brownies, sew burlap vestments with flowers and peace symbols on them, and invite raucous rock bands to play during "Mass," among other things. In any case, Fr. Grubb long ago repented, realizing his many errors, and became a traditional and orthodox priest. He even began saying the traditional Latin mass in the 1980s.

See if you find some of his sentiments, circa 1969, familiar:

• As people change, the Church and the Mass must change with them.

• The traditional Mass for most people--especially the young--is dull. All over the country, churches are finding that the young people just are not coming to their services. We had to find a way to make Mass a happy, relevant experience for them.

Interestingly, Fr. Grubb noticed that

"no matter what novelty was introduced," attendance at mass dropped. "He began to see that what the people were expecting, and what he had been providing, was not spiritual nourishment, not closeness to God--or even one another--but entertainment.

He also began to notice that his congregation was drifting not just out of his Mass, but out of the Church. Young people especially, who made up most of his following, were abandoning the Faith in droves, preferring the easier religion of drugs and sex. Most, he believes, never returned: "They married outside of the Church, I'm sure"--if they bothered to marry at all. He even began to doubt what sort of converts he had made, which at one point had been many. "I'm not sure what they were converted to," he says today. "I rather think they were converted to me."

The hippie masses may be over, for the most part, in this country. But their ghosts remain, as do advocates of the radical reforms they represented. Now what we face is the closure of our churches, the building of "churches of the future," and the introduction of all kinds of novelties from cappuccino bars to trendy and irreverent christo-pop to labyrinth-walking to the promotion of cremation instead of burial. The point is that what is at stake here is not even the closure of churches and the opening of new ones, but the closure of churches and the replacement of said churches with something altogether different. Like Fr. Grubb, Bishop Galante and Company ought to be asking themselves, "What kind of converts will we make with all these novelties? What, in the end, is the point of all this?" Fr. Grubb's answer was, "To lead them [the people] to God." This is not only the role of a good shepherd, but of the physical church, the Sacred Mass, and Holy Mother Church herself.

But many of us grew up in churches where many of the means of being led to God--those sure, tried-and-true ways passed down through the centuries--were altogether absent. Even in the church I grew up in, which was built after I was baptized (in the late 70s), there were almost no statues and I'd never even heard of benediction, Eucharistic adoration, communion rails, most traditional Catholic hymns, Gregorian chant, a "morning offering," the Angelus, votive candles, an "examination of conscience," or any myriad number of other things. I don't remember being taught how to say the rosary, for that matter. My home parish was far from radical in the vast scheme of things, and my mother, though a product of her generation, was certainly a devout Catholic. These many rich means of growing closer to Our Lord--mostly traditional Catholic sacramentals--were effectively deprived the people in my parish, and particularly those in my generation--because they were seen as unnecessary and perhaps even embarrassing. One of the things we did have in my parish, and to the best of my knowledge it still exists, was a "guitar group" and quite a few "Eucharistic Ministers." Don't get me wrong, I have many fond memories of my home parish and certainly of our good and true pastor, but even our seemingly staid parish had its novelties.

Well, I took the long way around just to say that it happened before and it will happen again. Many look in vain for "novelty," and sometimes for all the best intentions. But truly there is nothing new under the sun. The only thing that will truly gain people's attention and keep it is God Himself.

From article, "The Prodigal Priest," by Jeffrey Rubin in Latin Mass Magazine Special Edition, 1993.

Notice so many spearheading the movement to save our Faith from immanent destruction are under 50, even under 40. Here's an article that explains why.

Here's a snippet (for more read the entire article below). Catholic leaders are saying that:

"Young people are leaving the Church in droves because of its refusal to conform to the times!" As a young person, I tell you this is rubbish.  It is a smokescreen.  I do not dispute that there are many young, "enlightened" Catholics who have left the Church with these reasons on their lips.  But they are using these reasons as excuses to mask the real problem:  They have either lost their faith or they never really had it.  The need in this case is not for accommodation, but for conversion.  These young Catholics have never been taught that Christianity is not about self-fulfillment, it's about self-denial; it's not about worldly power, it's about humility; it's not about control, it's about obedience; and it's not about some misguided, gender feminist idea of equality, it's about Truth.


I Was Robbed!
by Leila Miller     

I was robbed.

I am a "Generation X" Catholic, raised and catechized in the tumultuous aftermath of Vatican II.  I was a victim of "renewal" and experimentation gone awry, and so were my peers.  With great regret and without exaggeration, I contend that the results have been catastrophic for my generation.  It is my firm belief that the overwhelming majority of young Catholics don't have even an elemental understanding of their Faith.  As a direct result of that ignorance, young Catholics are leaving the Church in a steady stream (or, dare I say, tidal wave?).

It's not entirely accurate to say that I left the Catholic Church (though I considered it), but it's clear to me now that for most of my young adulthood, I was not in the Catholic Church.  Let me give you an overview of my upbringing, which will sound familiar to countless young Catholics.  I was born in the late 1960s into a believing and practicing Catholic family, and my sister and I were taught by our parents to love our Faith.  Barring illness, we attended Sunday Mass and holy days of obligation without exception.  We attended public schools, but we were enrolled in weekly CCD classes at our parish every year.

By the time I began religious education, memorizing the Baltimore Catechism was out, and feeling the "experience of Christ" was in.  My parish priest, I believe, could not have known how the new, more "enlightened" philosophy of catechism would affect the moral development of those in his charge; at the time, he was simply caught up in the so-called "spirit of Vatican II," and was being obedient to what were considered Vatican II "mandates."  Meanwhile, my parents, like the other parents, trusted that religious education classes would teach us the Faith.  Sadly, that never happened.

In general, the volunteer CCD teachers were good-hearted parishioners who probably tried their best with the vacuous material they were given.  Looking back, I can see that a couple of them must have been alarmed at the "new and improved" methods, and wanted to teach us the fundamentals of our Faith; for example, one year a teacher made us memorize the Ten Commandments; another year (9th or 10th grade, I believe) I heard the word transubstantiation for the first and last time.  Aside from these rare moments, I assure you that precious little substantive information was imparted to us youngsters; the countless hours I spent in religious education were missed opportunities.

I can tell you in three phrases the content of a decade of catechesis:  God is good, Jesus loves you, and love your neighbor.  (All very good and true, don't get me wrong, but if you read your Bible you'll see that that's only half the Gospel.  And sometimes half of the truth is more treacherous than an outright lie.)  We were shown a lot of cartoon slide shows depicting Jesus and his parables, and I have nice images of multiplying loaves, the Good Samaritan, and Jesus' empty tomb.  I don't remember anything particularly Catholic about the presentations, aside from a foray into the sacraments when it was time for First Communion or Confirmation.  (But if you'd have asked me to explain what a sacrament was, I couldn't have told you.)

