• Is closing half the churches in the diocese "scandal?"

• Would erecting in their place quasi-catholic megachurches be "scandal?"

• Are corruption, greed, and lies from positions of authority within the Church "scandal?"

• Is needlessly causing one's church to be difficult to get to physically, logistically, or psychologically, "scandal?"

• Is closing a holy place "scandal?"

• Is seeking personal political gain by climbing the "corporate" ecclesiastical ladder at the expense of the faithful one is charged to protect, "scandal?"

• Is showing a complete indifference for the loss of souls, "scandal?"
  

• Is directly causing a decline in Catholic faith and practice, "scandal?"

• Is sending away priests by the dozen, discouraging seminarians, and then claiming priest shortage, "scandal?"

• Is saying nothing in the face of wrong, "scandal?"
  

• Most importantly, is watering down the Catholic Faith and claiming churches are "just buildings," just "bricks and mortar, wood and nails," "scandal?"

Here is what the Church says. From the Catechism #2285-2287:

Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his  neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obligated to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."* This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn away from moral values.

Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

*Pope Pius XII, 1941

I admit that watching the show, "Little House on the Prairie" is one of my guilty pleasures. I've liked this show ever since I was a small child. While traveling across the country once, I accidentally (but happily) found myself following the same trail that the real Ingalls family once followed and visited one of the museums associated with the famous pioneer family. Now my husband and I are reading the book series aloud to our children, and this nicely coincides with a homeschooler class my son is taking entitled, "Westward Ho."

In any case, I think that one of the central attractive qualities of this series is the real life struggle between good and evil. While members of the Ingalls family do not always make the right choices initially, with the help of God and by strengthening each other, in the end they always chooses the side of right.

I was reading a quote from one of the writers of the show the other day. He was commenting on the episode, "The Bully Boys" (see last few minutes of episode and transcription below). In this episode a group of thugs threaten the way of life of the entire town. By the end of the episode, virtually the entire town has been abused in some way. The writer states that what makes this episode different from many is the fact that it is acknowledged that some people are essentially bad. The soft-spoken and Christ-like Reverend Alden sums up the sentiments of the writer in his sermon, which precipitates the driving of the thugs from the community.

The reason why I am bothering to share this with you is that I think we face a similar situation on a much broader scale here in our diocese. While some bullies stand outside a church or community, some appear to be a part of it. They wield their membership and, in some cases, their authority in abusive ways. They lie, threaten others, and may even steal what does not belong to them.

Unlike the villains in this Little House episode, there are some in leadership positions in our diocese and throughout the Church who are basically just thugs and bullies. Like the tv show bullies, they think nothing of pushing people and communities around. The common street criminals, the thieving corporate CEOs, the scheming Washington politicians, and certain corrupt Church officials have one thing in common: they are out for only themselves and do not consider the wellbeing and rights of others, much less the propagation of the Faith and the Gospel. They are career-oriented opportunists. Therefore it is imperative that we pray daily not only for ourselves and our parishes, but for the conversion of all Church leaders to Christ and His Church.

In a simple and straightforward way, this episode manages to relay a few very important truths:

1. Contrary to the modern world's popular opinion, good and evil exist. Good and evil are not subjectively determined. They are not matters of perception, but are objectively true.

2. In all of our lives, we have a choice to make. We must daily choose between good and evil, right and wrong, Jesus Christ and The Deceiver. Every day when we wake up in the morning, this is the choice that is before us. We must choose our side. This is called free will. However, we cannot be on the side of both Christ and The Evil One simultaneously. When we fall, when we have made a wrong decision and sinned, we confess it, we disown it, and we choose Christ's side again.

3. "Turning the other cheek" is indeed noble, but as demonstrated by Our Lord, does not automatically exclude the necessity of resisting the devil and "those who do his bidding."

