![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Spooky Summorum Pontificum memo from Bp. of Steubenville to priests
I received this from a priest in the Diocese of Steubenville where His Excellency Most Reverend Robert Daniel Conlon is Bishop. It is a memo to "priests resident in the Diocese of Steubenville" dated 20 July 2007.
His Excellency Bishop Conlon had already issued a statement on 13 July in the Steubenville Register.
I very much would like to see a copy of this 20 July memo, perhaps even by fax, if a priest in the diocese couple contact me by e-mail.
Here is the text of the memo from the Bishop to the priests as sent to me. My emphases.
"I would like to take some initial steps to respond to Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio [sic], Summorum Pontificum concerning the celebration of Mass and other rites in the form prior to the Second Vatican Council.
Here in the Diocese of Steubenville we will take a positive attitude to the Moto Proprio [sic]. On the other hand, we will adhere closely to its terms (many of which require clarification, and to other existing norms regulating the liturgy.
There will be no public celebration of the pre-Vatican II rites until I am assured that they can be celebrated well and in accord with Summorum Pontificum’s terms. Any pastor who anticipates public celebration should contact our diocesan worship office prior to making any commitment to the faithful.
I advise all priests to read the English translation of the Moto Proprio [sic] that is posted on the USCCB website.
Any priest in the Diocese of Steubenville who anticipates celebrating Mass privately according to the 1962 Missal should complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me by August 10. If, at a later date, a priest anticipates beginning the private celebration of Mass this way, I would appreciate his letting me know."
[The questions on the questionnaire are as follows:]
Name of priest who expects to celebrate Mass privately according to the 1962 Missal after September 14, 2007
How often to you expect to do this?
Where do you expect to do this?
Do you anticipate inviting lay faithful to join you? Who?
First, I am amazed a memorandum announcing strict adherence to norms and them recommends a close reading of the document, has "Moto" twice instead of Motu.
Second, I very much hope that strict adherence to the terms of the document also reflects strict adherence to all terms of the Church’s legislation on the liturgy (including documents such as Sacrosanctum Concilium and Redemptionis Sacramentum) and rubrics of of the Novus Ordo. There cannot be a double standard for the older form and the newer form. If anything, were a double standard acceptable, you would expect the newer form to be held to the higher standard, since all priests a) know it well, and b) it is the ordinary form.
Third, I do not believe that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum require a pastor even to consult the local bishop for public Masses, much less obtain permission. It is true that the priest must be idoneus. The diocesan bishop could have a say in that. However, idoeneus indicts minimum preparedness only. The priest’s freedom regarding private Masses, all things being equal, is pretty much ironclad. One wonders about the purpose of the questionaire.
Hmmmm.
This doesn’t strike me as very positive in attitude. Perhaps more information will be forthcoming.
Fr. Z:
Have you on this blog had a discussion of what is required to be idoneus? It would seem that this would be very good information to publish widely as a response to all suggestions of strict oversight of who is and isn’t qualified to offer the extraordinary form.
Comment by BT — 29 July 2007 @ 3:23 pmI am not at all surprised by the tone of this memo.
When I was at the St. John Bosco Catechetical Conference held at the Franciscan University of Steubenville last week, Bishop Conlon celebratd Mass for the attendees at 5:00pm on Thursday, July 19.
Msgr. Conlon opened his homily with a disparraging remark about persons who are enaged in a “pharasaical debate” about which rite of Mass to use in the Chruch today. I quickly surmised that this bishop has no love for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
Let us pray for this poor prelate!
Comment by Wm. Christopher Hoag — 29 July 2007 @ 3:35 pmAnyone who attended the seminary which I attended in the 1970s and 1980s, who knew the seminarians from the Diocese of Steubenville there (at least the archetypal ones), and who was instructed there in liturgy by a priest from this diocese, are hardly surprised and have seen it all before.
Comment by Cassandrus — 29 July 2007 @ 3:41 pmQ: Who?
A: Christifideles.
Comment by prof. basto — 29 July 2007 @ 3:55 pmShort of making excuses for him, I might be able to offer a few words of context…
How much of this can be attributed to inexperience? Bishop Conlon was a originally a priest of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, where I can assure you that competence in Latin was not a requirement. He has only been a bishop a few years, and this is his first see.
The Diocese of Steubenville is probably the poorest in Ohio in terms of per capita income. It is largely rural, and for all the devotion of its faithful, has a severe priest shortage. I believe some of its counties have mission status, although I could be wrong. His caution (“There will be no public celebration of the pre-Vatican II rites until…”) may be assuring the barest competence of his priests in saying the Mass, which is the least any diocesan bishop can do, even under the terms of the decree. Having little experience with liturgical formation “after the fact,” I wonder how prepared many of our bishops are for this.
Aside from his own edification in knowing the extent of demand, in terms of sheer numbers, I cannot imagine why a bishop would want the list of people making such requests. Nor can I explain his difficulties with spelling.