We weren't taught any Catholic prayers, although we all knew the Our Father from Mass attendance, and in my case from nightly prayers.  I learned the Hail Mary along the way, but for many years I knew only the first half.  We never discussed the lives of the saints, or even mentioned their names for that matter.  (Sitting at Mass, I could never figure out who this "Paul" fellow was who wrote so many letters!)

I am thankful at least that I was born before the last vestiges of Catholic tradition could be stamped out, and in the 1970s some of the more pious and beautiful hymns were still often included in the Mass.  Songs like The Church's One Foundation, Immaculate Mary, and At That First Eucharist were powerful to a child, and they have stuck with me to this day.  The dramatic, colorful Bible story books I read at home also presented an unshakable image of a just and mighty God and his glorious and majestic Son.  These haunting melodies and images, combined with my parents' faith and the common themes of my religious education did instill some important truths in my heart:  I never wavered in my belief in God Almighty and in the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of His Son.  Just who or what the Holy Spirit was or did was anybody's guess, although I did recognize that the Holy Spirit was one of the Persons of the Trinity -- whatever that meant.  (I believe this particular bit of knowledge came from the repetition of another traditional hymn, which spoke of "God in three Persons, Blessed Trinity."  Since traditional hymns are no longer sung on a regular basis, I can only surmise that young Catholics today are learning less than I did!)

I went through my school years believing I was a strong Catholic -- in fact, as I got older I would often identify myself as "devout" -- and after my high school graduation I chose to attend a Jesuit university, in part to increase my chances of meeting and marrying a nice Catholic man and raising children in a strong Catholic home.  I made many Catholic friends during my years at Boston College, many of whom were products of Catholic elementary and high schools and most of whom were, like me, practicing Catholics. Just touching on this subject brings up many difficult emotions in me, but it is hard to overstate the tragedy occurring at most Catholic universities across the country -- namely, the betrayal of  parents entrusting a child to a college that identifies itself as "Catholic" while it allows and even encourages fiercely anti-Catholic beliefs and practices to permeate the campus and poison impressionable minds.  I do not know one Catholic who grew in his or her Faith at B.C.  Indeed, many who entered Boston College as practicing Catholics graduated indifferent or hostile to Catholicism.  I assure you that Satan is having a good time at B.C. and universities like it.  Though modern sensibilities may scoff at this notion, I don't mean it metaphorically.

Anyway, to give you an idea what all of those years of religious training and formation amounted to, allow me to throw out a short list of terms that, for my first 28 years, had no meaning to me:

Sacred Tradition	Mass Cards	Scapular
Sanctifying Grace	Benediction	Pentecost
Magisterium	Act of Contrition	Four Marks of the Church
Sacramentals	The "Glory Be"	Joyful/Sorrowful/Glorious Mysteries
Corporal Works of Mercy	Apostolic Succession	Four Last Things
Indulgences	Perpetual Adoration	Spiritual Works of Mercy

In my experience, most Catholics of my generation are unable to explain or even recognize the above.  And to follow are some terms that may sound familiar to my post-Vatican II peers, but that they don't understand correctly and/or believe for a second:

Purgatory	Communion of Saints	Papal Infallibility
Transubstantiation	Mortal and Venial Sin	Immaculate Conception

The attitudes of my Catholic peers are no mystery.  Confession?  Sure, great sacrament -- I'll get there one of these years (wink, wink).  No pre-marital sex?  No artificial contraception?  Yeah right, get real!  Evangelize?  Are you kidding?  Why?  After all, Buddhism, Islam, New Age, Christianity -- they're all equal paths to God.  Who are Catholics to say they have the truth?  A mature spirituality requires the understanding that everyone can be right!

In general, Generation X Catholics don't feel any obligation to live as the Church teaches, and I promise you that they do not fear the fires of Hell, nor do they believe in Purgatory.  (But really, how could they?  They've gone to Mass faithfully for decades and never heard such topics discussed, much less defended!)

The culture we live in is merciless when it comes into contact with a poorly catechized Catholic.  American society today is designed to destroy one's faith, as objective truth and moral absolutes are rejected concepts.  When modern, "enlightened"
catechesis echoes the messages of the culture, and when those charged with informing the Catholic conscience and transmitting the Faith take an "experiential" rather than informative approach, what can you expect?  You can expect exactly what was taught.You can expect young Catholics who believe "conscience" means "opinion" and you can expect subjective feelings and personal experience to supplant objective truth.  In fact, the prevailing philosophy of my peers is that there is no one "truth" -- truth is whatever we want it to be.  You have your truth, I have mine.  (Kind of puts the lie to Christ's definitive statement, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" doesn't it?  It also doesn't sound like anything worth dying for -- those silly martyrs!)

We reap what we sow, and when pop-psychology all but replaces sound catechesis the results should not surprise anyone.  The practices and beliefs of my circle of Catholic friends tell a sad story.  Pre-marital sex?  Yes, with a series of different partners.  Contraception?  Of course -- it's a virtue.  Living together, a.k.a. living in sin?  It's a non-issue.  (One Catholic friend did go so far as to find a "compassionate" priest who consented to give her absolution before she moved in with a man!)  Active homosexuality?  A lifestyle choice.  Abortion?  Sad, and we don't like it, but it's a woman's private decision -- too bad her partner didn't use a condom.

Most of my Catholic friends attend Mass sporadically or not at all.  Some get their spiritual guidance from gender feminism (which is a fiercely anti-Catholic movement) and/or New Age philosophies. Overall, the Catholic call to holiness is an unfamiliar concept to them, and I do not for a moment attempt to exempt myself from this scrutiny.  Confession is a sacrament that was never emphasized (I made my first Confession at nine years of age while sitting on a priest's lap), and after my first couple of confessions during grade school, I never went back; I shudder when I think of how often I received Holy Communion unworthily.

So how is it that a Catholic who went to Mass every Sunday and went through all the proper catechism programs at her church could continue on unconcerned while carrying several serious sins on her soul?  I do not offer this as an excuse for doing wrong, but you must understand my actions in the context of what I was taught.  My generation of Catholics grew up with a keen understanding of God's infinite love for us.  We knew that His mercy could not be exhausted, no matter how badly we behaved.  But at the same time, we heard almost nothing about God's justice.  That while God is perfectly merciful, He is also perfectly just.  Somehow, that part was lost, or suppressed.  I guess no one wanted to hurt our feelings with Church teaching; for example, that by persisting in serious, unrepented sins, we could damn ourselves to an eternity in Hell.

Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate.  The gate that leads to damnation is wide, the road is clear, and many choose to travel it.  But how narrow is the gate that leads to life, how rough the road, and how few there are who find it!" (Matt 7:13-14)  Jesus mentions Hell over a dozen times in the Gospels, but our teachers and priests only presented us with the Jesus of the Beatitudes, or the Jesus who continuously forgave sinners.  We were never reminded that Jesus forgave repentant sinners, those with contrite hearts and the intention to sin no more.

