How many baptist pastors are married?

Sometimes you hear the argument that, if only priests could marry, the problem of abuse of minors would be solved.

One is tempted to ask…

QUAERITUR: How many baptist pastors are married?

I read at FNC:

Hundreds of Southern Baptist leaders, volunteers accused of sexual misconduct in bombshell investigation

Hundreds of leaders and volunteers within Southern Baptist churches across the nation have been accused of sexual misconduct against young churchgoers for decades – many of them quietly returning to church roles even after being convicted for sex crimes.

A bombshell investigation by the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News found that over the last 20 years, about 380 Southern Baptist church leaders and volunteers have faced credible accusations of sexual misconduct. Of those, roughly 220 were convicted of sex crimes or received plea deals, in cases involving more than 700 victims in all, the report found. Many accusers were young men and women, who allegedly experienced everything from exposure to pornography to rape and impregnation at the hands of church members.

The newspapers reported that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) largely treated the accusations as isolated issues, and took on an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality, even amid growing pressures to create a registry so the accusations wouldn’t disappear as alleged perpetrators moved from city to city. The Chronicle and Express-News created a database of convicted sexual abusers with documented connections to the SBC.

[…]

Read the rest there.

Do you suppose this story will get a lot of MSM coverage?

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Clerical Sexual Abuse, You must be joking! | Tagged
10 Comments

Fr. Z’s Kitchen: Coda alla Vaccinara with digressions into Roman stuff, like a new old confraternity

Last night I had another Supper For The Promotion of Clericalism.  Of course you get what I mean.  There is a good clericalism, too, the sort whereby priests support each other in their identity, etc.   There’s a lot of hooey out there today about “clericalism” being the root of all problems in the Church, including but not limited to, too much or too little use of incense, plants in the sanctuary, bad sound systems, and a lack of adequate parking.  But I digress.

Last night’s clerical supper – served for six – presented as the main course the great Roman quinto quarto dish Coda alla vaccinara, oxtail stew.  This is a typical Roman dish, especially of the area from Testaccio, through Ghetto, Trastevere and Regola, hence, exactly the area of Roma where I learned to speak in the streets and land on my feet, running. When I go back to Rome, I usually stay in the Regola zone, around Campo de’ Fiori where I know every paving stone by name. The denizens of that area, Regola, were sometimes called mangiacode, because they ate so much coda.  There were, still are, lots of butchers around the place.  Regola, by they way, comes from the older renula, referring to banks of the Tiber (before the embankments).  This word is preserved in the Via Arenula which leads to the big bridge that crosses over into Trastevere.

I’ve never made coda alla vaccinara, but I’ve eaten it many times over the decades.  With a lot of kitchen experience under my belt and some consultation, I plunged in.  Mind you, I had seen the some great oxtails in the store, which got me thinking.  Hence, I texted back and forth with The Great Roman™ for tips about how “granny” made it.   This isn’t rocket science, but… but… you want to get it right, try to capture that Roman Thing.

I wrote about eating coda in Rome back in 2014.  I remember that meal, which was at Osteria La Quercia, again in Regola, and close to Ss. Trinità dei Pelegrini.   Mine was much better, I have to say. BTW… the ancient Confraternity that St. Philip Neri founded is being revived at Ss. Trinità!   HERE

Card. Burke blessed some habits recently, in January, for investiture.

Dear reader, please understand that this is … how to put this… this is part of romanità.  What follows is and isn’t a digression.  IT is something of the feel, taste, ethos of every bite of coda alla vaccinara.

Churches, confraternities, the revival of the Roman Rite, the light in the streets in late afternoon, uneven pavement, and so many other elements of life there, form a whole, each seasoning and flavoring the others.   And, mind you, since The Great Roman™ is involved also in the resuscitation of this Venerabile Arciconfraternita della Santissima Trinità dei pellegrini e convalescenti, which was founded by the co-patron of Rome to perform spiritual and corporal works of mercy, the new confratelli and consorelle are going to be involved in works of mercy as well.

This is not for dress up.  This is for real.

Anyway, when I make Roman food, I strive to get something of … all of that into it.

Get your tails cut into pieces of 2-3 inches.

Season and put some color on them.

Pancetta…

With your basics of carrot, onion and celery.  There will be a LOT more celery down the line.  That’s a key to good coda.  Here we color up some veg and tomato paste.

