We are, once again, being encouraged to “reimagine” not only priestly formation but the priesthood itself and the Church herself. I’ve been there, and it was a hell-hole of oppression by the Radical Left.
Recently, we were treated to an article at Crux describing a “two-day symposium at Boston College” of “ecclesial heavy-hitters” dealing with the future of the priesthood. This was a follow-up to a previous confab which served up a wish-list in December of 2018. Key expressions say it all: “a call for a reimagining of priestly formation”; “renewing the conversation”; “threefold dynamic”; “foster authentic psychosexual maturity and integration.”
Who talks like that? I can tell you who: Left-overs from the failed revolution of the Sixties and Seventies. As Yogi Berra put it, “It’s like deja-vu all over again.” I know whereof I speak because these phrases brought back nightmares of my would-be priestly formation from that precise era. Yes, I admit I am a victim of post-traumatic stress stemming from those worst eight years of my life.
I am amused when liberals call for “dialogue” or “conversation” because that suggests they see themselves on the short end of the stick. Once they are on the ascendancy, all “dialogue” and “conversation” cease. My seminary was a hell-hole of oppression in the pre-Vatican II era; in my time, it was a hell-hole of oppression by the Radical Left (the agenda had changed but the agents were the same). Indeed, the initial steps were hesitant and conversation-oriented. However, when someone raised an issue for conversation that did not fit the proper “paradigm” (yes, we had “paradigm shifts” then as well), the axe fell fast and furiously.
We had been encouraged to “reimagine” not only priestly formation but the priesthood itself and the Church herself. Naively, I took the bait and wrote an article for The Priest in November of 1973, entitled “The Parish: Crucible of Priestly Formation.” I critiqued the whole disastrous system and “suggested” that a different “model” was needed, namely, having seminarians live in parishes and commute to theological schools. By January of 1974, I was shown the door. The “dialogue” was over. The personal harassment and persecution, however, went on for nearly two years more.
The Leftists today, however, are not quite so subtle and clever as their forebears of an earlier time. They have actually handed down the demand in no uncertain terms: “All consideration of priesthood and ministry must flow from the Second Vatican Council’s affirmation of the Church’s living tradition as it has been received and developed by Pope Francis.” The key words, of course, are “as it has been received and developed by Pope Francis.” Not even Vatican II itself is a starting point, with Presbyterorum Ordinis or Optatam Totius. Certainly not John Paul II’s Pastores Dabo Vobis. Not even, apparently, the brand new Program of Priestly Formation, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops this past November.
It is important to have handy a lexicon to interpret the gibberish emanating from the “Woke” participants. Here are my English translations of a few of the goals of the cognoscenti:
• “an evaluation process for candidates that allows institutions to ‘be free to evaluate candidates honestly,’ without a concern to ‘maintain numbers’ by persevering with unsuitable candidates”: Get rid of conservative seminarians.
• “a call for exploration of new models for ordained ministry” and “There have to be adjustments made.” “The future of the ministry of the priesthood cannot be the same of the past.”: A Protestantized priesthood, which would include women and married men.
• “As the number of priests declines, we have an opportunity to recognize women in ministry, and make space and resources available for their formation, so that they can better serve the people of God.”: Ordain women.
• “This incorporates the vision of Vatican II in ways that are not always evident today among those who emphasize a cultic priesthood and a priestly identity that is set apart and above the laity.”: Out with a sacramental understanding of both Church and priesthood!
So, who are these forgers of a “brave new Church”? We learn that cardinals were present, including — surprise, surprise — Blase Cupich of Chicago and Reinhard Marx of Munich! Six other American bishops were involved also; among those “heavy hitters” were none other than Bishops Robert McElroy of San Diego and John Stowe of Lexington. In truth, with one notable exception, every hierarch cited is as far Left as you can go without tipping over the canoe….
The above comes from a Jan. 7 article by Father Peter Stravinskas in Catholic World Report.
