![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Asps in Rochester
For this I sadly tip my biretta to Ten Reasons o{]:¬(
I want you to read this in light of certain entries on this blog about the whole ghastly wymynpriest thing (except for what "that blonde" had to say, of course.
Father JoanIn June of this year, Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester appointed the notorious dissenter Sister Joan Sobala as pastoral administrator, i.e., de facto priestess, over the tradition-friendly St. Anne Church. The Women’s Ordination Conference calls her a person "key to the survival and success of the movement for women’s ordination." A now former parishioner shares her account of Sister Joan’s honeymoon period:
At the "third informational meeting" held before she was officially acting as the administrator, she made 2 statements, in front of a good size representation of the congregation, when asked if some of the previous traditional liturgical practices would remain the same at Saint Anne’s. She replied, "I AM what I AM and it IS what it IS". [Glibly hostile blasphemy]
When asked about wanting to become a priest, she announced quite boldly, "It is no secret that since 1975, I have wanted to become a priest." When asked by a parishoner if she understood that this was against the acceptance of the Catholic Church, she told the parishoner that he was "out of line". This was very confusing to many of us, as we still cannot figure out exactly what or who, it IS she THINKS she IS.
Women who want to be ordained, and those who aid them, are setting themselves up as having a Magisterium superior to that of Holy Church. But by doing so on this topic, they a veering away from Christianity itself.
It is one thing to attack, say, unity – which inflicts a terrible wound in the Body of the Church.
It is entirely another to pierce the Church’s very beating heart, the priesthood, and then – asp-like inject the wound with venom.
The obvious question is not what’s the deal with Sister Joan, but how can a bishop do this and remain in good standing with Rome? That has to change now. Isn’t it the Pope’s responsibility to save us from these wolves?
Comment by Michael B. — 25 July 2008 @ 10:00 amOh that is an easy matter: drop empty envelopes in the collection. I am sure that the diocese will get the message tout suite and the dear Sister will be sent packing.
Comment by Hieromonk Gregory — 25 July 2008 @ 10:01 amWell said, Fr. Z. Unfortunately, this is not a question of “veering away from Christianity,” however. They gave up Christianity long ago for neo-paganist/feminist/wiccan religion. These women want to destroy the Church—this is their only agenda. Those who support them—bishop or not—apparently seek the same.
Comment by mysticalrose — 25 July 2008 @ 10:07 am“I AM what I AM”
Comment by Fr Ray Blake — 25 July 2008 @ 10:07 amObviously She is God amongst us, claiming Divinity. The whole point of being a member of the Church is we have the humility to accept its teaching and we do not set ourselves up as God. Thes type of people really belief God is in their own image.
Our deadly heroines, yes, we praise still:
The stern Judge Deborah, brave Judith, Jael.
But none slew kindred when they came to kill,
Or bled their babies in unholy grail
To feed cruel Moloch, Ashtoreth, and Baal.
They fought for children, not some serpent’s treasons.
All right, then. Picture Sarah, long bronze knife
Poised last to butcher sheep but first, her boy.
Then picture Mary, holding her Son’s life
That Passover, to offer and destroy.
Is this the woman you would ask to pray?
Would you send children to crown her in May?
Our Eucharist’s both sacrifice and feast,
Comment by Maureen — 25 July 2008 @ 10:09 amOur Christ is God and sacrificial beast.
If He did not set up His mom as priest,
He—all-foreknowing of all times and seasons—Maybe we ought to think He had His reasons.
“Fr. Joan” ????
Comment by James — 25 July 2008 @ 10:10 am“I AM what I AM”
Comment by Rob Alvelais — 25 July 2008 @ 10:13 amShe thinks she’s Popeye!
I’m actually quite surprised that Bishop Clark is still in charge of that Diocese, particularly, if accounts of his personal life and views are true.
Comment by TJM — 25 July 2008 @ 10:16 amThis woman sounds like a crazy egomaniac. I’m surprised the congregation hasn’t voted with their feet thus causing this “tradition minded” parish to close. Tom
These are very odd times we live in. So at this parish one is “out of line” if they are “in line” with the teachings of the Church!? Let’s pray that our Holy Father is able to right the ship!
Comment by Padre Steve — 25 July 2008 @ 10:17 amAck! No! Not St. Ann’s! St. Ann’s is a good parish!
The plot actually thickens, Fr. Z. One of the priests there at St. Ann’s right now, I believe, is Fr. Bonsignore, who is head of the local Latin Mass Community. Interesting.
And Bishop Clark… ugh. Four years. Just four years and counting.