The God presented to American Catholics today is the Rodney Dangerfield of gods:  He gets no respect.  Today, God hardly needs to be worshipped, since He's our buddy, our pal, our equal.  No need to fear Him or stand in awe, no difficult obligations on our part -- we need only feel the warm fuzzies He showers upon us, until we die and He takes us instantly to Heaven.

Such was the image that my generation got of God our Father.  But what would we say of any other father who asks no obedience, forgives every sin unconditionally and automatically, with no requirement for an apology or recompense?  We would call him a wimp, a pushover, a sap, a fool.  Good and loving parents don't reward bad behavior and disobedience.  They set down boundaries that a child, for his own good, must not cross.  Should that child choose to persist in disobedience and wrong-doing, good parents don't expand the boundaries to encompass his bad behavior, they hold firm and hope for his repentance precisely because they desire his happiness and success.  They do not cease to love him, even as they let him experience the consequences of his poor choices.  Such it is with God and sinful man.  He loves us infinitely, but He cannot force us to love and obey Him against our free will.  None of this was explained to post-Vatican II Catholics.

Although many of my peers will leave the Church and Christianity altogether, many will do as I did.  That is, I never once considered forsaking Christianity, nor did I question Christ's divinity (I felt strongly that to deny Christ would be blasphemous and a sacrilege).  But I was guilty of presumption.  I thought that because of my "deep faith" I could continue in one or another mortal sin and God would forgive me, or make an exception on my behalf.  I just knew he would respect my "conscience!"

I never did disagree with the Church's stand on controversial issues such as abortion or homosexuality.  I had even heard, almost by accident, some of the Church's arguments against artificial contraception, and they made sense to me.  I thought the Church was probably right on this issue (how magnanimous of me!), but of course I could never be expected to actually go along with this teaching!  I did plan to learn Natural Family Planning one day, sure, but certainly not now, in my young married years.  After all, God understands.

Though I presumed on God's mercy, I still believed in moral absolutes, and I never went the way of moral relativism; in fact, another young mother and I spent a year and a half writing an editorial column for our state's largest newspaper in which we rejected moral relativism and defended the concept of objective truth.  This friend, Kim, had spent six years as a gender feminist and New Ager, but motherhood combined with writing our column eventually led her back to Christianity and into a local Bible church.              (Read Kim's story here)

Kim had been a lapsed Episcopalian and I was a waning Catholic, so we had never really had religious discussions until then; but because of my strong belief in an objective right and wrong, I was attracted to what she was telling me about the Bible church.  These evangelicals stood firm on moral issues and were not afraid of offending anyone with Christian moral truths.  I couldn't say as much for the Catholic parish I was sporadically attending, where moral courage was sadly lacking and politically correct sermons and liturgies were the norm.  A Church that sought to blend in with the culture was not the kind of religious community I wanted.  I was raising children in a scary society, and I needed support from others who believed as I did and who would be a refuge from the "pagan world."  In my disgust with what American Catholicism had become, I flirted with the idea of leaving it for the Bible church.

Let me back up here and fill in some details.  Shortly after I graduated college, I became engaged to Dean Miller, a nice agnostic Jewish boy (so much for my attempts to find a Catholic husband!).  My identity as a Catholic was strong enough that I had come to this relationship with certain non-negotiables:  I would never get married outside the Church, and any children of mine would be baptized and raised Catholic.  Dean (who, ironically, attended a Catholic high school) respectfully and unselfishly agreed to my conditions, and we were married a year later in a Catholic church by my childhood priest.

Over the next four years, I gave birth to three beautiful babies.  As you might imagine, this provided me with any number of excuses for not going to Mass on Sundays, and almost never on holy days.  Of course, when one does not understand what takes place during the Mass, it is easy to become lax about attending.  During those years, I lived in two major cities and had done a bit of "church-hopping," trying to find a parish I liked.  I became disillusioned by the seemingly endless (and lame) attempts to make the Mass "hip" and entertaining.  All of the hand-holding, applauding, trite songs and political correctness was a monumental turn-off for me.  I felt no reverence, no awe; there was nothing in these Masses to snap me to attention, to take me out of myself and focus my mind and heart up to God in His Heaven.  I wasn't "getting anything out of it."  (Like so many others, I did not fully comprehend that one doesn't go to Mass to "get something out of it" -- one goes to worship God.)  When I did get myself to church, I felt as if I were "putting in my time," mechanically fulfilling an obligation.  I often ducked out right after Communion.

Because I was raised to never miss Mass, I felt guilty for skipping it so often (as well I should have, considering the gravity of the sin!).  I half-teasingly blamed Dean for my not getting to church, but he wouldn't let me get away with such scapegoating.  He and I knew I had no one but myself to blame.  Though my actions were inexcusable, allow me once again to explain my state of mind during these years.  I had grown up in a culture that had, with amazing rapidity and nonchalance, thrown all of the old value systems out the window.  Nothing was sure and eternal anymore, and it had gradually become unacceptable to believe in a right and wrong.  The idea of sin was deemed positively medieval, and  "morality" became a dirty word.  "Getting one's needs met" was the focus of each individual's personal growth, with the question being,  "What's best for me, and what makes me comfortable?"

Of course, Christ's message to the world is exactly the opposite.  We Christians must die to self, take up our crosses in suffering and sacrifice, and do the will of our Heavenly Father.  The Catholic Church in America seemed to me to have forgotten this message, and was all too eager to fit right in with the culture.  Instead of the Church going forth in courage to influence and change the world, the world was influencing the Church.  Worshipping and glorifying God seemed to take a back seat to worshipping and glorifying ourselves.  I knew enough about Christ's message to recognize that a serious gulf existed between what the Pope and the Bible were saying and what American Catholics were hearing.  At some point, the American Church and the world became almost indistinguishable in my eyes.

Case in point:  The only moral challenges given to the faithful from the pulpit were (and are) calls to help the poor, or admonitions against racism and sexism.  But it was obvious to me that every good atheist, pagan or non-believer out there was saying the same thing.  So why bother being a Christian?  Why get out of bed on Sunday morning and go to Mass when I could turn on any news program or TV series and get the same message?  Young Americans generally are sensitive to social justice issues, since we've been immersed in a culture that never ceases to speak out on such things.  To this day, when I hear yet another social justice homily, I want to yell out:  "We get it!  We get it!  But what we never hear about is the need for personal morality!  For repentance!  For conversion!  For holiness!  What we don't understand is our Faith!  Teach us!  Challenge us!  Help us get to Heaven!"  Have too many leaders of the Catholic Church in America forgotten that their mission is to save souls?