This was a point of discussion with The Great Roman™.  Red wine or white?  TGR convinced me that a dry white would be best, lest it too strongly influence the final flavor palette.  So, dry white it was.  About a half bottle went in, which deglazed and then reduced to a thick gravy.

Then I added the tails, brick by brick, as it were.  First, providing a layer of San Marzano (thank you to the reader who sent the tomatoes from my amazon wish list!  I remembered you with a quick prayer and a sip of wine while cooking).

This dish needs bay leaves.

After that, I filled in the cracks with the juice from the tomatoes and more crushed tomato, with a bit more white wine.  And, what you can’t see, the tricky part… a few nails of clove and a sprinkling of cinnamon.

Then… it needed some hours to cook.  I got it good and hot on the stove, then ovened it for a couple hours at 425F and then backed the heat off to 225F until it was time to go into the space where we were set up for dinner (my co (place is way to small).

There was no primo, such as a pasta.  I debated caccio e pepe, but figured that the coda was going to be quite filling.  Ergo, we had prosecco and various nuts and slices of calabrese and soppressata and, of course, peccorino.  This was the weak link.  It is really difficult to get the good stuff here.

Meanwhile, we had lots to talk about.  This meme came in during our preprandial gab.

Time to add the rest of the celery.  Coda is usually served with big chunks of celery.   However, celery can be overwhelming.  I waited till about an hour from serving to add large pieces… and carrots.  I really like carrots.

Patate al forno.

Here is the disappointing bit.  I forget to take a photo of a prepared plate!  I was busy.  I had bread to bake, potatoes to extract, wine to pour – a good Barbera with acidity and sufficient tannin, great for a rustic dish.  However, this photo from the interwebs looks very much like my final production, sans potatoes.

The meat literally fell from the blades of the tail bones.   The whole place was roused with the robust fragrance of the celery and, underneath it, the clove and cinnamon.  Sometimes coda is sprinkled with pine nuts, but, after all the nuts during our pre-prandials, I left them aside.

This was followed by a mixed green salad with a garlic and tomato vinaigrette dressing.

My desserts are simple:  mini Dove bars and, this time, wonderfully tart clementines, supplemented with amaro Braulio.

I have some sauce left over and pieces of the tail, which I’ve put away in the freezer: they’ll garnish some rigatoni someday soon.

I very much enjoy making these suppers for the brethren.  They are also a way of my showing appreciation for their participation in – and promotion of – celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.  They work with my Society and we do good things together.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Fr. Z's Kitchen, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged
8 Comments

TRANS-NEPTUNIAN COMET APPROACHES EARTH

One of the best titles ever…

From SpaceWeather:

TRANS-NEPTUNIAN COMET APPROACHES EARTH: In only a few days, newly-discovered Comet Iwamoto will split the orbits of Earth and Mars, making a relatively close approach to our planet visible through small telescopes. This is a rare visit. The comet comes from the realm of Extreme Trans-Neptunian Objects, a distant region of the solar system inhabited by strange objects such as “Sedna” and “the Goblin.” Get the full story on Spaceweather.com.

Trans-Neptunian Comet!  Very cool.

But there’s more!

“The Goblin”?

And there’s something out there called “Biden”.

I can hear your minds going whrrrr-pop to assign “The Goblin” to some political figure.

 

 

Posted in Just Too Cool, Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged ,
3 Comments

PODCAzT 170: Card. Müller – Manifesto of Faith: “Let not your heart be troubled!”

Gerhald Ludwig Card. Müller, former Prefect of the CDF, has issued a “Manifesto of Faith”.  It has a title reference of “Let not your heart be troubled!” (John 14:1).

You can get the text HERE.

The idea clearly is that many hearts are, in fact, troubled. Müller clearly explains many points of the Catholic Faith which are weakening, or being weakened, through neglect and through the irresponsibility of the Church’s clergy.

It is not long and it is packed with references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  US HERE – UK HERE

I’ll read the Manifesto. There are so many references to the CCC that I don’t include them in the reading. You would do very well to go through it with a copy of the CCC at hand, to check on the paragraphs and their own footnotes and references.

I also rant before and after. I make a case that the content of the Faith is truly a Person.

Just for fun, and in honor of a certain person, you hear some of the Credo from Striggio’s Mass for Forty Voices – yes, 40.  It is performed by I Fagiolini (“the string beans”).

US HERE – UK HERE

Let’s just say that before Phil Spector and the “wall of sound” there was this!

UPDATE:

Thus, Beans!