4. A real community does not "stand alone against those who do the devil's work," but is unified by God in its insistence that evil be thwarted and right defended.*

Though the show depicts a protestant congregation, I think a valid fifth point may also be taken:

5. A pastor has an obligation to defend his flock from those who mean to harm it, from the attacks of the devil.

Transcription:

Rev. Alden: With your indulgence I would like to dispense with the hymn and go directly to my subject this morning: Heaven and hell. Sometimes we forget, in our contemplation of our reward in Heaven, that there even is a hell. But we might do well this morning to remember that hell has a purpose too. And the devil doesn't sit down there all by himself. Now I've told you that there's good in all people. But that doesn't mean that all people lead good lives. There are those who lie, who steal, who abuse those around them. Last week I told you that it was noble and courageous to turn the other cheek. Well, that's true, but this week one of you reminded me that there are times that the devil is in our midst; that no endurance, no nobility, will defend us against those who do his bidding.

Thug #1: Reverend, all that talk about the devil, you wouldn't be slurring me and my brothers, would ya?

Rev. Alden: More than that. It's strange that it took the children in this town to teach us the lesson: that we are a town, we're a community, we're a congregation. And no man should stand alone against those who do the devil's work.

Thug #2: What are you planning to do, preacher?

Rev. Alden: I intend to see you out of this church and out of this community.

Thug #2: Well that's pretty hard words but it looks like you're still standing pretty much alone.

[Reverend Alden and Isaiah Edwards slam the thugs against the wall.]

Rev. Alden: Am I?!

Thug #2: All right, all right, we'll be out of here by nightfall.

Rev. Alden: You'll go NOW. And you'll take only those things you brought with you. And maybe next time you'll think twice about taking advantage of good, decent people.

Thug #1: Tell him we'll do it, Sam, we'll do it.

Rev. Alden: [to Isaiah Edwards] Isaiah, your men can handle this?

Isaiah Edwards: Amen, Reverend!

Rev. Alden: [to Caroline Ingalls] Caroline, if you'll lead the ladies in a hymn, we'll be right back.

[Rev. Alden, Isaiah Edwards, and the men of the community march the thugs out of town. The congregation sings, "Onward Christian soldiers..."]


* St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book II:

(Regarding pastors): ...but he who has human beings entrusted to him, the rational flock of Christ, incurs a penalty in the first place for the loss of the sheep, which goes beyond material things and touches his own life: and in the second place he has to carry on a far greater and more difficult contest. For he has not to contend with wolves, nor to dread robbers, nor to consider how he may avert pestilence from the flock. With whom then has he to fight? With whom has he to wrestle? Listen to the words of St. Paul: We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

(Regarding wolves in sheep's clothing): ....even should they capture the whole flock, they do not leave the shepherd unmolested, but attack him all the more, and wax bolder, ceasing not until they have either overthrown him, or have themselves been vanquished. Again, the afflictions of sheep are manifest...

We put up this article last Oct. 27th--we did not write it ourselves. It deserves a reprinting. Take a look and see if it doesn't sound familiar. Even if you don't read the whole article, be sure to scroll down to the "Suppressing (Closing) Parishes" section, which we put in italics for you. You will see that the scandals and the agenda demonstrated by our current bishop are not new in the history of the American Catholic Church, only the latest attack on Holy Mother Church. Apparently, the power hungry nature of the American bishopric is notorious and long standing. We put in bold the most relevant information so you can easily skim. However we highly recommend you read it carefully. This article is so eerily familiar and gives important background to our current situation, despite its being written about 14 years ago. It may also be read here.

ZAP! YOUR CHURCH IS RENOVATED!
SLAM! YOUR PARISH IS CLOSED! Duane Galles

---

[The following article is drawn from legal opinions and pleadings in the files of the St. Joseph Foundation. The primary contributor is Duane Galles. The editing and a small portion of the text is Charles M. Wilson's and he accepts full responsibility for any flaws.]

We know that Christ's Church is not a democracy and we acknowledge that those who exercise the ministry of governance are not accountable to those they govern. We understand also that the faithful are obliged to follow whatever legitimate authorities determine as leaders of the Church, but the above two citations--and lots of others which could be used--tell us quite a lot about the way in which ecclesiastical authority should be exercised. Unfortunately, there have been times during the 2,000 year history of our Church when these principles have been honored more in the breach than the observance. Perhaps the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had this in mind when they said:

"By the power of the Holy Spirit the Church is the faithful spouse of the Lord and will never fail to be a sign of salvation in the world; but it is by no means unaware that down through the centuries there have been among its members, both clerical and lay, some who were disloyal to the Spirit of God. Today, as well, the Church is not blind to the discrepancy between the message it proclaims and the human weakness of those to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. Whatever is history's judgment on these shortcomings, we cannot ignore them and we must combat them earnestly, lest they hinder the spread of the Gospel" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, <Gaudium et Spes>, No. 43).