Comment by Rochesterian — 25 July 2008 @ 10:17 amWell, Had she been in St. Louis up until a couple weeks ago, she would have been handled better. its really sad that there are people in “leadership” roles in the church who do this idiocy. The key word is “Pastoral” in her “title”....she isnt acting very pastoral at all. She has no authoritative capacity at all, yet she calls someone out of line. Absolutely amazing. Are you sure this isnt an american anglican church we are talking about (j/k)
Comment by patrick f — 25 July 2008 @ 10:27 amI noticed in the parish bulletin that “Sister” Joan gets top billing as Pastoral Administrator whereas Father Tyman is the mere “Sacramental
Comment by TJM — 25 July 2008 @ 10:27 amMinister.” That guy must be nuts. Tom
What is meant by “tradition-minded” is this a parish where the Sacred Liturgy is (was) celebrated in a sacred manner?
One last refuge of holiness and sanity in a diocese which still holds a reputation for the most far-out heterodoxy, and H.E. Bp. Clark wants to destroy it? Sad indeed.
Comment by Father Totton — 25 July 2008 @ 10:29 amThe long-suffering faithful of Rochester have endured this episcopate for 29 years, with apparently 4 more to go. Surely there must be some way for the most obviously egregious papal mistakes in episcopal appointments to be corrected in less than 33 years.
Comment by henrici — 25 July 2008 @ 10:40 amBelow is a thread of nearly 200 posts concerning the SSPX. A huge part of the suspicion the SSPX has for the Church involves exactly this kind of bishop remaining in office and in good standing with Rome. Isn’t it time for Rome to do something about the problem of heterodox bishops directly?
Comment by Michael B. — 25 July 2008 @ 10:45 amJust look at it this way…the number of days you’re facing is less than the number of days you’ve suffered under Bishop Clark.
Maybe the good Lord will count that time towards your stay in Purgatory. One must have hope, even in the face of insensate evil.
Is she evil or just deluded? I don’t know, but raising her status to I AM, to me, sounds like a petulant child who is used to bullying their way around and getting what they want.
Maybe if she got red in the face and started holding her breath, at least then you’d know what you were dealing with.
In the end, though, the biological solution will take care of the problem. And only she has to answer for her deeds at her particular judgement.
So, pray for a conversion of heart. One must always pray.
Comment by bryan — 25 July 2008 @ 10:50 amI think we can all agree that this might be the “Counter-Church” prophesied by Scripture and Tradition. Some of these “priestesses” would even consider offering a “counter-extraordinary form” of the “Woman Wite.” They would oppose the true Church not only in the “Bogus Ordo” (their version of the Mass of Paul VI), but even mimic the Tridentine liturgy in their encantations and murmurs.
For that I believe that their worship is perfectly valid not to Christ, but to the you know who…
Instavrare Omnia In Christo.
Comment by dark_coven — 25 July 2008 @ 10:55 amShe sounds just like the type of parish leaders responsible for the removal and hiding of tabernacles in many of the parishes where I live (Diocese of Richmond, VA). It resembles the same mantra that powerful parish dissenters push on passive Catholics regularly….”WE are what WE are. WE are Church. WE will celebrate. WE will stand. WE will NOT genuflect. WE are the ones that we’ve been waiting for.” You can’t challenge these types of leaders because they’ll just shout you down, make sarcastic comments, roll their eyes or try to get the rest of the passive Catholics to laugh at you. Recently at a confirmation rehearsal at a Virginia Beach parish, one Benedictine brother (product of Latrobe, PA) instructed the young people NOT to kneel when they receive communion like the show-offs do (as if this were the greatest problem facing the Church today). In that same parish, one priest even referred to people who were questioning the removal of the tabernacle as pharisees during one of his homilies (another product of Latrobe who has since moved to a parish in the diocese of Erie). I believe these kinds of antics happen all the time in parishes throughout this country and most Catholics remain passive and trust their parish leadership that thumbs its nose at the Holy See. If more Catholics would take the time to become informed and challenge these types of antics parish leaders wouldn’t get away with this.
Comment by Monica — 25 July 2008 @ 10:56 amThe church bulletin at St. Anne used to state at the very top “where the tradition of sacred music and Gregorian Chant is alive.” I noticed that that tagline is no longer present, and also the latest bulletin indicates the very talented cantor of 11 years is leaving.
(I was a parishoner at St. Anne’s in 2001-3 and a regular attendee prior to that during my time as a student at the University of Rochester.)
St. Anne’s was an oasis of liturgical sanity, theologically middle-of-the-road in an otherwise wacky diocese.
It’s probably not accurate to characterize the liturgy as reform-of-the-reform, but it was the reform without the usual deformations (and increasingly conforming to the GIRM over the past serveral years), an excellent music program (probably one of the best parish choirs in America), incense, torches, well-instructed altar servers (male and female), etc.
It attracted students and faculty from University of Rochester who found the spirit of liturgical experimentation and theological laxity at the University chaplaincy to be unwelcoming. Professionals and medical students at Strong Memorial Hospital also attended.
