There are some bishops and priests in this country who are all gloom and doom when it comes to hope for the future of the Church, hope for vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and belief in evangelization. Well there is a monastery of traditional Carmelite nuns in Nebraska and they are bursting at the seams. I tell ya, so often people of my generation and even younger don't want nonsense, which means they want all or nothing, and total honesty, total authenticity. Why waste your time with anything else?

These Carmelites--God bless them!--have so many girls wanting to enter that they have had to make a second foundation in Pennsylvania just the other day! Jesus Christ be praised! Keep praying for vocations!

Here is a video link to a news piece about it. Here is a link to the Carmel in Nebraska (not great but it gives you some info). Here is an article about the new monastery. This is a blog entry about the Nebraska monastery.

Most interesting to me, here are the comments of a father whose daughter is in the Nebraska Carmelite monastery [my clarificatios in italics and emphasis in bold]:

Our daughter is at Valparaiso, [Nebraska]. The scoop on this place is that it is overflowing with vocations, even with the Mass and all seven offices in Latin. Young people evidently are looking for authenticity, and here they surely have it.

There are something like 28 [actually now there are 33] women here, of whom only about ten are solemn professed. The novitiate is overflowing with postulants and novices. If someone leaves, her place is taken immediately.

Ordinarily a Carmelite convent is supposed to have only 21 nuns max, unless they are planning to launch a new foundation in the near future. That, in fact, is the plan, but Mother Theresa says she has to see more black veils first. The black veil is received at solemn profession.

***
[This is the end of another comment in which he talks about having spoken to Mother Theresa from the Carmel:]

I forgot to ask how many nuns are going out to Pennsylvania, but whatever the
number is, obviously just as many spots are opening up for new vocations at
Valparaiso.

[There are so many girls wanting to enter at this traditional Carmel that whenever there's an opening someone is immediately available to take the opening. I can personally attest to this since I myself know a young woman who wants to join this group.]

***
[Finally a young girl inquires of this father on the blog as to how to contact these nuns. Among other things, he responds:]

To give you an idea of this group, the monastery in Valparaiso has 18 young women in the novitiate!!! And more entering all the time. Entrances are scheduled for this month and September, that I know of.

My daughter is very happy there, and that seems to be the case with everyone whom we have met.

What does that mean? "Modesty" (or immodesty), particularly from the point of view of appearance, is not a popular thing to talk about these days. It is a mark of just how far our society has fallen when all talk of modesty is a mark of old-fashionedness or prudishness! But it's so important for so many reasons, even just from a secular perspective. But since we're focusing on Catholic Christian modesty here, that's what we'll talk about.

A lengthy essay on all the lofty ideas regarding modesty is not what's intended here. So much more can be, and has been, said on the topic. This is only a reminder of why this is such an important subject for the Christian. Let's look at St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12:1-2:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.

That's pretty straightforward. Our bodies are temples of the Living God and as such should be presented to Him in a way that would please Him. And we should not be concerned with the passing things of the world, but with God, His will, and the things of eternity.

Now let's look at what the most recent Catechism has to say about modesty:

Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies. The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.(2523-2524)

What may we glean from this? (1) That fashions, whether immodest or modest, are not to be of concern to the Christian, since this world--along with all its vanities--is passing. (2) That God, who loves us, has endowed us with inherent dignity. (3) That we should teach modesty to our children in order for them to properly respect themselves and others.

How does this relate to a person's manner of attire? If we look at what the Church teaches us in the Catechism alone, without further looking to past popes or the saints and what they have said on the subject, then it seems fairly simple. We ought to dress according to what we are: sons and daughters of the Most High God. We dress not to impress people, but to respect God and ourselves. Since our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, we ought to remember this and keep ourselves properly covered as much as possible.

Further, if we are attending mass, it is of utmost importance that we remember in whose presence we are. We are before our Eucharistic Lord, all the angles, and the saints who worship with us. If we were going to an important meeting, to a wedding, to court, to a restaurant, we would dress appropriately. How much more important it is to dress appropriately before the Holy Trinity: Jesus in the Eucharist, God the Father who is our ultimate and just Judge, and with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

And of course, we should always remember Our Lady when we dress for holy mass. Remember Her message at Fatima, that "certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much....the Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same."

"Our Lord is always the same." What is Our Lady reminding us of here? This world is fleeting, but our lives with God are eternal. Heaven is our home. God desires our obedience because He loves us, and our manner of dress can be an example of this. In a seemingly small way, our modesty in dress in an immodest world can be a reminder to those around us of Him with whom our allegiance lies.