And get this…

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, Four Last Things, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Mail from priests, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, PODCAzT, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , ,
11 Comments

L’Affaire McCarrick: Soon to be “Mister”

This is an interesting development in L’Affaire McCarrick.

From Vida Nueva Digital:

Francisco expulsará del sacerdocio a Theodore McCarrick por abusar de menores

Theodore McCarrick está viviendo quizá sus últimos días como sacerdote. El que fuera cardenal y uno de los hombres más influyentes de la Iglesia católica en Estados Unidos podría recibir en breve el máximo castigo que el Derecho Canónico contempla para un eclesiástico: la dimisión del estado clerical. Según ha podido saber Vida Nueva, la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, encargada de juzgar los ‘delicta graviora’ (delitos más graves, entre ellos la pederastia), está a punto de cerrar el proceso a McCarrick, acusado de abusar sexualmente de tres menores y de varios seminaristas y jóvenes sacerdotes.

La reducción al estado laical de un antiguo miembro del Colegio cardenalicio, del que fue expulsado en julio por el Papa por abusos a un adolescente, es una medida sin precedentes en la historia moderna de la Iglesia. Será el mejor símbolo de que Francisco va en serio en su voluntad de limpiar la Iglesia de pederastas y encubridores antes de que se inicie la cumbre convocada en el Vaticano del 21 al 24 de febrero para hablar sobre cómo proteger a los menores dentro de las instituciones eclesiásticas. Representantes de las conferencias episcopales de todo el mundo están llamados a participar en esta inédita cita que debe marcar un punto de inflexión en la lucha contra la pederastia en la Iglesia.

[…]

Reuters:

Vatican to rule next week on defrocking of disgraced U.S. cardinal: sources

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Vatican officials will meet next week to decide the fate of disgraced former U.S. cardinal Theodore McCarrick over allegations of sexual abuse, Vatican sources said on Friday.

Vatican sources told Reuters last month that McCarrick will almost certainly be dismissed from the priesthood, which would make him the highest profile Roman Catholic figure to be defrocked in modern times.

Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Vatican department that will rule on the case, met Pope Francis on Thursday, according to a public Vatican schedule.

The Vatican did not say what was discussed but one source said it was likely that Ladaria briefed the pontiff on the final stages of the McCarrick case. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

Francis, who will have to sign off on any dismissal decision, wants the McCarrick case over before heads of national Catholic churches meet at the Vatican from Feb. 21-24 to discuss the global sexual abuse crisis, three Vatican sources told Reuters last month.

[…]

Posted in ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged
22 Comments

PODCAzT 169: Bp. Athanasius Schneider on “the only God-willed religion”

The terrific and courageous Bp. Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary in Astana, has sent out for wide distribution an essay entitled

The Gift of Filial Adoption
The Christian Faith: the only valid and the only God-willed religion

Clearly, from the title, this is a response to the poorly worded Catholic/Islamic document signed in the UAE by Francis and an imam. You will recall that that document, inter alia, so badly phrases a statement about God’s will that one could, were one to choose to, read it to mean that God willed a diversity of religions not just by His permissive will but by His active, positive will. That would be contrary to reason and the Catholic Faith.

Rather than simply reproduce it, you can download it.   This is the Word document that was sent around.

HERE

Also, to help you out, I’ve recording a reading of it to make it easier for some of you to benefit from it.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Francis, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, PODCAzT, The Drill, The Religion of Peace, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , ,
9 Comments

Card. Burke’s new, official website

Word is getting around, but I thought I would help.

His Eminence Raymond Leo Card. Burke has a new, personal website.

https://cardinalburke.com/

You can send him prayer intentions for which he will pray.  And you can sign up for notifications.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged
7 Comments

ASK FATHER: Popes in red rather than white?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Would you like to see the pope (or maybe the next one) resume wearing a red cassock?

Well, this is a truly burning question, isn’t it.

There are conflicting theories about how the pope wound up garbed in white.  Some think that Bl. Innocent V, pope for a few months in 1276, kept his white Dominican habit.  Others think that it was Pius V, 1566-72, who kept his white Dominican habit.  Either way, it seems that Dominicans were involved.

Would I like to see popes in red?  No.

What I would like to see is the proper use of traditional papal garb and vestments, which demonstrates humility and shows respect for the office and God’s people.

There is, by the way, a nickname, the Red Pope, for the head of Propaganda Fidei, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.   Back in the day, this was an extremely powerful position, especially because of the massive funds the head of Propaganda controlled and the territories he governed.  The “red” here refers to the color of the cardinal’s garb.