When we think about this, most of us will recall those sad moments in history when priests, bishops and even some popes were guilty of grossly scandalous conduct and showed themselves to be unworthy of their offices.

But we might also consider those times when Church leaders exhibited other less spectacular weaknesses such as capriciousness, arrogance, cruelty, duplicity, intransigence and authoritarianism. When linked to conditions which have frequently permitted the exercise of power with unrestrained discretion on the part of ecclesiastical authorities, we can rightly wonder if these flaws have not over time caused more harm to the Church and the loss of more souls than the excesses of the likes of John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI. It is this exercise of discretionary authority by bishops or their bureaucrats which has resulted in recent heated controversies over many issues, prominent among them being--especially in the United States and Canada--the renovation of parish church buildings and the closure of parishes.

Before proceeding to the consideration of these particular issues, it would be worthwhile to take just a glance at how episcopal discretion has been exercised in the United States and those parts of Canada where English is the predominant language. Going back to the end of the eighteenth century, we see that both had very few Catholics and that, coupled with the difficulties in communication, resulted in Rome taking a more or less "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. In sum, the day-to-day governance of the dioceses was, for better or worse, left almost entirely in the hands of the bishops.

Anyone who holds a position of authority, subject only to a distant and not overly concerned higher authority, is tempted to exercise power not in a spirit of service but often arbitrarily and sometimes abusively. We see an example of this in the nineteenth century when the American bishops, at the First Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1829, attempted by decree to overstate the obligation of obedience of diocesan priests to their bishops and, in effect, reduce them to the condition of religious priests with respect to their superiors. Although, thankfully, the Holy See did intervene to suppress that decree, the bishops resourcefully employed other means to achieve the same end.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the American bishops refused to erect canonical parishes and thereby prevented diocesan priests from acquiring the rights and security of tenure conferred on pastors by the universal law of the Church. Unlike priests in the Catholic countries of Europe, their American counterparts were canonically merely rectors of missions with delegated instead of ordinary powers which could be withdrawn at the pleasure of the bishops.

Indeed, then, the power of the American bishop over his clergy was awesome. He could appoint, remove, transfer and discipline them at will. He controlled their compensation and regulated their lifestyle to an extent and in a manner that no European bishop would have dared. The situation was such that even Pope Pius IX could joke about it. When asked one day by a supplicant for a favor, the pontiff reportedly replied: "What you ask is not in my power to grant, but there is an American bishop in town. Go ask him!"

Another contributing element was the fact that not only were the American bishops subject to little restraint by the Holy See, they were not subject to the type of influence which certain civil authorities could employ in Europe. Centuries of intricate relations between state and Church on that continent resulted in many constraints upon ecclesiastical authority that were never implemented in North America. One example was the right of presentation, or the right of civil governments to propose candidates for Church offices. Even the election of popes could be influenced, as happened in this very century when the Emperor of Austria exercised his right of veto and blocked the election of Cardinal Rampolla as pope in 1903.

An important and beneficial change took place with the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which instantly transformed the "missions" in North America into canonical parishes and thereby transformed their "rectors" into pastors, with all the protections of the law. An even more sweeping change flowed from the ecclesiology of Vatican II, which reemphasized the notion of authority as a ministry of service rather than one of power.

We see this reformed ecclesiology made present in the law in several ways. In 1967 Pope Paul VI in his apostolic constitution, <Regimini Ecclesiae Universae,> created the Second Section of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura to enforce the rights of Christ's faithful even against public ecclesiastical authorities. Sixteen years later, the revised Code of Canon Law, in contrast to its predecessor, codified the rights and duties of the faithful. Perhaps the most important of the 1752 canons in the new Code is number 128, which states that "Anyone who unlawfully inflicts damage upon someone by a juridic act, or indeed by any other act placed with malice or culpability, is obliged to compensate for the damage inflicted." This means that the arbitrary and capricious use of discretionary power is no longer acceptable under the 1983 Code.