Comment by David L Alexander — 29 July 2007 @ 4:07 pmFirst, I am amazed a memorandum announcing strict adherence to norms and them recommends a close reading of the document, has “Moto” twice instead of Motu.
There’s Moto Proprio, Moto-cross, Moto-guzzi, and of course Moto-Rino.
I can only hope that Bishop Conlon will be personally testing any priest for Latin proficiency. My guess is that the good bishop doesn’t read De Bello Gallico before he retires at night.
Comment by RBrown — 29 July 2007 @ 4:08 pmThis man will not obey the Motu Proprio. What he has suggested is unlawful.
We are finding out who is who this summer.
Comment by michigancatholic — 29 July 2007 @ 4:12 pmNB: Bishop Conlon was named bishop while Abp Higuera was Apostolic Nuncio to the US.
Since the US Nunciature was established in 1893, Abp Higuera is one of two men to be Apostolic Nuncio and not be elevated to Cardinal.
Of course, the other is Abp Jean Jadot.
Comment by RBrown — 29 July 2007 @ 4:18 pmThis man will not obey the Motu Proprio. What he has suggested is unlawful.
Comment by michigancatholic
I bet he will for two reasons:
1. If he doesn’t, he will have trouble with Ecclesia Dei.
2. It would be one thing if he were over 73, but he’s only 58. He has no choice but to adjust.
Comment by RBrown — 29 July 2007 @ 4:21 pmMy pastor has announced that the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite will be offered at my parish here in Sugar Land, TX, within the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. There was a bulletin announcement about it today.
Comment by alanphipps — 29 July 2007 @ 4:26 pmI just found out that Bishop Conlon has a doctorate in Canon Law from Ottawa. A JCD and writes “Moto Proprio”.
Deus meus!
Comment by RBrown — 29 July 2007 @ 4:29 pmI would say that this bishop is saying explictly what many of the bishops are in effect saying without saying it, with such lines as “we’re already doing this”, etc. But what strikes me is the sheer dishonesty in the reasoning that their directives are based off of. “These need further clarifications, and until then…” According to the current state of affairs, what is unclear from the text of the MP alone is what editions may be “recognized by the Apostolic See” for vernacular readings, and whether a priest may not use the old Mass PRIVATELY for Holy Triduum AND/OR whether he may use the old Mass at all for the Easter Triduum. To say that the MP’s directives need further clarification all around and to the extent that we really can’t act on it yet is a bunch of BS. They essentially don’t want the old form of the Mass and are treating those who do like a bunch of children by speaking down at them with such directives.
As one who studies the subjects of management and leadership formally, I can say that this is VERY POOR LEADERSHIP to use such disingenuous techniques as it only builds distrust and a great lack of connectness with those they are supposed to be leading. They are showing, too, that they care more about their agendas than they do the legitimate wishes of the flock. In the end, the spiritual well being of the faithful in the diocese is what suffers from such poor leadership. One may very well be a fool, including themselves, not to be aware of this, and the fact that they just carry on with the same tune while knowing this makes it even worse. If they are so blind to think they actually know better than the faithful that its not good for them to have the old form of the Mass, one can’t excuse them for that either.
Comment by Richard — 29 July 2007 @ 4:40 pm“I just found out that Bishop Conlon has a doctorate in Canon Law…”
Ottawa. That’s St Paul’s University, right? He’d have to know Latin for canon law, one would suppose.
This changes everything. I’m betting he gets a phone call….
Comment by David L Alexander — 29 July 2007 @ 4:44 pmMaybe, RBrown.
But he’s going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming unless he sees the writing on the wall and realizes:
Comment by michigancatholic — 29 July 2007 @ 4:48 pma) he is going to get reported to EC by students from Steubenville, if nothing else.
b) people are going to do what they need to do even if they have to drive to do it. They can legally, and in good faith, do that now.
c) he could end up with a bankrupt diocese.
d) no one is going to take his word over the pope’s word, no matter who he thinks he is.
If enough bishops act as Bishop Conlon, Bishop Steib of Memphis, Bishop Trautman of Erie et al. have, will the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei or the Congregation for Divine Workship correct these misinterpretations of Summorum Pontificum and issue (ahem!) “fraternal corrections” to Their Excellencies? Or will this Motu Propio have the same fate as Ex Corde Ecclesia and other direct instructions from the Holy Father?
Comment by TNCath — 29 July 2007 @ 4:54 pmThere’s a missing piece to this story. I have it on good authority (other seminarians) that 5 counties in the diocese of Stubenville requested an indult before and the bishop turned them all down. No demand? I don’t think so. This guy is just flat out hostile to the ancient Mass.
Comment by Anon. Seminarian — 29 July 2007 @ 5:05 pm“Do you anticipate inviting lay faithful to join you? Who?”
Gee whiz, shouldn’t that be WHOM ??
Here is a group of officials which (it would seem) is ready to quiz priests on Latin, but they don’t know Enlgish!!