In a practical sense, does this mean we have to dress up all the time? Of course not. How impractical that would be. In fact, the beautiful St. Ambrose said so many centuries ago:

The body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with negligence rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel, but with ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty.

St. Ambrose makes it clear that it is possible to dress in a dignified way, without revealing too much of our bodies, without going to great expense or extravagance, simply and neatly, while still being able to function in our daily activities.* It's important that we refrain from promoting a lack of chastity and respect.

At mass we join all of Heaven in worshiping God, who grants us an unspeakable grace when He becomes present bodily for us. It is incumbent upon us that we remember this great gift--the salvation that was won by His suffering and death on the cross, and His continued Eucharistic love for us--and leave our tank tops and shorts at home.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

In the government of the exterior of a man modesty aims to make it conform to the demands of decency and decorousness (honestas).

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia places its discussion of modesty under the heading of "temperance," which is considered a cardinal virtue, because modesty has to do with moderation and self-control.**

Though the topic of dress is of concern to both men and women, the problem of modesty so often falls to women since what is depicted as "attractive" attire for women (and even girls) is so often sexually explicit and demeaning. Therefore it is so easy to lose perspective as to what is appropriate. So let's just try to remember what the great St. Francis de Sales said in his Introduction to the Devout Life, and we cannot go wrong:

...avoid all affectation, vanity, curiosity, or levity in your dress. Keep yourself always, as much as possible, on the side of plainness and modesty, which, without doubt, is the greatest ornament of beauty, and the best excuse for the want of it.

* The Angelic Doctor discusses St. Ambrose as well as St. Gregory the Great, Aristotle, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine here. Please see also Turtullian here: On the Apparel of Women.
**Although the Angelic Doctor distinguishes between temperance and modesty.

Today's AC Press has an excellent article about the Diocese of Camden's recent purchase of the $800,000 luxury home in Pittsgrove.  Click here to see the full article. (A similar article can also be found in the well known publication Newsday.) The article was so well-written, excerpts really do not do it justice, but here are a few quotes from Diocesan spinmaster Andy Walton for your entertainment:

But some local Catholics have made much of the description of the new property: Advertised as a "lavish 5-6 bedroom home 11-acre country estate" when it was sold last July, the place boasts riding stables, an elegant fountain in the driveway and a feature described as a "wet bar" inside.

Andrew Walton, spokesman for the diocese, defended the choice of location and style of property for the new convent. "It suits the needs of the sisters, who are looking to expand the order," he said.

He also added that by taking up the new home, the sisters were not going against their vows.

"A vow of poverty has much less to do with where you live than how you live. It's about modest living, but also a poverty of spirit.

"I think there's an undertone of nastiness to some of the commentary, that these sisters' modest living arrangements should come under criticism. There's even that suggestion that, because they're from Kenya, that these arrangements are too good for them."

Andy Walton seems a little defensive - OK, a LOT defensive, even using the race card to try to divert attention from the real issue.  Well, I guess it must be frustrating for him that he cannot clamp down on the AC Press like he does on the Courier-Post (although we know he has tried)! 

Of course, one of the commenters to the article asked how much money Andy Walton makes that he considers an $800,000 home "modest living."  Good question! They could've bought the house I live in for the sisters--five of them, one for each, in fact--and spent the same amount of money. But of course, we have no fountain, wet bar, or stables. Heck, our garage doors don't even work.

Perhaps the most obvious clue to the continual dishonesty coming from the Chancery Offices is this piece of information:

A neighbor, John Langley lives opposite the property. His ancestors, who named the road, used to own most of the area. "Around December, I saw people from the diocese on the property," he recalled. "They said they had come to check it out, and that it might be a residence for the bishop."

Andy suggests that the property will be used in the future as a retreat for the diocese so we, the diocesan faithful, can be continually "formed." Surely it will be the fanciest retreat center we'll have ever been to, but we look forward to experiencing spiritual poverty. It will be so convenient that the new "retreat center" is only a short ride (3.5 miles, to be precise) from St. Mary's. We eagerly anticipate prayer while on horseback and cooling off in the fountain. Who will be tending bar? Pour me one of these.