The abuses and trials one must endure at Mass today are legendary among the faithful, and it was just such instances which helped fuel my estrangement from the Church.  For example, I have been at Masses where I have been driven to distraction as I read the words of Sacred Scripture in a missalette while the lector read a distorted "inclusive language" version of the same text.  My intelligence has been insulted as I've witnessed the disappearance of words like "brothers" and "men" from both liturgy and song -- apparently the political correctness police have decided that I as a woman am either too stupid or too fragile to understand that such words include me, too.  I have sat through an Easter Mass where the priest donned a bunny suit for a homily/skit, and balloons were tied to the pews.  And I have sat with my mouth hanging open as I heard one priest use that morning's gospel reading to condone homosexuality.  After a while, it didn't seem worth it anymore; I could no longer see the point to attending Mass.  Looking back, it is clear that I had lost respect for the Catholic Church.

Which brings me back to my flirting with the idea of leaving for a Bible church.  I had listened to my friend Kim tell me about the powerful and courageous sermons she heard week after week at her non-denominational church.  The pastor spoke out against the immorality that surrounded Christians today.  He spoke of right and wrong, and he used Sacred Scripture to show his flock the proper way a Christian should conduct himself.  The evangelicals at this church did not pretend to blend into the culture, they were fighting against it, in a loving, Christ-centered way.  They kept their eyes on God.  And the faithful were actually instructed in Christianity!  Kim was attending Sunday services, weekly Bible study, a doctrine class and a Christian parenting class.  She loved it because her soul was being fed, and for the first time she understood what it meant to be a Christian!  What a contrast to what I was experiencing in my Catholic parish.  No wonder a good portion of her church's congregation consisted of ex-Catholics -- young ex-Catholics like me, who were raising families.

Maybe this is a good place to debunk a myth that desperately needs debunking.  One of the classic lines from liberal, dissenting Catholics is this:  "The Church needs to change its outdated teachings and must ordain women, replace the patriarchal language in the liturgy, allow divorce and remarriage, sanction birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, abortion [and so on, ad nauseum].  Young people are leaving the Church in droves because of its refusal to conform to the times!"

As a young person, I tell you this is rubbish.  It is a smokescreen.  I do not dispute that there are many young, "enlightened" Catholics who have left the Church with these reasons on their lips.  But they are using these reasons as excuses to mask the real problem:  They have either lost their faith or they never really had it.  The need in this case is not for accommodation, but for conversion.  These young Catholics have never been taught that Christianity is not about self-fulfillment, it's about self-denial; it's not about worldly power, it's about humility; it's not about control, it's about obedience; and it's not about some misguided, gender feminist idea of equality, it's about Truth.

But for all of the young Catholics who leave the Church because it is not politically correct enough for them, there are equal numbers (mainly those who have begun families) who are leaving for opposite reasons; namely, they feel the Church has become too liberal, too morally lax, too reflective of the secular culture.  These Catholics are filling the pews of fundamentalist and evangelical churches, whose leaders hold fast to Christian morality, and where the Ten Commandments are still understood to be commands, not suggestions.  These young adults are searching for an anchor in a world gone mad.  They are searching for Christ and a high standard of Christian morality, and they don't believe they can find either in the Catholic Church.  (Ironically, by leaving the Catholic Church, they are actually walking away from the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and leaving the faith that holds the highest and most difficult moral code of them all!)

I leaned toward a Bible church because of the moral courage I knew I would find there, because of the pride in Christ Jesus that so permeated the place, and because I would receive instruction in my faith, not an apology for it.  Yet if you ask a liberal, dissenting Catholic why Catholics are leaving the Church, they'll tell you it's because we haven't gone far enough in liberalizing the Faith!  It's as if they're saying, "Let's neutralize Christianity completely, ignore our heritage and traditions, throw out the sacraments, deny the existence of Original Sin, disclaim the divinity of Christ, drain the Faith of any truth or meaning, and then the churches will be bursting at the seams!"  It makes you wonder if the people so hell-bent on liberalizing the Catholic Church are acting out of love for the Faith or acting out of a desire to destroy it.

Nevertheless, by February of 1995, I just wanted out.  I was ready to send out a trial balloon to my mom, to see how she would react to my inclination to leave the Church.  I specifically did not approach my dad first, as I knew he would be heartbroken at the thought; but because my mother was raised a Protestant (she came into the Catholic Church when I was three), I thought she would be easier to talk to.  Mom is a very rational and stoic person, and she is known for giving sound advice.  After I popped the question:  "How would you feel if I left the Church for a Bible church?" she gave me the answer that would change not only my life, but the lives of many others as well.  She said, "Before you leave, you should find out what it is that you're leaving."

She then proceeded to give me some of the reasons she had left Protestantism.  For instance, she said it never made sense to her that Protestants place all their belief in the Bible alone.  The question for her became, which Bible?  There were so many different translations, and everyone had a different view on which version was authoritative.  She was also wary of non-denominational churches in general, and she talked about "the cult of the personality," or the tendency in such churches for the congregation to rally around a well-liked, dynamic pastor who usually had a new and "brilliant" interpretation of Scripture.  He would be the reason that they came, and if that particular pastor left, the congregation would leave with him.

Everything she said made sense to me, and that evening my thoughts of leaving Catholicism were at least neutralized.  The big blow came a couple of weeks later when my mom, in her matter-of-fact way, presented me with a book.  It was the kind of book I had never seen before.  The kind of book I never knew existed.  It was a book of Catholic apologetics.  It was Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism .

Some people may roll their eyes in disbelief when I say that I never knew such a book existed.  I don't blame them -- even I cannot believe that it never occurred to me that someone out there might find it necessary, useful, even noble to defend the Faith!  It seems so silly to me now.  How could I have been ready to jump ship to a Bible church without even investigating the doctrinal issues involved?  Why did it never even cross my mind that a Church of 2,000 years might be able to present an argument on her behalf?  Maybe it's because in my lifetime as a Catholic, I had never heard anyone defend the Faith.  No one had ever given me any reasons why Catholics were right, why we had the fullest truth.  The only thing approaching an apologetics argument was my parents' statements that ours was the oldest Christian church.  That we Catholics were here first!  During my childhood and adolescence, I remember being quite proud of that fact.  Too bad no one ever elaborated on that point.

But once that glorious book was placed in my hands, it was all over.  I was excited, amazed, impressed that someone had taken the time to spell out the differences between Protestants and Catholics, not mechanically and neutrally, but passionately and full of love for the Catholic Faith!  And Mr. Keating used the Bible itself to illustrate the truth of Catholic doctrine!  It only took reading a few pages of this wonderful book to not only keep me Catholic, but to set me on a path of knowledge that has led my soul to burn for the Faith.  Sound dramatic?  It is!  Thanks to two years of study and the grace of God, I have found treasures that I never dreamed possible in this world, and yet I have come to understand that I have only dipped my little toe into the vast and glorious ocean that is Catholicism.