Regarding certain high-ranking cardinals who walk in gay parades and claim that they will be testing priests desiring to say the extraordinary form on their “rubrics,” it reminds me of the scenes in the US Senate confirmations, where people like Ted Kennedy stand up and question the judge-to-be-confirmed on their moral purity!
Comment by St. Hyacinth — 29 July 2007 @ 5:22 pmIt certainlly seems as though this bishop is already to “hit the ground running” in the Chinese Patriotic Church
Comment by Brian — 29 July 2007 @ 5:55 pmAnon,
I can confirm your source. Not only was an indult requested, but it was done so with the hope that priests from the FSSP, or some other society would come and help rescue a number of Churches the Bishop had to close down for lack of diocesan priests. Bishop Conlon by all appearances is an enemy to Catholic Tradition.
In fact, those present for his first homily in the diocese approx. 3 years ago would have heard a wonderful tale concerning the Yin and the Yang and how we as Catholics can be enlightened by the principles regarding such concepts.
There is a large group of Catholics faithful to Tradition that are insinuated as the ‘who’ of the Prelate’s letter, not a few who are professors at the University. It may be presumed (though I’m not encouraging we judge the man) that the Bishop’s intention is to give such persons a difficult time in their jobs.
Sancta Maria, ora Pro Nobis!
Comment by John — 29 July 2007 @ 5:58 pmI read somewhere (although I can’t remember where) that FUS would provide an extraordinary Mass. Given the large student demand (due to the banality of P&W Masses), this is shaping up to be a major split between one of the largest employers in the city of Steubenville (if not the largest), and one of the best known Catholic universities and the bishop. In the end there is one anecdote that foretells the end:
The chair in which the bishop was installed as bishop of the diocese is owned by the University (as he was installed in the Fieldhouse, they used the Presider’s chair from the Friary chapel).
There will be an extraordinary Mass on campus, if nowhere else in the diocese.
Comment by telcontar — 29 July 2007 @ 6:15 pmLet’s make some lemonade outta this particular lemon. If you’re wondering whether the lemon is a reference to the document or instead to the bishop, all I can say is…good question.
Anyhoo…this sort of irresponsible, grasping directive will certainly alert the Holy See to the current foolishness…much more so than “we’re studying it” or “we good” themes to other episcopal responses.
And the tone to this document…does anyone else hear the discordant echos of that ridiculous, over-the-top, Baroquely worded Foley ban on ad orientem celebration in Birmingham? Some of the language in that piffle hadn’t been seen in an ecclesiastical document this side of Bl. Pius IX! And the kicker was that it was cosigned by the chancellor of the diocese, who happened to be some Daughter of Charity…I’m guessing she wasn’t “down” with teaching children anymore after her liberation. But I’m thinking that this D.C. hadn’t done quite as much with her life as, say, Mother Angelica.
Back to the point: when it comes to suppressing legitimate options, the enemies of Church tradition can wax quite Stalinist.
Comment by Ole Doc Farmer — 29 July 2007 @ 6:18 pmTelcontar,
While I would like to believe that FUS would do such a thing, I don’t think it is going to happen. Yes, there is a large student and faculty contingent that desires reverent liturgies. One will see them quite often at St. Peter’s (A fairly reverent Parish) or many of the Byzantine Churches in the area. However, the powers that be at FUS are not all that friendly to Tradition. Though, they do offer a Novus Ordo Latin Mass approximately once a month during the school year, and there is even a ‘traditional’ schola, I do not think the University itself will be asking for the TLM any time soon. One would have more luck with the visiting Opus Dei priests at St. Peter’s.
Comment by John — 29 July 2007 @ 6:24 pmBishop Dan was one time chancellor for Archbishop Pilarczyk. Since they were “buds” what might you expect?
Comment by Widukind — 29 July 2007 @ 6:24 pmCave !
Comment by Dr. Peter H. Wright — 29 July 2007 @ 6:30 pmLet us remember the Devil will try to sow confusion in the wake of “Summorum Pontificum”.
Is this memo the authentic work of the Bishop of Steubenville, and his last word on the subject ?
Further clarification is needed. Not of the Motu Proprio, but of Bishop Conlon’s memo.
No diocesan bishop can in any circumstances change the wording of “Summorum Pontificum” which allows any priest in good standing to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal without seeking the permission of the local Ordinary.
If the bishop requires the priest to fill in a questionnaire, that in no way takes away from the priest the freedom he has been granted by the Pope’s Motu Proprio.
If Bishop Conlon requires help in understanding any part of “Summorum Pontificum”, then perhaps he should contact the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.
It will be a fight, but I think FUS will get one on campus. There was a Facebook group started in support of the MP a little over a week ago and it already has over 140 members (during summer break even).
Years ago hundreds of people signed a petition to bring the TLM to Steubenville. There is a lot of support for the extraordinary form here in Steubenville, and people are already starting to organize. Conlon will have to acquiesce or he will have a big fight on his hands.
Comment by