Kevin and I (Leah) attended the Bishop's meeting with St. Teresa's parish in Bridgeton last night.  Two main issues dominated the meeting.  The first was the circumstances under which Fr. Michael Spagnolo left the parish for a one-year leave of absence.  Several people blamed the Bishop for forcing him out, saying that their former pastor told them he would have been demoted from pastor if he stayed.  Fr. Terry Odien's response was that the assertion was "not true" and that he would have been "co-pastor" along with Fr. Ariel Hernandez.  A person later asked Bishop Galante, "Is there such a thing as 'co-pastor' in Canon Law?"  Bishop's response was, "Yes, there is." 

For anyone who cares to know, Canon 526, § 2 states:

"In the same parish there is to be only one pastor or moderator in accord with the norm of can. 517, § 1; any contrary custom is reprobated and any contrary privilege whatsoever is revoked."

So, there is no such thing as a "co-pastor" under Canon Law.  In fact, it is expressly forbidden under Canon Law.  I did catch up with Fr. Terry Odien outside the meeting because, in the interest of fairness, I wanted to give him a chance to explain his position.  He explained that a team of priests can be used to meet the pastoral needs of a parish, but acknowledged that there can only be one pastor or moderator.

So the bottom line is that if Fr. Ariel Hernandez was to be pastor (or moderator of a priest team) of the future merged parish, Fr. Michael Spagnolo would have been effectively demoted to something less than pastor, just as the parishioners asserted (and in complete contradiction with the Bishop's "That's not true" statement - used repeatedly throughout the evening).

The second main issue was the merger itself and what would happen to St. Teresa's church after the merger.  At first, the Bishop stated that all four churches would remain open, but when pushed for a commitment, he avoided making one.  When someone suggested the diocese would close and sell the church later, he again responded, "That's not true."  He stated that the diocese cannot sell property because it is owned by the parish and only the parish decides what can be done with the property.  But that's really not true either.  The "parish" he's referring to here is the civil religious corporation, which is controlled by majority vote of a board of five trustees, which are as follows:

• The Bishop
• The Vicar General (appointed by the Bishop)
• The Pastor (appointed by the Bishop)
• Two Lay Trustees (appointed by majority of Bishop, Vicar General & Pastor)

So basically, in saying that the parish controls what happens to the property, that "parish" would be....the Bishop.  Again, this is obvious by the fact that we currently have no say in whether our parish is merging or our church closing.

This lack of honesty and forthrightness is a real problem for the Diocese.  They are losing a lot of credibility.  

We've received so many tips lately on savestmarys. Thank you to one and all, there is so much to do and we are continually heartened by the broad level of input and participation on the part of those in and out of the diocese. This most recent article was forwarded to us since it is so very valid in this and other diocese and truly epitomizes the crisis in the Church at this time. It is very interesting and disturbing.

These Forty Years of Loyalty and Dissent: Humanae Vitae on the 40th Anniversary

I regret to have been surprised with the fortieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae just two days after my return from World Youth Day 2008 in Sydney Australia. I regret it, because it is a huge piece of what is happening in the Church and the world today, and I did not have time to prepare some commentary.

I cannot praise enough, nor recommend enough, Cardinal Stafford's laudable narration of his experiences and insights (cf. Humanae Vitae: The Year of the Peirasmòs -- 1968, By Cardinal James Francis Stafford). If only the whole Church were full of such pastors: wise insight into their pastoral experiences, cultured in their literary background, faithful to the Magisterium, and charitable in their assessments.

After my mind was blown away by the frankness and depth of his article, one aspect has struck me, even though it is an accidental point his article made. And it is this impression upon which I want to compound. It has to do with the unity, charity and brotherhood of the diocesan priesthood. Or better said, the complete lack thereof in our day. I think Cardinal Stafford does well to expose the causes.

My experience with clergy at every level of government of the Church is full of very unpleasant memories, and requires on my part a continual effort for forgiveness. And I forgive, as I need God to forgive me. Where I should have expected kindness, support, brotherhood, acceptance, advice and even fraternal correction, I have experienced every form of anger, lies and gossip, attack of my good name, varying degrees of hatred, exclusion, rejection and uncharitable criticism.

Did I merit such conduct, I must ask myself with all honesty? I think the answer is no, I did not. The hostility has come from heretics and liturgical abusers, and from a group of men who have done all to cherish one another, and defend each others' conduct which includes everything from impurity to abuse of alcohol to an absolute absence of a life of prayer to abuse of money to... well, we've all seen it in public and in private. But to this one could say, "That is an attack ad hominem, and proves nothing." OK, I agree.