However, another “Red Pope” could be the late, great Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, whom some claim was the real pope, truly the one elected in 1958.  The story is that Siri was elected as Gregory XVII but because of massive resistance his election was somehow reversed and John XXIII was elected.   The Siri Theory is the foundation of the claims of some sedevacantists.  Other sedevacantists disputed the 1903 election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pius X.  That conclave originally, or nearly so, elected Card. Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro.  Back in the day, it was possible for secular powers to influence conclaves.  When Rampolla was elected, or nearly so, the Card. Prince-Archbp. of Krakow exercised Franz Joseph’s, the Emperor of Austria’s, veto.  One of Pius X’s first official acts was to abolish the veto right, the ius exclusivae, which was the prerogative of the Catholic monarchs of France, Spain, Austria, and the Holy Roman Emperor and exercised through a cardinal of royal blood.  This veto had been used against papal candidates some dozen times during the 17th-19th centuries.

Let’s just say that had Siri been elected things would have been very different, as they would have under Rampolla.

Various sedevanctist theories have popped up over the years. There are those who say that the 2013 conclave produced an invalid election for a couple reasons. First, some say there shouldn’t have been a conclave at all because Benedict XVI did not properly abdicate and he remains Pope. Second, some say that, because of the machinations of certain people campaigning to manipulate the outcome of the conclave, thus incurring excommunication, the election was void.

All of this demonstrates how important the figure of the Successor of Peter is, the importance of the Petrine Ministry as a constituent feature which God wove into the very fabric of the one, true, Catholic Church He founded.

Catholics take their popes seriously. However, there have been times in the history of the Church when popes have been take too seriously. There have been great popes and relatively insignificant popes, saintly popes and corrupt popes, influential popes and feckless popes, effective popes and useless popes. God the Holy Spirit does not elect popes, men do. Hopefully the men are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the role of the Holy Spirit in the election of popes is, at the very least, to avoid total disaster for the Church.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Lighter fare | Tagged , , ,
8 Comments

St. Francis and the Sultan: What really happened in 1219 in Catholic Muslim dialogue?

The Islamic/Catholic Fraternity document has caused a stir.  I wrote about a neuralgic point in it, yesterday, and some people had a spittle-flecked nutty.

There is more to say about that document.  I’ll get to it again, soon. I suspect more spittle-flecked nutties will result.

Meanwhile, Francis held a Wednesday General Audience today.   Text HERE. During that audience he offered a couple points that deserve attention.

Francis said that, during his time in the UAE, he often thought about the “visit of St Francis Assisi to Sultan al-Malik al’Kamil”.

Let’s review Francis of Assisi and his visit to the Sultan.

Many think that Francis was a bunny-hugging bird kisser.  When they think of him, they start to croon the tune from Brother Sun, Sister Moon or the ditty falsely attributed to him, “Make me a channel of your peace”.   But Francis of Assisi was not a medieval peacenik.   There was only one accord Francis wanted: the accord of one Faith… by their conversion.

Francis went to the Egypt to convert Sultan al-Kamil, a nephew of Saladin.

Here is the account of Francis’ words from Verba fratris Illuminati socii b. Francisci ad partes Orientis et in conspectu Soldani Aegypti (Codex Vaticanus Ott.lat.n.552):

The same sultan submitted this problem to [Francis]: “Your Lord taught in his gospels that evil must not be repaid with evil, that you should not refuse your cloak to anyone who wants to take your tunic, etc. (Mt 5,40): All the more Christians should not invade our land!”.  And Blessed Francis answered: “It seems to me that you have not read the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety. In fact it says elsewhere: “if your eye causes you sin, tear it out and throw it away” (Mt 5 , 29). With this, Jesus wanted to teach us that if any person, even a friend or a relative of ours, and even if he is dear to us as the apple of our eye, we should be willing to repulse him, to weed him out if he sought to take us away from the faith and love of our God. This is precisely why Christians are acting according to justice when they invade the lands you inhabit and fight against you, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and strive to turn away from his worship as many people as you can. But if you were to recognize, confess, and worship the Creator and Redeemer, Christians would love you as themselves instead.”