The Effects Of The Reforms

While the reforms of Vatican II and the 1983 Code look good on paper, the sad fact is that one can see few positive changes on the parish and diocesan level. Aside from the historical reality that change sometimes takes place very slowly in the Church, our conclusion is that there are three reasons for this: (1) Since Vatican II, the concept of "collegiality" has become something of an obsession and the Holy See has been extremely reluctant to interfere-even when there are good reasons to do so-in diocesan affairs. (2) Too many bishops in the United States and Canada have allowed their authority to be undermined by "experts" on their staffs. (3) The canon 221, 3 of the 1983 Code stated that the "Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they enjoy in the Church before a competent ecclesiastical court in accord with the norm of law," but the Code says very little as to how this theoretical right can be put into practice.

There are others who have come to similar conclusions, not all of whom may share our theological views. One, for example, was Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, Associate Professor of Religion and Religious Education at the Catholic University of America, who said;

"More than a few lay people have noted that their rights to participation in the Church have not always been better respected by the addition to the traditional clerical hierarchy of a new and larger body of "professionals" and "experts". It is an occupational hazard of bureaucrats to believe that they know better than the people in the field how things should be done. And if they turn to management theories elaborated for business and government for ideas on how to plan for the Church's future, it is not surprising to hear complaints that the Church appears much more like a giant and impersonal organization than like a living community of brothers and sisters-a complaint, by the way, that by no means is aimed only at episcopal or papal targets" (<Origins>, April 2, 1987, p. 378).

A prominent American canonist has added a legal dimension to Fr. Komonchak's observation and applied it to parishes, which are often the victims of those "professionals" and "experts."

"Parishes and other local congregations are not branch offices or local outlets of a central corporation, like banks or auto agencies or service stations. They are unique communities of Christian people. They are authentic Churches, just like those described in the New Testament (in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Ephesus), and they must be respected as such. The Church is "built up from below" by these local communities of God's people...

Sometimes the impression is given that the parishes exist for the sake of the diocese, when just the opposite is true. The organization and governance of the Church is most often stated and interpreted by those in diocesan offices. They subtly begin to believe that their functions are primary, and that they represent the first and most important level of the Church's life' since they are more immediately related to the bishop's authority. They gradually come to consider parish communities as derivative and secondary, almost as managerial units. They speak of planning for "clusters of parishes" or "pastoral zones of the diocese" (meaning that they are preparing to suppress or merge parishes) and of reorganizing local communities for reasons of more efficient use of personnel and financial resources. [In a footnote, the author adds, Economy and efficiency are praiseworthy, but the dignity and quality of local communities is even more important. Ed.] They relate to the local churches in the same ways that corporate executives of Safeway and McDonalds relate to their local stores.

No one is baptized in a chancery office. People enter the Church, grow in faith, give praise to God, and lend loving assistance to their neighbors in parishes and other local communities. These local congregations of the faithful have a proper and authentic autonomy which must be respected> ("The Vindication of Parish Rights," by James A. Coriden, <The Jurist> 54 (1994), pp. 23-24).

Much more along these same lines could be said, but we believe Frs. Komonchak and Coriden have adequately and fairly summarized, for the purposes of this discussion, the atmosphere that prevails in the majority of dioceses in North America.

Renovation Of Church Buildings

We must admit that church buildings are places of worship, not museums, and that hardly any, including St. Peter's Basilica, never undergo some changes. Even so, the many "horror stories" in our case files and those we have seen elsewhere confirm that most "renovations" go far beyond--and in some cases are even contrary to--the legal norms. And this is not a problem that has arisen recently. Almost twenty five years ago, the Holy See issued the following sound advice: "<Mindful of the legislation of Vatican Council II and of the directives in the documents of the Holy See, bishops are to exercise unfailing vigilance to ensure that the remodeling of places of worship is carried out with the utmost caution>" (Congregation for Clergy, Circular Letter <Opera artis>, April 11, 1971).

Virtually all renovation projects are grounded in what the parishioners are told are the needs of the reformed Vatican II liturgy. In fact, they are often motivated by erroneous interpretations of liturgical law arising from the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy, <Sacrosanctum concilium> (SC). Three key concepts of SC, it seems, are commonly misinterpreted and misapplied. This, in turn, has motivated the iconoclasm and destruction of so much cultural church property in the United States and Canada.