Yet the reasons for this hostile conduct have been because: I refused to abuse the liturgy, I stood in the way of the Precious Body and Blood being washed down the drain, I preferred gold to glass for the species at Mass, I wanted to hear confessions every day before Mass, I adhered to a religious orders' Constitutions to the point of earning the contempt of my superiors, and I refused to say mass on a dirty coffee table in a living room. I earned ridicule because I pray the breviary every day (an obligation for priests under pain of mortal sin), because I employ Latin whenever possible in the liturgy, because I get up very early and because I don't watch TV. And after four years of the priesthood, I'm in my ninth parish, when each removal was a completely unilateral decision on the part of pastors, to whom I showed charity in exchange for their abuse. I could go on and on, but I think that's enough to make the point: If I were punished for evil deeds, I would deserve it. But the abuse comes from loyalty to the Catholic Church, in teaching and in practice.

A good priest friend of mine made an excellent observation a couple months ago: the first of all religious orders is the diocesan priesthood. It is truly a community, a brotherhood, or at least should be. Yet ever since the 1700's (I think of the rise of Illuminism, Freemasonry, St. Clement Mary Hofbauer, etc.), there has been an increasing decline in the unity among the clergy, and it is not rare to find in recent and late history true persecution of faithful clergy by unfaithful clergy.

Allow me to be clear: The problem is dissent. And dissent is a fruit of sin.

Cardinal Stafford mentions how the annihilation of fraternity among today's clergy returns especially to those priests, older now, who have rejected Humanae Vitae. He says, "The Archdiocesan priesthood lost something of the fraternal whole which Baltimore priests had known for generations."

The persistence of this dissent has not fizzled away, as he says, "Contempt for the truth, whether aggressive or passive, has become common in Church life. Dissenting priests, theologians and laypeople have continued their coercive techniques." The coercion takes the form of  the mentality of "dissent with us or we'll treat you worse than the trash," accompanied by group enterprises in which dissenters would rope in faithful priests against their will, and then give them no voice. This is why the Cardinal says, "No dialogue was possible in 1968; it remained impossible in 1978. There was no common ground." And there still is none. "Diocesan presbyterates have not recovered from the July/August nights in 1968."

I regularly avoid priest meetings in my local area. I have sat in on many, and have found that they are places where bad priests gossip and slander good priests, where the spirit of dissent is cultivated by discussions about how to get rid of the all-male clergy, the celibate clergy and how to justify homosexual conduct. When schools close by the handful, I have seen the clergy wrangling over "who gets the money" while no one even attempts to discuss "how are we going to educate our community's children in the Catholic faith?". I have sat in on meetings of ministry and apostolate where the discussion was all about numbers and money, and apostles lower on the power ladder would position themselves again and again to climb that very ladder. There is not rarely excessive drinking, criticism of Rome and of the Pope, a total hatred of Catholic forms of piety and devotion, contempt for rubrics.  Childish fighting, childish conduct, childish discussion and immature faith.

If I had the Catholic faith in common with my brother priests, I'd probably be criticized by my parishioners for neglecting them and spending so much time among such exemplary men. But we do not have the Catholic faith in common. I have little in common, in fact, with heretics, dissenters and haters of Rome , or with those who are apostles of sin.

I have no experience of a true fraternity of priests in a presbyterate or religious order; at least Cardinal Stafford new the day when he was a younger priest. Somehow in the back of my head, I can imagine what that might be like. Sure, there would be the occasional challenge of getting along with someone because of personality conflicts or minor defects; that's to be expected even in families. No, I'm not crying about my situation, just explaining why I don't go to all these gatherings of priests, and expressing a hope for reform in the Church.

Fortunately in my parish, there are two other diocesan priests, Fr. Bustamante and Fr. Perrone, and an occasionally varying collection of exemplary priests from the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross. We do form a sort of community, we discuss spiritual matters and encourage one another to be faithful. We share discoveries about the ancient liturgy, the Pope's latest teachings, the good example of the saints. And all that with lots of humor besides. We even do sports together and share meals.

Many faithful priests in the world are isolated by the type of coercion which the Cardinal mentioned. I meet them everywhere, including priests from around the world at World Youth Day, and many tell the same stories: abuse in exchange for fidelity. Yes, there are good priests out there; one Australian article stresses that there are many in fact. But dissenters in powerful positions put these faithful priests in very difficult positions and places, and places far from other faithful priests. It is not good for man to be alone, and every priest needs a presbyterate of brothers with whom to encourage, commiserate, bless, advise, laugh and pursue holiness.

May it please the Lord to send a great reformer to the Church. And may Catholic priests one day discover that they do, indeed, have Catholicism in common.

Fr. Paul Ward