It’s terribly sad. This leaves whatever students with an interest in liturgy or traditional expressions of Catholicism with no where to go (except to be lucky enough to find out about, and then find someone to drive them to, the Indult Mass community—which, frankly, can be a little intimidating to newcomers.)
Comment by Thomas — 25 July 2008 @ 11:03 amI must say…incidents like this are probably why rad-traditionalists don’t want to leave their SSPX chapel. We who haven’t jumped ship to the SSPX and remain in the official Church are able to see, by reading, by blogs, by staying up with the news and with the Holy Father’s statements, the wonderful things the Pope is doing, the hermeneutic of continuity he’s promoting, etc. We can understand more how Vatican II isn’t contradicting what came before it. But in so many places, this Pope’s agenda has had no effect on people’s lives whatsoever; the priests are still a bunch of lefties, the bishop is hostile or indifferent to orthodoxy, you get some wackjob nun coming into your parish and ruining everything, and it’s all under the banner of the Spirit of Vatican II…is it that hard to see how someone who wasn’t so news- and blog-savvy could get the impression that Rome or the official Church is off-track, and that this Vatican II business everyone is talking about is just bunk? Then when he realizes that the Pope likes this Vatican II thing that’s been ruining his life, he thinks, and when he realizes that the Pope appointed or allows to remain in office this horrible bishop…is it that hard to see why someone would go to the group that says, “Vatican II WAS terrible and the Pope IS a modernist! Come with us and you’ll never see a feminist nun again! We think like you do!”?
This is just a part of the crime, the utter and sheer violence to the Faith, that results from appointing bad bishops. I still don’t understand why Benedict continues promoting losers like Wuerl and doesn’t send people like Mahony to a monastery in Uzbekistan. I assume there’s a good reason because he’s a good man and an intelligent one, but I find it really hard to understand.
Comment by Johnny Domer — 25 July 2008 @ 11:11 amMichael B:
Isn’t it time for Rome to do something about the problem of heterodox bishops directly?
I have to say I agree with this. I believe that, as the successors of the Apostles, we owe our bishops a debt of love and obedience. But we have the situation where so many of those who were set up as watchmen on the ramparts have abandoned their posts and in some cases allowed the enemy into the gates. It really tears me up.
Comment by Craigmaddie — 25 July 2008 @ 11:11 amMichael B., in the very first comment, hits the nail on the head, and as, usual on a conservative Catholic blog, most subsequent commentators ignore the implications of what he wrote. This appointment respresents a direct attack on the Catholic faith, an attack originating with the bishop himself. Furthermore, this sort of behavior appears to be typical of this particular bishop. If Benedict XVI is the great defender of tradition that conservative Catholics insist he is, and if his predecessor deserves to be named in the same breath with Gregory I and Leo I, then why is this man still a bishop? It is John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI, the two darlings of the Catholic right, who are responsible for this situation. Otherwise, the doctrine of papal supremacy is meaningless.
Comment by Ron — 25 July 2008 @ 11:19 amPray about it and then don’t worry about it.
Comment by Hidden One — 25 July 2008 @ 11:31 amWhat I don’t understand is how this Sister’s role can be justified. I went and looked at the Parish/Cluster website and downloaded a bulletin. They have 3 PRIESTS and 1 DEACON between the two parishes.
It seems as though the excuse for these people is some sort of state of necessity too. Although I don’t think this one has a leg to stand on.
Comment by Matt — 25 July 2008 @ 11:43 amDo we owe a strong allegiance to Bishops who have a weak allegiance to the Holy See? The antics that are going on in parishes (i.e. St. Gregory the-not-so-great-anymore in Virginia Beach where Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers are still pouring the Precious Blood…after the consecration…to other vessels for distribution every Sunday with the parish pastor’s complete knowledge and consent) are not exaggerations; this is a reality that Catholics witness every Sunday (if not daily) in most parishes. I can only hope that the Holy Father is aware of this; however, does he realize just how bad it really is in many dioceses and parishes?...and that many parish leaders and priests continue to plow ahead as if there were no liturgical directives or instructions from the Holy See? They’re ignoring the Holy Father with what appears to be the approval of many of our Bishops. I wonder if the Holy Father has plans to get aggressive with such transparent defiance. Otherwise, I don’t see how the reform of the reform will ever have a chance to be planted where it is most needed.
Comment by Monica — 25 July 2008 @ 11:48 amFriends, be of good cheer. The days for these folks are numbered, they will soon be in nursing homes or have gone to their eternal
Comment by TJM — 25 July 2008 @ 11:55 amreward. These 60s attitudes are generally not found in the younger members of the heirarchy or clergy. Tom
Ron said: It is John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI, the two darlings of the Catholic right, who are responsible for this situation. Otherwise, the doctrine of papal supremacy is meaningless.