The first key concept which has been misinterpreted and misapplied is <participatio actuosa> of SC. It has been mistranslated as "active participation" which, in English, can imply that for participation to be genuine it must involve physical activity. For a proper understanding of the phrase, one can paraphrase the original Latin of the 1958 instruction, <De musica sacra>, to say that participation ought to be internal and, certainly, exercised with a spirit of piety and heartfelt affection. Given this understanding of the concept, "actual participation" might be a more accurate translation. In any event, the liturgical "establishment's" understanding has had pernicious consequences, such as the attentive assistance at Mass and participation in the changes in posture or responses being dismissed by some liturgists as inadequate. Thus, communion rails are destroyed, altars thrust forward like theaters-in-the-round, statues are removed and the Blessed Sacrament banished, since their presence would inhibit a maximum of activity, which inevitably deteriorates into mere busyness.

The second concept misinterpreted is that of <nobilis pulchritudo> (noble beauty) of Article 124 of SC, which has often been translated as "noble simplicity." In the name of "simplicity," altars have been smashed, statues trashed, paintings whitewashed, organs silenced and the ignoble--burlap vestments and crude ceramic vessels, for example--introduced into the temple to serve as its ornaments.

The third concept misunderstood is that of the common priesthood of the laity. In advancing this notion beyond its proper scope, some liturgists demand the abolition of any distinctions whatever between the sacred minister and the laity. Thus, any physical barriers between them are taboo. Communion rails are especially hated and any physical reminder of a "holy of holies" must go, so hordes of lay functionaries can swarm in and out of the "sanctuary."

In addition to the physical renovations themselves, the methods by which they are inflicted are of equal or even greater concern. The "process" leading up to the actual arrival of the bulldozers begins with the appearance of the ubiquitous "experts" and "professionals" who tell the people only what they are supposed to hear. Glossy, one-sided hand-outs are distributed at "listening sessions" while the people are assured that "no final decisions have been made." Usually, a renovation committee consisting of carefully selected parishioners emerges' to announce the final plans, while any alternative suggestions or proposals are stifled by whatever methods-gentle or not so gentle-that circumstances require. There are no credible estimates that we know of as to how much money has been wasted over the last thirty years on needless renovations of North American church buildings, but it must be in the hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars.

To close this part of the discussion on a hopeful note, there is a rather remote but growing possibility that (if our prayers are answered) most of the renovations may eventually have to be undone. The first signs of a true "reform of the reform" may have appeared and are reported on page two of this issue. Should this come to pass, even more billions will be needed to set things right. But, we suspect, the people will not mind putting up the money.

Suppressing (Closing) Parishes

Just as we admitted that places of worship cannot remain unchanged forever, we must concede that not every parish has a right to perpetual existence. Acknowledging this general rule, though, does not mean that we have to agree with every suppression decreed by every chancery.

There is one very important difference between renovating church buildings and suppressing parishes. Buildings, of course, do not in themselves have rights and the renovation, or even destruction, of a parish church does not alter the legal status of the parish, which has what is called a juridic personality. In other words, a juridic person in canon law is roughly equivalent to a corporation in secular law. And like a corporation, a juridic person has rights and duties under the law. The primary and fundamental right of any person, natural or legal, is to existence. Father Coriden puts it this way:

"Once a stable community of faithful people has taken shape, it has the right to canonical recognition (e.g., first as a mission or quasi-parish, then as a parish; c. 516). Once established as a parish, the community possesses juridic personality and is, nature sue perpetual (cc. 515, #3; 120, #1). In other words, the parish should remain in existence until overwhelming reasons for its alteration or suppression are clearly demonstrated."

After hearing about or becoming directly involved in parish suppression cases throughout the country, we have yet to see a single example of "overwhelming" reasons. Indeed, virtually all suppressions--and absolutely all which are contested by the parishioners--are justified on the basis of a shortage of priests, more efficient use of facilities, even distribution of people, financial considerations or other factors which have little or nothing to do with the vitality of the community.