A long-time reader and participant here, Fr. Augustine Thompson, wrote a good biography of St. Francis.  Francis of Assisi: A New Biography US HERE – UK HERE

Here is the fascinating account from Thompson of the encounter of Francis with the Sultan (my emphases and comment):

[…] Francis was no coward. He soon asked permission to cross enemy lines, enter the Muslim camp, and preach Christ to the sultan al-Kamil. The cardinal [Pelagius Galvani of Albano, leader of the Crusader Forces] flatly refused the request. Death was the usual punishment for those who attempted to convince Muslims to abandon their religion, as it was for any Muslim who apostatized. Francis was undaunted; he and his companion—late sources identify him as Illuminato—continued to harass the cardinal, arguing that since they would go only with his permission, not by his command, he could not be blamed for anything that happened to them. The cardinal, a high ecclesiastical diplomat and administrator, knew little or nothing about Francis or his movement. He had no way of knowing what their intentions were or what result their infiltration of the Egyptian camp might have. He again rejected their request, saying that he had no way of knowing if their project was of God or the devil. Eventually, tired by their persistence, Pelagius said he would not stop them from going, but that they were under no circumstances to tell anyone that he had any connection to their mission.

The cardinal was ostensibly washing his hands of the matter, saying in effect: If you are harmed, imprisoned, or killed, do not expect any help from me. But his primary concern was to prevent al-Kamil from thinking that the friars’ visit implied some change in his hard-line position of no negotiations. The secular leaders of the Crusade may well have hoped that Francis’s journey would reopen the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Francis was probably oblivious to the political implications of his endeavor. In any case, the unarmed Francis and his companion left the Crusader camp, crossed the Nile, and approached the Muslim fortifications. Egyptian guards, assuming that the men were deserters who wanted to renounce their faith and accept Islam, took them in charge. When it became obvious that the two men had no intention of accepting Islam, the guards began to maltreat them. Francis, who knew no Arabic whatsoever, began to shout the one word he did know—“Soldan”—over and over. Finally, the bemused soldiers took him to al-Kamil.

Every report says that the sultan received the friars well, no doubt hoping that they were, in fact, a new embassy charged with reopening negotiations. He would have recognized them as Christian clergy by their tonsure and religious garb. The sultan, undoubtedly communicating with the brothers through a translator, asked if they were an embassy from the Crusaders, or if they intended to accept Islam, or perhaps both. Francis skipped over the question about messages from the leaders of the Crusade and got immediately to the point. He was the ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ and had come for the salvation of the sultan’s soul. Francis expressed his willingness to explain and defend Christianity. This was not at all what the sultan wanted. He replied that he had no time for theological discussions and that he had plenty of religious experts who could show the two men the truth of Islam.

Francis was delighted to find a larger audience for his message and agreed to discussions, saying that if the sultan and his advisers were not convinced by his presentation, they could cut off his head. Some of the sultan’s religious advisers were summoned to present the faith of Muhammad to Francis. He replied by stating his own faith. The reaction was swift: Francis was tempting them all with apostasy and was therefore dangerous. The Muslim experts unanimously advised the sultan to execute both of the Franciscans for preaching against Muhammad and Islam. They warned him not to listen to them, as even that was dangerous. The religious leaders then withdrew. Francis did make some impression, either positive or negative, on one of the Muslim religious leaders present. The jurist Fâkhr ad-Din al-Fârisi had his involvement with al-Kamil in the “affair of the monk” recorded on his tombstone.

Al-Kamil, however, did not execute or dismiss the two friars. Rather, left alone with the two friars and, probably, an interpreter, the sultan seems to have been impressed by Francis’s sincerity and willingness to die for his beliefs. He also probably hoped that once they finished ventilating the religious matter, there might be an opening for political negotiation. Thus there began a long conversation between Francis and the Muslim leader. Francis continued to express his Christian faith in the Crucified Lord and his promise of salvation. Al-Kamil continued listening politely, doubtless occasionally probing to see if the little Italian’s homilies masked a political feeler. In spite of his advisers’ hard line, the sultan had little reason to take offense at Francis’s expression of faith, for, as Jacques de Vitry himself remarked, Muslims had no objection to praising Jesus, who was a prophet for them too, as long as the speaker avoided any suggestion that Muhammad’s message was false or deluded. Francis himself never spoke ill of Muhammad, just as he never spoke ill of anyone. Later, when other Franciscans crossed over the battle lines and preached against Muhammad, they were fortunate to escape with merely a flogging.