Unfortunately, Fr. Stravinskas is right. God bless and protect him for his courage. Do we want to “turn the clock back” (as leftists often accuse Catholics of)? And, he’s correct, people don’t really talk or write like that (unless they have a hidden agenda). It’s past time for some honesty. Some seminaries have improved since the insanity of the 70’s. One now fine seminary used to be known as “The Pink Palace.” Should its control be given back to the Lavender Mafia?! Since 85 percent of the abuse cases involved homosexual priests, other than Fr. James Martin and a few bishops, who thinks we need more of them? Priesthood matters. Sacraments matter. The Catholic Church matters. Jesus Christ is Lord!
The Left will reduce the Church to cinders, that has always been the plan, cloaked in nice flowery language The CC editors will not allow me to print how I believe this needs to be dealt with
Catholic people in every diocese are being afflicted with an ecclesial scourge that has never been witnessed before. These “brave new Church” proponents are bringing their leftist ideology to their bishoprics and, through coercion and intimidation, will eventually squeeze the life out of every faithful Catholic and send them running for the doors. I ask Our Lord to give all the faithful the courage and conviction to remain strong amidst this turmoil created, not by us, but by those who were ordained by God to lead us to Him.
We are afflicted as you say. But the hopeful news is, the wolf is now in the house. We failed to see the problem when it was outside. The enemy is so close and is now devouring our children, we have been forced to either go along with their agenda or take a stand against it. No more sitting on the fence. Which many lay people have spent too much time doing. The evil is being exposed and in our face. I see this as good.
Even Christ says he despises the lukewarm.
St. John XXIII had the idiotic idea of modeling the future Church after the society that existed in 1964. Could not have had worse timing. It was an awful decade and now we are stuck with a Liberation Theology of an Argentinian Pope determined to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s in the Vatican Council Revolutionary program 50 years after it had already failed. Cardinal Blase Cupich and Bishop Robert McElroy are the tip of the spear of Papa Francisco’s Church destruction here in America. I am glad that Benedict XVII is alive that I pray every day for his health.
This latest type of jargon, which is designed to impress through deception, is familiar in much of education, business and government.
Countless thousands have endured this type of thing in endless conferences, seminars and training sessions.
Orwellian newspeak is the fog in which we live our daily existence.
Two rogues converged in a yellow ‘hood, . . .
No need to reimagine the priesthood. They simply need to read a new book titled From the Depths of Our Hearts, by Benedict XVI and Robert Cardinal Sarah. They address the crisis in the Church and priestly celibacy. This is Benedict XVI’s first book since stepping down from the papacy.
They address: spiritual challenges faced by priests today, including struggles of celibacy; the biblical and spiritual role of the priesthood; the renewal of the Church is bound to a renewed understanding of priestly vocation and the need for a deeper conversion to Christ as the key to fruitful reform.
Thank God for Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah and their timely contribution to the Church. May Cardinal Cupich, Bishop McElroy and others read and profit from their time-tested wisdom.
So, let’s consider if priestly formation needs to change. The old bromide is that doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results is the base definition of insanity. The American church is losing parishioners in droves, we know this and the numbers are there to prove it. Do we do anything differently? I would think we would look at the data and start discussion thoughts about how to improve the situation. That is neither liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing. We don’t have enough priests, and too few seminarians to replace the majority who are nearing retirement. Do we do anything differently? We have a serious situation in the church that is neither conservative or liberal. Our situation calls for change. Other than remaining the same what three things would you do to improve the situation?
Bob One,.. lets look at the orders that are churning out vocations,, yes dreaded traditional orders of priests and nuns are the ones that are filled,,,,perhaps its time for you liberals to admit that your all your novelties you dreamed you in the last 60 years have failed on a galactic level…..
Bob One said:
“The American church is losing parishioners in droves, we know this and the numbers are there to prove it. Do we do anything differently? I would think we would look at the data and start discussion thoughts about how to improve the situation”
Ah…but therein lies the rub…there are American parishes that are out growing their physical campuses. They look like Protestant mega churches, and they’re not in progressive paradises like San Francisco or Marin. They’re in fly over country, so some math might be in order….