Sometimes the reasons given for suppression make no sense at all. For example, the city of Clinton, Iowa, in the Diocese of Davenport used to have five parishes. In 1990, all five were suppressed and one "mega parish" was created in their place. The bishop's letter announcing and attempting to support the action said this:

"And yet, I see that the needs of the past, e.g., for ethnic parishes, are not the needs of today. In fact, the need for unity and united action are the paramount needs of today. (*Almost the exact same thing was stated in this week's Star Herald -Julie)

In other words, five parishes competing for people, funds and personnel is not what the Catholic community needs."

In truth, none of the five parishes was "ethnic" and all were vibrant communities of faith. No one in Clinton has ever understood why their city could not have more than one parish when other cities in the diocese (Davenport, Iowa City, Muscatine, etc.) continue to have several. No one in the chancery has ever been able to explain why either.

Although renovations and suppressions are different kinds of actions, the "process" leading up to them is often remarkably similar. The ever-present "professionals" and "expert consultants" arrive to "soften-up" the parishioners with unctuous assurances that "no decisions will be made without everyone having their say." Then, as in the case of renovations, all those who have opinions contrary to the outcome desired by the chancery are marginalized or excluded from the discussions by whatever means necessary. We have even seen instances where elderly parishioners were threatened with denial of Christian burial if they continued to object.

Should the consultation process produce recommendations which the bishop does not like, such as recently happened in the diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he simply rides roughshod over the procedures he himself established and decrees whatever he wishes.

In short, the decisions to suppress are utterly lacking in reasonable motives and the "consultation processes" lack even a scintilla of justice. The ultimate injustice occurs when a parish suffers the "double whammy" of being forced to renovate its church and then, several years later, being suppressed.

In Conclusion

In spite of the discouraging trends, there are reasons for hope. One of these reasons is that many of the courageous faithful who try to save their churches from the renovators or their parishes from the axe simply refuse to give up. Even when they lose, as often happens, their efforts are not wasted. We know of cases where renovations were prevented and parishes slated for suppression were saved because the "professionals" did not want to face another struggle which might even involve an appeal to Rome.

And who knows? With enough prayer and hard work, we may even see in our lifetime a system of appeal which will see cases decided on the law and the facts instead of ecclesiastical politics and influence peddling.

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!

On the wonderful blog romancatholicblog.com is an entry that is about a year and a half old that truly speaks to our current situation here in the Diocese of Camden. All due credit to the author, whose name isn't given but whose email is "Maximus." We just stumbled upon this entry today.

Click here to read the piece on his blog.

Is It A Sin To Rebuke A Priest?

A reader has suggested that it is sinful to speak ill of a priest or a bishop and that rather than speak out against corruption within the clergy, Catholics should pray and remain silent.

I couldn't disagree more.

Although I would caution Catholics against the sin of rash judgment, and remind people to be mindful of the requirements of the Eighth Commandment, I firmly maintain that Catholics have a duty to rebuke the clergy when they have gone astray and to warn others against such clerics so they will not be confused by the errors wayward priests and/or bishops are observed to be spreading.

There are provisions for rebuking clergy described in Sacred Scripture:

"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning." (1 Timothy 5:19-20)

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)

There are also examples:

"And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.   For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.   And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.  But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all,  'If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews ?'" (Galatians 2:11-14)

During the Arian heresy, approximately one third of the bishops in the Church became Arian, along with countless priests and entire dioceses. Yet if we are to believe, as apparently some Catholics do, that priests and bishops may never be corrected, never challenged, and/or never exposed, it was wrong to say that Arian priests and bishops were teaching error.

The same would follow for countless other heretical sects that had their origins in heretical Catholic clergy.

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. Can he not be criticized?

Saints were often critical of priests and religious:

St. Catherine of Siena made a pilgrimage to Avignon in Southern France to persuade the Pontiff Pope Gregory XI to return from exile to Rome where he belonged. After the death of Gregory XI on March 26, 1378, the Great Schism began when Pope Urban VI was selected as his successor. Several of the dissident French cardinals objected and elected their own at Fondi Robert of Geneva who became the antipope Clement VII and set up his headquarters in Avignon. St. Catherine knew Urban was the true Pope and did all in her power to secure support for him and end the schism. While she was a staunch supporter of his Primacy, she did not hesitate to rebuke him when she saw weakness or knew he was wrong.