Of course they’re responsible. Every faithful Catholic knows and understands that.
But anybody can complain, criticise, and condemn. The thing that matters here is: what do you think we should do about it?
Comment by Jordanes — 25 July 2008 @ 11:59 amThe trend of laity, men and women, managing or administering parishes is not unusual in a diocese with a shortage of priests. Priests are called “sacramental ministers” in that case. The priests are ministering to multiple parishes in many instances.
This is true in the Belleville IL diocese, where the new (3 years now) bishop has been defamed and detested by the incumbent clergy and “lay ministry” and CTA (FOSIL) factions. Our lay administrators are called “parish life coordinators.” Bp. Braxton has brought in foreign priests, has worked hard to encourage vocations among young men holding a number of events with young men and priests in the diocese. He has also required parishes to pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life, though I’ve run into some parishes praying for all kinds of ministry, including in the lay state. Bp. Braxton has also established controls over the PLC practices and who may do what at a parish where a priest is not present to offer a Sunday Mass. Laity must go through diocesan-sponsored training to lead prayer services on Sundays. One PLC I know who is a kind and generous man, nonetheless, worries about his job security. I am sorry for him, but the priest as head of a parish is the ideal we should seek. He must recognize this, I think.
I don’t like the PLC practice at all. There’s still much rot to deal with in the diocese. The attitude of laity who get into these positions is a big issue. Some serve with sincerity, maybe humility, many with a desire for control and power. I don’t like that it’s done, but a parish needs financial and administrative management when a priest is to minister to multiple parishes—often spread out in the rural areas. I get uncomfortable with the laity assuming some “ministerial” role or having some authority in how liturgical or devotional practices will occur at a parish.
Comment by Peggy — 25 July 2008 @ 12:03 pmAll she needs is to catch and release a magic, talking flounder. I read a story once about a fisherman who was able to make his wife briefly pope this way.
Whoops! Too late! It appears Sr. Joan has already made the same mistake as the fisherman’s wife!
Comment by Howard — 25 July 2008 @ 12:40 pm“The thing that matters here is: what do you think we should do about it?” Well, for one thing, I think calling a halt to the papal cult of personality that has acted as an alternative to authentic Catholic conservatism for the past forty years would be a promising beginning. It would mean that Catholics were beginning to face reality, which is always a good thing. I was thrilled in 1978 when John Paul was elected. He was going to rescue the church. He didn’t. He allowed the Bernardin mafia to hijack the American church, and it is still in the drivers seat. I was thrilled again when Benedict was elected. He was going to rescue the church. He hasn’t, and it doesn’t look like he is going to, except on paper. Laypeople have kept orthodox Catholicism alive. Most bishops are our enemies, and the pope appoints the bishops. It is called connecting the dots. How do you erect a cult of personality around the men who appoint your persecutors and then do nothing to put a stop to the persecution, except smile and write another encyclical? I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.
Comment by Ron — 25 July 2008 @ 12:42 pmI´d be tempted to challenge her courage and prophetic voice: after all, those other women had the courage to get themselves “ordained,” right? She`s just working for “The Man” right now. How patriarchal. ;)
Comment by A Random Friar — 25 July 2008 @ 12:50 pmRegarding “Parish Life Coordinators” or “Pastoral Administrators” as they were once known in my diocese, some faithful of the Diocese of Lexington, KY, with the help of the Knights of Columbus, brought a canonical suit against a former bishop there and Rome ruled in opposition to this plan, stating that priests should be administering parishes. I wish I had more details than that, but that is all I can think of yet.
The argument that such an arrangement frees up priests to do the sacramental ministry for which they were ordained only goes so far, and it denies the triple annointing of Christ as Priest, Prhophet and King (the kingly, being the governance of a parish) Furthermore, as an administrator holds the purse strings, he/she has a practical ability to hamper both priestly (cultic) and prophetic (preaching) dimensions of the priest’s ministry – This was the problem with ST. Stanislaus in St. Louis – except it was a lay board instead of a nutty nun.
Parishes of a certain size may need a business office manager (it seems St. Ann’s is looking for a new one) to do books, reserve space, etc.) This is reasonalbe and it takes some tasks from the pastor’s desk so that he may minister more effectively as pastor, but to reduce the pastor to an employee on the staff of one who calls herself PLC or PA or whatever, is contrary to the core meaning of priesthood – why do we call our priest’s father?
In essence this plan (which I thought was waning in most places) is akin to the secular arrangement of a fatherless home. Sure, he comes in on weekends, provides a couple Masses, shakes hands and moves on, but the role of Father is reduced to an occasional functionary. Troubling.
Comment by Father Totton — 25 July 2008 @ 12:50 pmOh, and that last post was with the understanding that it wuoldincur an excommunication (which she seems to have done to herself already, just about)
Comment by A Rand