Over the next several months, my friend Kim and I engaged in a series of friendly, but extremely intense, theological debates. We went back and forth about issues such as Papal authority, the Real Presence, Mary, sanctification of the soul, and the implications of the Inquisition.  We gave special attention to the two doctrines that separate Protestants and Catholics:  sola scriptura (the Reformers' belief that the Bible is a Christian's only authority) and sola fide (the Reformers' belief that we are saved by our faith alone).  At times it was like the blind leading the blind, but I used the best arguments for Catholicism I knew at the time, and Kim got a hold of the best apologetics that Protestantism had to offer.

The phone calls were intense, and they would leave us physically and emotionally drained.  A couple of our conversations lasted seven hours!  After about six months of this mini replay of the Reformation, we hit what we call "the brick wall" and we agreed it was time to stop talking about theology for awhile, as we were frustrated and getting nowhere.

Meanwhile, my husband Dean was being sucked into all this "God talk" whether he wanted to or not (I was so excited about what I was learning that I discussed it with him when he let me).  Together, Kim and I had "discovered" the Old Testament prophesies which so clearly vindicate Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, and I excitedly pointed out these passages to my dear Jewish husband.  I'll never forget the almost panicked look in Dean's eyes when he reluctantly admitted one night that it appeared Jesus might actually be the Son of God.

In their own journeys to faith, both Dean and Kim had one overriding principle:  They were searching for objective truth.  They didn't make their faith decisions based on their own opinions or what "felt right."  They weren't looking for what was comfortable, they were looking for what was true.  And of course that's what God asks of each of us.  Just as the Savior took up His Cross, we are each expected to take up our own, following in the footsteps of Truth Himself, even if it costs us our comfort, our security, even our very lives.

In Kim's quest for Truth at all costs, she kept praying and studying, even after we hit our "brick wall."  She gave the Catholics one last chance to prove themselves by reading Patrick Madrid's now legendary book, Surprised By Truth , in which eleven converts -- many of them Protestant ministers -- give their reasons for becoming Catholic.  In three nights (she calls them the darkest nights of her life), she was shown the Biblical and historical truth of Catholicism.  Six months later, at great personal cost but with great joy, Kim did what was previously inconceivable to her:  She received the Sacraments of the Church, and is now a devout Catholic.  Within a year, and after an initial reluctance, her husband announced his own intention to convert.  And with great rejoicing and all gratitude to God, I can report my husband Dean's profound conversion as well.  (Yep, I got a Catholic husband after all, and a devout one at that!)

Some other fruits of my "conversion"?  I have returned to confession after more than fifteen years, and I now reap the graces of that wonderful, previously unknown sacrament.  Mass, which I once avoided, is now an other-worldly experience for me.  Contraception?  Gone, with great benefit to my marriage.  I continue to uncover the treasures of Christ's Church, and Kim and I now teach the Faith to others.  I guess you could say that in Catholicism I've found the secret of the universe, and nothing can compare to its majesty.

Which brings me back to a sadness.  How easily I could have lost it all!  How easily my friends and contemporaries have lost or could lose a Faith they never really understood.  Feel-good, inoffensive, nebulous psycho-babble catechesis doesn't provide an even minimal foundation of faith, and a faith built on such a weak and erroneous foundation could not withstand even the smallest challenge.  For proof of this, note that fundamentalist Christians have successfully pulled millions of Catholics out of the Church just by quoting a few Bible verses out of their proper context.  And at the other end of the spectrum, feminists and New Agers lure Generation Xers out of Catholicism simply by loudly and repeatedly applying snide labels to the Church, such as "patriarchal," "oppressive," "reactionary," "judgmental," "irrelevant," etc.  A poorly catechized Catholic is virtually helpless against these tactics.

So, just what did I learn on my own that I never learned in religious ed.?  Almost everything, but here are some of the biggies that shocked me:  I learned that after Christ's ascension into Heaven, He did not leave us floating out here alone on Earth with just a book to try to interpret individually until He comes again (and since the vast majority of humanity was and is illiterate, why would He?).  I learned that the Catholic Church is the one Church explicitly founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter, the first pope, and that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church (and thus subject to her interpretation).  I learned that as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit has been protecting and guiding the successors to Peter and the Apostles for all these 20 centuries.  I learned that, because of this promised guidance, the teaching authority of the Church cannot err when speaking on issues of faith and morals; the Church does not, has not and will not change such teachings because she cannot!  The deposit of faith has remained pure and intact since public revelation ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  I learned that the Church has always rightly claimed to be the protector of Christ's Truth, with the authority to proclaim, explain and apply that revealed Truth to the world.  I learned that submission to Church teaching is submission to Christ.

I learned that the crown jewel of Christianity, the Eucharist, is clearly evident in the New Testament, and that it was brilliantly prefigured in the Old Testament by many different writers, thousands of years prior to Christ's institution of that sacrament.  It's no wonder, then, that the earliest Christians and all of the Church Fathers were staunch believers in the Real Presence, and were thoroughly Catholic in the rest of their doctrine.  The writings of the Fathers would stun any Protestant, and most Catholics as well!  I learned that the seven sacraments of the Church were explicitly instituted by Christ and are the direct channels of God's grace into our souls, the surest links between Heaven and Earth.  I learned that God did not make it difficult for man to find the Truth, provided that man seek the Truth.

The thing that shocked me most of all?  Everything I mentioned above can be proven biblically, historically, and through an exercise of reason.  Catholicism is not a religion of blind faith.  Kim and I have played devil's advocate for every controversial claim or issue regarding the Church, and the Church has won every time -- in fact, the Church's case gets stronger and more exquisitely beautiful every time it's tested!  Yet young Catholics were never told any of this.

As I said at the beginning:  I was robbed and my peers were robbed.  The loss is incalculable, as how do you count the cost of even a single lost soul?  As for blame, well, there's enough blame to go around, and I am fully aware of my own culpability in all of this.  I could have asked more questions, and I could have sought to do God's will as best I understood it, but in many cases I did not.  I have had long discussions with my parents, and they have willingly accepted their share of the blame as well.  But if I were giving a prize for biggest subverters of the Faith, it would have to go to liberal, dissenting Catholics, especially those in positions of power within the Church, be they theologians, bishops or catechetical directors.  They have witnessed an entire generation raised up in complete ignorance of the Faith as a result of catechetical failure, they see wide-scale rebellion and disdain for Church teaching and authority, and yet they still push to further liberalize the Church, pushing more and more people out of the Light and into darkness.

When I hear of dissident movements such as Call To Action and We Are Church, and when certain bishops, priests and sisters support and even lead these causes, I am indignant.  While these so-called "progressive" Catholics work to undermine the Faith and  fall all over themselves apologizing for the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I just wonder when any of them is going to apologize to me?  Or to my contemporaries?  When will they apologize for putting a  generation of souls in jeopardy?