St. Catherine was also critical of priests in her Dialogue (the work which was the primary reason she was made a Doctor of the Church):

"Your miseries are not hid from you now, for the worm of conscience sleeps no longer, but is gnawing you, the devils shout and render to you the reward which they are accustomed to give their servants, that is to say, confusion and condemnation; they wish to bring you to despair, so that at the moment of death you may not escape from their hands, and therefore they try to confuse you, so that afterwards when you are with them they may render to you of the part which is theirs. Oh, wretch! the dignity in which I placed you, you now see shining as it really is, and you know to your shame that you have held and used in such guilty darkness the substance of the holy Church, that you see yourself to be a thief, a debtor, who ought to pay his debt to the poor and the holy Church. Then your conscience represents to you that you have spent the money on public harlots, and have brought up your children and enriched your relations, and have thrown it away on gluttony and on many silver vessels and other adornments for your house. Whereas you should have lived in voluntary poverty."

"Your conscience represents to you the divine office which you neglected, by which you fell into the guilt of mortal sin, and how even when you recited it with your mouth your heart was far from Me. Conscience also shows you your subjects, that is to say, the love and hunger which you should have felt towards nourishing them in virtue, giving them the example of your life and striking them with the hand of mercy and the rod of justice, and because you did the contrary your conscience and the horrible likeness of the Devil reproves you."

"And if as a prelate you have given prelacies or any charge of souls unjustly to one of your subjects, that is, that you have not considered to whom and how you were giving it, the Devil puts this also before your conscience, because you ought to have given it, not on account of pleasant words, nor in order to please creatures, nor for the sake of gifts, but solely with regard to virtue, My honor and the salvation of souls. And since you have not done so you are reproved, and for your greater pain and confusion you have before your conscience and the light of your intellect that which you have done and ought not to have done, and that which you ought to have done and have not done."

The reforms of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross were due to the laxity in their religious order. Both were openly critical of such laxity and met with opposition because of their reforms.

The Norbertine Order was started because of the widespread laxity, and even debauchery among priests in St. Norbert's day. St. Norbert exhorted and even rebuked his fellow priests, and they responded by attempting to assassinate him.

It is ludicrous to think that clerics are beyond correction, as if infallible by virtue of their office. It is disturbing that such a simplistic outlook exists after the egregious wrongdoing (and that is putting things mildly) of so many priests and even bishops was exposed because of the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Church in recent years.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law makes provisions for the laity to address their concerns about priests:

Canon 212:

§1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

I also include the following for consideration:

"When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

"It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed." ~ Pope St. Gregory the Great

"When circumstances make it necessary, it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith." ~ Pope Leo XIII

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." ~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church, generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit.

"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." ~ St. Athanasius

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." ~ Saint John Eudes

"But how, I ask, does it happen that the saints, who live only for God, resist their ordination through a sense of their unworthiness, and that some run blindly to the priesthood, and rest not until they attain it by lawful or unlawful means? Ah. Unhappy men! Says St. Bernard, to be registered among the priests of God shall be for them the same as to be enrolled on the catalogue of the damned. And why? Because such persons are generally called to the priesthood, not by God, but by relatives, by interest, or ambition. Thus they enter the house of God, not through the motive a priest should have, but through worldly motives. Behold why the faithful are abandoned, the Church dishonored, so many souls perish, and with them such priests are also damned." ~ St. Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church (Moral Theology), Founder of the Redemptorist congregation

Saints were even critical of homosexual priests and/or religious:

"Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended in kissing or in any shameful situation, shall be publicly flogged and shall lose his clerical tonsure. Thus shorn, he shall be disgraced by spitting into his face, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and for three days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following this period, he shall spend a further six months living in a small segregated courtyard in the custody of a spiritual elder, kept busy with manual labor and prayer, subjected to vigils and prayers, forced to walk at all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed to associate with young men for purposes of improper conversation or advice." ~ St. Basil the Great (329-379), Bishop of Caesarea, Father of the Church, and one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church.

"The befouling cancer of sodomy is, in fact, spreading so through the clergy or rather, like a savage beast, is raging with such shameless abandon through the flock of Christ, that for many of them it would be more salutary to be burdened with service in the world than, under the pretext of religion, to be enslaved so easily under the iron rule of satanic tyranny. It would be better for them to perish alone as laymen that, after having changed their attire but not their disposition, to drag others with them to destruction, as Truth itself testifies when It says, "But if anyone is a cause of stumbling to one of these little ones, it would be better for him to be drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone round his neck." Unless immediate effort be exerted by the Apostolic See, there is little that, even if one wished to curb this unbridled evil, he could not check the momentum of its progress."