After several conversations over a number of days, and finding that this discussion was making no political headway, the sultan decided to end it. He made a final offer: if the brothers would stay and accept Islam, he would see that they were well provided for. Francis and his companion flatly refused, saying again that they had not come to convert but to preach Christ. So, in a typical act of Middle Eastern hospitality, al-Kamil had a table set out with precious cloth and gold and silver ornaments and offered the two men their pick of them as gifts. Much to the sultan’s surprise, Francis explained that their religion forbade them to accept any precious gifts, money, or property. On the other hand, he would be happy to accept food for the day. Whether or not he asked Francis to pray for him, as some Christian sources claim, al-Kamil was pleased to provide them with a sumptuous meal, after which he ordered them deported to the Crusader lines.

Francis may not have converted the sultan, but he and his companions did make a deep impression on the Christian clergy present in Damietta, including Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre. Much to the bishop’s displeasure, Don Ranieri, rector of the Crusader church of St. Michael at Acre, abandoned his master to join the Franciscans. Two other clerics attached to his party, Colin the Englishman and Michael of the Church of the Holy Cross, also joined Francis. In a letter dated later in February or March 1220 to friends at home, de Vitry ascribed the rapid growth of Francis’s movement to their failure to screen and test applicants and to the friars’ willingness to send enthusiastic, if unprepared, men to all parts of the world. In the bishop’s opinion, too many of those attracted to the movement were unstable, enthusiastic youths, unready for the risks of itinerancy and uncloistered religious life. When Francis merely attracted lay brothers in rural Umbria back in 1216, the bishop of Acre had good words for the movement. Now, in light of Francis’s imprudent zeal in crossing enemy lines, and his willingness to take runaway clergy into his ranks, de Vitry’s views were more mixed. He wrote to his friends that it was all he could do to keep his chanter John of Cambrai, his cleric Henry, and several others from joining Francis. These defections are part of the exponential increase in numbers that the brotherhood experienced following the missions out of Italy in 1217.

Thompson, Augustine. Francis of Assisi: A New Biography (pp. 67-70). Cornell University Press. Kindle Edition.

Posted in Francis, The Drill, The Religion of Peace | Tagged , ,
18 Comments

ASK FATHER: The authority of pastors, parish priests, over people

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Dear Father,
My family and I regularly travel to a different parish, in a different diocese, to attend Mass at an FSSP Mass centre. The FSSP Mass centre is served by priests from a nearby personal parish, where the senior FSSP priest is parish priest. We are regulars there, I sing in the choir and so on.

My local parish is orthodox but un-traditional in its liturgy.

If parish priests truly have authority over the baptised Catholics in their territorial parish, are we erring by going to Mass elsewhere without seeking the local parish priest’s permission? If he really is our spiritual father, are we wrong to pass up on his paternal care and go elsewhere?

I consider it a positive good for me and my family to attend the traditional Mass wherever possible and it would be a big sacrifice for us to go to the typical local Novus Ordo instead, but this question of the parish priest’s authority over us bothers me.

GUEST PRIEST RESPONSE: Fr. Tim Ferguson

It’s been centuries really since the Church spoke of the role of a parish priest as having “authority” over his parishioners. The preferred terminology speaks of the pastor’s “care of souls” rather than his authority over them. Certainly, within that umbrella of “cura animarum” there is something to be said of the pastor’s authority over those he cares for. He is, or should be, truly a “pastor” – a shepherd of sorts. Canons 528 and 529 speak expansively (and beautifully) of the role of the pastor – these canons should be part of every pastor’s regular prayer and meditation. The pastor is exhorted, for example, “to strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care. He is therefore to visit their families, sharing in their cares and anxieties and, in a special way, their sorrows, comforting them in the Lord. If in certain matters they are found wanting, he is prudently to correct them…”

Absent from the canonical description of a pastor’s duties: coming up with a parish mission statement, filling out endless forms from the chancery office, selecting napkin colors for the next parish social.

In our modern and very mobile world, people regularly choose to worship in places apart from their canonical parish. That’s simply a fact of life today. Very few pastors (if any) put up a fuss when their “subjects” choose to go elsewhere. Is it the ideal? No. Is it the reality today? Yes.

I would say, since your territorial pastor is orthodox, it might be beneficial to set up a meeting with him. Introduce yourself, and explain why you’ve chosen to take your family to a nearby parish for the Extraordinary Form. You needn’t ask his permission to do so, but informing him of your reasons might start a healthy conversation. Since the FSSP church is across diocesan boundaries, it would also be good to establish at least some sort of relationship with your territorial pastor in case, down the road, issues come up with regards to permission for confirmation, marriage, serving as godparents and the like.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law | Tagged , , , , ,
10 Comments