Maybe they should be reminded of the Second Epistle of St. John, verses 9-11:  "Anyone who is so 'progressive' that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the teaching possesses both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you who does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house; do not even greet him, for whoever greets him shares in the evil he does."

Or how about St. Paul writing to the Galatians (1:8-9):  "For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him!  I repeat what I have just said:  If anyone preaches a gospel to you other than the one you received, let a curse be upon him!"

Here are Jesus' words on the subject:  "Whosoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea" (Matt. 18:6)

Catholics -- be they priests, bishops, religious, theologians or laymen -- who do not profess loyalty to the Holy Father and the Magisterium should have the integrity to identify themselves as Protestants, for that is what they are, i.e. they exist in a state of protest against the Roman Catholic Church.  And those influential Catholics who have so obviously lost their faith have no business teaching or influencing the next generation.

I am not so naive or despairing to believe that even wide-scale apostasy among American Catholics at every level will destroy the Church.  We know from Christ Himself  that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against His Bride.  So even though we needn't be concerned with the Church's survival, we should all concern ourselves with the Church's primary mission on earth: the salvation of souls.  Too many souls have been allowed to slip out of the Church due to catechetical neglect, and it's time to stem the tide.

Perhaps the first step in reversing this trend is to throw ourselves at the mercy of God, begging forgiveness for the mess we've made in His Church and His world.  Second, we must pray for the conversion of those within our Church who seek to undermine the very Faith they claim to profess.  Third, each Catholic must take it upon himself to learn the Faith, and then commit himself to a life of proclaiming the Truth to others -- this is the "new evangelization" by the laity advocated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

Finally, I humbly propose a Catholics' Bill of Rights, to be handed out to every new Christian along with his baptismal candle.  Maybe it could go something like this:

You have a right to your Catholic heritage.  You have the right to hear the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.  You have the right to have the Faith of the Apostles transmitted to you unfiltered and undefiled.  You have the right to be catechized by an instructor who must first be required to profess his loyalty and obedience to Rome, and who humbly submits to all the teachings of Christ through His Church.  Anything less is not only nonsensical but scandalous, and might lead you away from the truth of the Church.  You have the right to expect Catholic orthodoxy in all Catholic classrooms and institutions, and you have the most blessed and merciful right never to hear radical feminism or pantheism taught as if it had anything remotely to do with Catholicism.  You have the right to remain Catholic.  If you give up that right, it will be your free will choice and not the result of poor or scandalous catechesis.  (In other words, you have the right to know what you're leaving before you leave it.)  And finally, you have the right to be indignant if you look back 28 years from now and realize that most of these rights have been denied you.

Praise God, my joy at having found the Faith is greater than my righteous anger at those who had a hand in keeping it from me for so long.  I know that I cherish my faith so dearly precisely because I almost lost it.  I know that God's ways are not man's ways, and I am forever grateful that He chose this way to lead me back home.  I only pray that He might somehow lead my contemporaries back home as well.


Leila and her husband have five beautiful children.
You may send her email at this address.
Leila@lisaslighthouse.org

for article click here

The article was written by Rod Dreher, of CruncyCon, which covers "conservative politics and religion." The piece is excellent. For the remainder of the piece, go directly to Mr. Dreher's website.

In ten years even the vocal objectors will look back and admit that when they had resisted introducing English in the mass or having the priest face the people, they did what they do now. May the example of the Vatican II bishops steer us on a course that is better for the Church at large, the one to which we all commit our loyalty. -Fr. Robert Gregorio, Catholic Star Herald, May 22, 2008

(Ha ha. Do they really think anybody's going to take that seriously? Just look around us at the mess that is the American Catholic Church. I won't even start.)

So you think that it's just the extremist weirdos who are throwbacks to the 1950s who are against having their churches closed? Interesting. After all those "Speak Out" sessions, not much listening must've been going on. I personally don't know a single soul--not a one--who is for the closing of their church. Who would be? Obviously some people are trusting the word of the bishop and the diocese. But most of us see straight through it.

Listen up, Fr. Gregorio. I'm 32 years old. I have two children, 4 and 2. I was raised in the aftermath--the fallout--of Vatican II and the abusive practices perpetrated in its name. This is yet another ridiculous appeal to Vatican II and yet another abuse you are attempting to perpetrate in its name. All the people I know within ten or fifteen years of my age one way or the other doesn't want the watered-down, liberal nonsense. Especially the converts. And the children, my own included! They want the real deal, the whole package. Even---GASP--the traditional mass! The devotions, the sacramentals, everything. We call it THE TRUTH. And it just so happens, coincidentally, that the churches that are the most characteristically Catholic and have the oldest histories are the ones you want to close.

Oh, and while I'm at it, let it be known that when you look on the Catholic Star Herald's Youth and Young Adults Page, the first item you see is for St. Anthony's Parish in Waterford for its Youth Group. And you want to close this church. Vital? Yep.

Naples, Florida: Golf Capital of the World and Home of Bill and Mary Anne Galante's Ultra-Liberal St. John the Evangelist Church

"More holes per capita than any other community." (From Wikipedia entry on Napes, FL)

I'm referring here to golf links, of course. Naples, Florida is everything you think, and more. Half of the American Fortune 500 CEOs live in Napes, FL. Yes, little ol' Malaga, NJ: You, too, can be as authentic, spiritual, and non-materialistic as Naples, FL. Yay! Guess who lives part of the year in Napes, FL? Bishop Galante's brother and sister-in-law.

Quoting from the Philadelphia Inquirer article, which is quoting Bishop Galante:

And all he [Bishop Galante's brother] talks about is how vibrant the local parish is: the people going to Mass, the wonderful preaching, concerts with sacred music and popular music.

The vitality and community his brother has found in Florida are what he hopes South Jersey Catholics will one day encounter in the 66 parishes that will remain.

The local church his brother and sister-in-law attend, which is the model for what Bishop Galante hopes South Jersey churches will become, looks like this:

Charming, personal, quaint, and inviting, huh? And the pastor, Fr. Glackin (who in is photo doesn't even bother to wear a collar), for Mother's Day/Pentecost Sunday, quoted Erma Bombeck. Cute. Here's a link to that:
Fr. Glackin's Mother's Day Inspiration

You May Laugh, But It's A Little Scary
There are a couple of sort of humorous things on the church's site. On the RCIA website, they claim that confession is "not for the guilty." Of course, it's pretty ridiculous. It of course begs the question, if you're not guilty, then why confess? But I digress. Onto stranger things. You'll notice below (image taken from their website) that they have an image of a skinny, topless, somewhat androgynous-looking woman about to be touched by an outstretched hand. I presume this to be the primordial symbol of conversion. Kinda reminds me of an alien abduction or something, it's sort of unnerving.