"Unquestionable, this vice, since it surpasses the enormity of all others, is impossible to compare with any other vice. Without fail it brings death of the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind, prepares a trap for the traveller and secures the pit and makes it impossible for the victim to escape. It opens up Hell and closes the gates Paradise, changes a citizen of the Heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of infernal Babylon, and turns a Heavenly star into chaff for eternal fire; it cuts off a member of the Church and hurls him into the depths of the devouring flames of Hell." ~ St. Peter Damian (1007 -1072), Doctor of the Church, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia

It seems to me that the clericalist attitude that priests and bishops are beyond reproach is actually quite dangerous. The idea has a pietistic veneer, and those who hold it may be sincere, but do they realize that attitudes like that contributed to the mentality that allowed the priestly abuse scandals to stay under the radar for so long?

Do they realize that Catholics have an obligation to lead others to the truth and away from error?

He told them that Follieri duped him out of $110,000 left to him by his parents. He say the Italian businessman claimed he needed the money to pay nuns.

Hodge met Follieri in 2005, when he was looking into church properties in Atlantic City, the New York Daily News reported Tuesday. The two became close and took three trips to Rome together. Hodge said Follieri bilked him out of $120,000 for plane tickets and other bogus expenses.

Barbera was joined Friday by a host of supportive family members and friends. Some spoke on his behalf, including Formica's Bakery owner Harry Formica and Barbera's pastor, Monsignor William Hodge.

Real estate con man Raffaello Follieri pleaded guilty earlier today to one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. Details of his $2 million dollar swindle are starting to come out. One of the more interesting was a letter  FBI investigators found in Follieri's possesion. From the US Attorney General office press release (PDF):

[I]in March 2006, the Secretary of State of the Vatican warned FOLLIERI in writing that FOLLIERI should stop representing that FOLLIERI and his company had ties to the Vatican. FOLLIERI, however, did not stop; even after being warned by the then-Secretary of State of the Vatican to cease and desist making any claims of ties to the Vatican, FOLLIERI told investors and others that he was handling the Vatican's financial affairs Chief Financial Officer of the Vatican.

A YEAR BEFORE GALANTE DEAL

For those following the Follieri/Galante timeline, this is a full year before Bishop Joseph Galante sold his personal beach house to Follieri for $400,000 and began a plan to sell off half of properties in the diocese.

Diocesan spokesperson Andrew Walton has repeatedly told reporters that their introduction to Follieri came from a 2004 phone call from the Vatican but has never been able to answer questions as to who called or what Vatican office they represented. Now we know that the second most powerful man in the Catholic Church had disavowed the Folleri connection.

DIOCESAN EMPLOYEES PART OF THE SWINDLE

The Department of Justice also says that of the techniques that Follieri used to convince investors that he could buy church properties below market value was through "meetings with clergy; and travels with monsignors." We know from previous reports that at lease one of these traveling companions was Monsignor William Hodge of Atlantic City who reportedly travelled with Follieri on Diocesan time.

More to come soon we suspect.

ABC News is reporting that Raffaello Follieri has agreed to plead guilty to charges of money laundering and wire fraud.

Officials say claiming close ties to the Vatican, he convinced the unsuspecting investors that he could give them first dibs on flipping Catholic Church properties. He reportedly stole up to $6 million from his investment firm and blew it on a lavish lifestyle that included apartments, vacations, clothes and gifts for Hathaway.

Earlier today the Wall Street Journal indicated that the federal investigation centered on stolen money Follieri paid church officials to convince investors that he could buy up church properties at below-market rates. The Journal specifically mentioned officials in the Vatican, but of course the highest Follieri payout publicly known right now is the $400,000 Follieri paid Bishop Joseph Galante for an unremarkable personal beach house. Galante himself is the architect of the largest church sell-off plan in American history and priests in his employed worked closely with Follieri. It seems like a good time for the Bishop to address the Vaticon scandal and take whatever actions are best for the Diocese.

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

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