 

Compared with the hefty material I will take on below, mentioning anything so minor as the music at St. John the Evangelist seems petty. Nevertheless, since the bishop wants some "vital music" injected into the South Jersey Catholic liturgical scene (read: begone traditional Catholic hymnody). I thought it would be good to include a photo of the music director of St. John the Evangelist parish. Check out his website, if you'd like to listen to some of the "vibrant music" Bishop Galante would have us integrate into our "liturgies." Paul Todd's site Mr. Todd has opened for the Pointer Sisters, Joan Rivers, the Gatlin Brothers, and others. All that and he works on a TeleTubbies-like cartoon for kids.

 

Puts us to shame over at St. May's, what with the teeny little choir loft and simple a cappella singing. The bigger the better, after all.

Pastor Promotes Group that Undermines Church Teaching
On a much more serious note, Father Glackin, pastor of St. John's, is a ringleader of the radical group, "Voice of the Faithful," Link here, which Catholic Culture assigns a "danger warning" for fidelity. Archbishop John Myers of Newark, NJ says that

VOTF...has used the current crisis in the Church as a springboard for presenting an agenda that is anti-Church and, ultimately, anti-Catholic.

(See Naples Daily News, September 19, 2003. Link here.) Glackin keeps trying to bring in speakers from Voice of the Faithful to St. John the Evangelist parish and the bishop of the Diocese of Venice keeps denying him. Instead VOTF brings speakers like the notorious Fr. Curran to a local Greek Orthodox Church. See article here. Voice of the Faithful's real goal, among many, is fairly obvious: it wants to change the character and structure of the church by "promot[ing] turning the Church into a democracy." Furthermore their conferences "feature prominent speakers who are known to support homosexuality, abortion, contraception, female priests and other dissident principles." The gist of their philosophy is to build up the laity and create an atmosphere of equality and interchangeability among the roles of the sexes and even the clergy and laity. (catholicculture.org)

Voice of the Faithful "is tied to dissident, radical, anti-Vatican groups, such as Call to Action and We Are Church, which strongly reject Catholic moral principles," according to the well regarded and orthodox catholicculture.org. Fr. Glackin, pastor of St. John the Evangelist Church in Naples, is lauded by VOTF on its website: Accollades from VOTF for Fr. Glackin. VOTF holds their monthly meetings at the Parish Life Center, so the pastor's connection with this dissident group is hardly hidden. (The meeting location is listed on the VOTF southewest Florida website.)

Parish Promotes Irreverence & Misunderstanding of the Real Presence
St.John the Evangelist Parish, which the bishop holds up as the model for Catholic churches, is a bastion of anti-Catholic and non-Catholic (well, essentially Protestant) thought. On the church website, to put it charitably, there is a very definite mixed message relayed with regard to the Real Presence, among other things. For example, kneeling during the consecration is roundly condemned as something born of fear. They claim that the early Church stood during the consecration, but provide no evidence for this assumption. From the church's RCIA program Q&A about the Eucharist (for entire article click here):

Why do people at St. Johns stand for the consecration, where at some other Catholic churches, people kneel? In the early church, people stood for the consecration as a sign of respect and joyful celebration. As the centuries progressed, people began to kneel, as a sign of sorrow and repentance, and focused so much on the Divinity of Christ that his humanity was almost forgotten. Kneeling was a sign of fear before a king. This practice still continues in some catholic churches today. But with Vatican II, the church recovered the early church's focus on joyful celebration. So, at St. John's we stand in joy rather than kneel in fear.

A little further down, the question is posed, "Who can take communion?" Here is a piece of the answer St. John the Evangelist RCIA provides potential converts:

(The church teaches that it needs to be baptized Catholics...but Christ doesn't check our ID's) Sometimes at weddings and funerals, non-Catholics may be invited to receive communion.

In other words, they come right out and say that the Church teaches one thing, but they teach another. This church actively and unabashedly flouts the teachings of the Catholic faith not only through direct affiliation with groups that undermine the faith, but also by egregiously offending Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist by allowing non-Catholic Christians to partake. They belittle those who would revere His holy presence by kneeling in adoration. It would make sense to cease kneeling if the Real Presence is not understood properly...

Most alarming of all, it is clear by reading the entry on the Eucharist that at St. John's there is a complete misunderstanding of transubstantiation. They say, "The wine is still wine, and the bread is still bread, but somehow it is also more than just bread and wine." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was essentially heresy. I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia here (and I'd really encourage you to read the entire entry on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist here):

That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ.

As I understand it, the Body and Blood of Our Lord maintain only the appearance of bread and wine. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia (from this piece on consecration):

It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of breadand wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or outward semblance of bread and wine alone remaining.

I could go on, since there is an abundance of erronious information so readily available, but I won't. Truly frightening is the prospect that lays before us: that Bishop Galante seeks to model his new-and-improved Catholic McMegachurches after St. John the Evangelist parish, a church that so clearly propogates irreverence and error. Is this what we want the South Jersey Catholic churches to be? I don't. I want to worship God as He is, not as I wish Him to be.

A Model Church for Us Unsophisticated South Jersey Hicks
So anyhow, yes folks, this church of St. John the Evangelist is the model for what Bishop Galante sees as a "vibrant" church. I don't pretend to know what you might think of pastors who promote organizations that undermine the Faith, pop-culture references mixed into your religiosity, Yanni-esque music directors, large and impersonal McChurches, too-cool-for-you RCIA programs, hip self-improvement "confession," and "communities" that boast some of the richest people in the world. And "more holes per capita than any other community" to boot! But I for one prefer that old time religion, the faith of our fathers, "the least of these," and all that stuff. I don't want a big, fancy, modern church with larger than life "contemporary" music. I want a church that reminds me of who I am in the grand scheme of things, not a church that puts me in the center. I want a church that's real, on a human scale, leads me to God, and doesn't remind me of a country club.

The majority of the churches the bishop wants to close are authentic houses of worship with the Real Presence front and center, kneelers, and histories that predate Vatican II. They are traditional. They are characteristically Catholic, replete with the sacramentals that empower us to fight the Enemy. They are the powerhouses of prayer. And yet, according to the Inquirer article, "the scope of the closing appears to be the largest ever for any of the nation's 195 Roman Catholic dioceses." And many of the churches that stand to be closed are ones very much like St. Mary's. Should we make way for a bigger, better sort of church? A one-stop-shop like the evangelical protestants have? Will we accept compromised theology and liturgy? Or are we finally going to acknowledge that what people really want is Truth...simple and straightforward Truth, and that it's Jesus in the Holy Eucharist who offers it?

By the way, in case you want to read it, click for the Inquirer Article here

Part 1: The Origins of St. Mary's
Part 2: 1922-1939: A Mission Church of Sacred Heart Parish
Part 3: 1939-1961: A Mission Church of St. Rose of Lima Parish
Part 4: Since 1961: An Independent Parish
Epilogue: Pastor's Vision for the Future
Acknowledgments: About this history

In May 1938, the Most Reverend Bartholomew Eustace became the first bishop of the Camden diocese, which Pope Pius XI had created by dividing the Diocese of Trenton in two. The Pope took this action in light of population growth in southern New Jersey.

The following year, Bishop Eustace formed St. Rose of Lima parish in nearby Newfield. Previously, St. Rose of Lima Church (as well as St. Mary's) had been a mission of Sacred Heart parish of Vineland. The Reverend Thomas Gooley, who resided at the rectory in Newfield, served as St. Rose's first pastor.

Because of Malaga's proximity to Newfield (two miles), the bishop decided to put St. Mary's under the administration of St. Rose of Lima parish rather than have it continue as a mission of Sacred Heart parish seven miles away. Thus, Father Fooley served as pastor of St. Mary's of Malaga as well as St. Rose's in Newfield.

St. Mary's First Improvements

During the period Father Gooley was pastor (1939-1944), he oversaw two main improvements in the St. Mary's physical plant: landscaping the church grounds and finishing the basement. To accomplish the former project, Father Gooley tapped the young men stationed at the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp in Bridgeton. (The CCC was part of the Roosevelt Administration's effort to provide young men with training and job experience during the Great Depression, when about one-third of the nation's workforce was unemployed.)

With materials provided by Messrs. Michael and Nicholas Cesare, the CCC men graded the area around the church, seeded lawns and planted shrubbery. They constructed a concrete walk leading from the front to the rear of the church, where the entrance to the basement was then located. These projects improved the external appearance of St. Mary's markedly because the grounds had never been landscaped.

Renovation of the church basement began by replacing the original wood-burning furnace with an oil-fired heating system. This change freed space that had previously been used to store wood and stumps. Parishioners poured cement over the unfinished earthen floor and covered the resultant concrete with asphalt tiles. They installed knotty-pine paneling, a new ceiling, lighting fixtures, and food service facilities. These improvements transformed the original basement into an inviting church hall and enabled St. Mary's to sponsor spaghetti suppers, card parties, bingo games, bake sales, and other income-generating activities.

World War II

The church hall became available at about the same time that ccivilian gas rationing was imposed during World War II. Loval Boy Scouts were enlisted to patrol the area in their uniforms on Tuesday nights, when the church sponsored weekly bingo games, to discourage anyone from siphoning scare gasoline from parked cars.

On other occasions during the war years, members of the St. Theresa Society used the hall to assemble kits containing a rosary and a prayer book. They mailed the kits to servicemen from St. Mary's, who served in the United States and in the Pacific, North African, and European Theaters of War.

Women were not included in the regular military services during World War II. However, they had the option of joining the WACs (Women's Army Corps) or the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service), the women's auxiliary of the U.S. Nacy. Most of the women of St. Mary's contributed to the war effort by working on family farms or in nearby factories that converted to production of military clothing.

During the 1940s, the families of American servicement and servicewomen hung a rectangular flag with a white field in their front windows. A blue star for each person serving in the military was sewn on the white field.

Because the church's founders of 1922 had had large families and many of them had draft-age sons at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the front windows of virtually all of St. Mary's appriximately 100 families had flags with one, two, or more blue stars. Fortunately, no family of St. Mary's Church had to go through the agony of replacing a blue star with a gold one--the sign of a fallen soldier, sailor, or airman. However, several were severely wounded in battle.

The Postwar Era

August 1945 saw the end of the war and the return of St. Mary's veterans to their homes and families. Gas rationing ceased and this enabled the Reverend Leonard Naab, who had been appointed pastor of St. Rose of Lima parish and of St. Mary's Church in 1944, to use his car to visit every Catholic family withing St. Mary's boundaries. These visits better acquainted him with his parishioners and helped him develop an accurate, up-to-date census.

During Father Naab's tenure, the church acquired its first stained-glass windows. Parishioners contributed funds for creatinig and installing twenty-two stained-glass  windows, dedicated to various saints (see Figure 5). Father Naab insisted on first-rate materials and workmanship. "The color in this glass will never fade," he said on numerous occasions. More than half a century has passed since he uttered these words, and his prediction has proven to be correct.

Church Organizations

At this point in St. Mary's history, three religious organizations existed: the Holy Name Society, the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin, and the St. Theresa Society. The Holy Name Society had been active for years; its men contributed many hours to maintaining the church's physical plant. Under the guidance of Father Edmund Aherne, pastor from 1954 to 1955, the Holy Name men built St. Mary's Shrine (located on the west lawn).

The Sodality of the Blessed Virgin can be credited with enriching the spiritual lives of St. Mary's young women during the church's middle years, and the St. Theresa Society--named after St. Theresa of Lisieux (France)--contributed to the purchase and maintenance of altar linens and church vestments. Miss Antoinette Cesare served eighteen years as its first president.

The 1950s

National prosperity was the hallmark of the postwar era, and this prompted the building of new homes on undeveloped land in the Malaga area. To accommodate the growing population, the church offered a second Sunday Mass for the first time. Thus, someof the Masses were celebrated not by the pastor, but by other priests. These included Fathers Peter Hughs, Cletus Moran, Cornelius O'Leary, and James Villani.

In the early 1950s, the church wasin need of expansion and refurbishing. Under the leadership of Father Edward O'Connor (later Monsignor O'Connor), who succeeded Father Naab in 1950, the church was enlarged by lengthening the altar end about fifteen feet. 

Father O'Connor moved the sacristy into the newly constructed area and used the space previously occupied by the sacristy to accommodate a new, reconfigured altar (funded by the St.Theresa Society). This made it possible to increase seating at the front of the church. Father O'Connor also made more seating available at the rear of the church by moving the organ and choir from the main floor to a newly constructed loft, located above the main entrance.

During the renovations, workmen removed the original tin coverin gonthe interior walls and ceiling of the church and replaced it with modern wood panelingand dry wall. To completment the structural changes, parishioners contributed funds for anew crucifix, tabernacle, and hand-carved statues (see Figure 5).

The Reverend Patrick Madden (later Monsignor Madden) was pastor from 1955 to 1961. He provided leadership for additional changes, including the installation of a new altar rail in 1957 and the acquisition of land across the street from the church (where the rectory now stands) the following year.

Despite subsequent changes, the church's interior retains the aspect set by the 1950s renovations. On the outside, the architectural elements of St. Mary's remain the same as those set by the founders. Embellished by both Gothic and Romanesque features, the church has served many well for seventy-five years (Figure 6).

---

Part 1: The Origins of St. Mary's
Part 2: 1922-1939: A Mission Church of Sacred Heart Parish
Part 3: 1939-1961: A Mission Church of St. Rose of Lima Parish
Part 4: Since 1961: An Independent Parish
Epilogue: Pastor's Vision for the Future
Acknowledgments: About this history