|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
YOU'RE ORTHODOX? YOU'RE FIRED!
ANDREW GREELEY ON YOUNG PRIESTS
EDITING SCRIPTURE IN THE SACRISTY
MR. JENKINS AND HIS EAR
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
I'm always glad to hear of Catholic laymen who take the initiative to teach
the faith at their own parishes, and I'm even more glad to hear of those who
speak at multiple parishes in their area.
That's what subscriber Kevin Murphy was doing. He worked up a five-part
apologetics series and gave it at ten parishes in his diocese. Then he was
asked to give it at an eleventh parish.
The weekend before his series was to start, a priest at that parish said
from the pulpit that he thought no one went to hell. At death, said the
priest, everyone is given a final chance to accept or reject Christ. This is
such a no-brainer that no one rejects him, so everyone goes to heaven.
Naturally, this pulpit commentary came up when Murphy gave his talk later in
the week. He did not mention or criticize the priest. He just quoted from
the Gospels and from the Catechism, showing clearly that our Lord and the
Church teach that many people in fact go to hell.
"I was quickly dismissed after that talk for contradicting the priest," said
Murphy.
I'm not surprised. Before Vatican II many Catholics felt that the Church in
this country had a problem with clericalism. By that they had in mind
imperious priests who ran parishes without soliciting input from the
parishioners; the people were expected to pay but not to voice their
opinions about how the parish plant should be run.
That kind of clericalism pretty much has disappeared. Nowadays there is
plenty of input from parishioners--maybe too much, in some parishes, if the
innumerable committees are any indication. No, today's clericalism takes a
different face: heterodox priests turning the screws on orthodox laymen.
If I wore a hat, I'd take it off in salute to Mr. Murphy. He has taken
seriously his duties as a Catholic layman, and he's been slapped in the face
for it. I hope he doesn't get discouraged. In the long run, truth will
prevail. It always has.
ANDREW GREELEY IS AN UNHAPPY CAMPER
In the current issue of "The Atlantic Monthly," priest-sociologist Andrew
Greeley bemoans recent trends in the priesthood. He reveals "a striking
trend: a generation of conservative young priests is on the rise in the U.S.
Church. These are newly ordained men who seem in many ways intent on
restoring the pre-Vatican II Church, and who, reversing the classic
generational rules, define themselves in direct opposition to the liberal
priests who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s."
I remember seeing, years ago, a cartoon--perhaps from "The New Yorker"--in
which Mom and Dad are sitting on the sofa, watching their son pass through
the room. The son is wearing a three-piece suit. Mom and Dad are aging
hippies in bell-bottoms. Dad asks, "Where did we go wrong?"
Greeley is like Dad, but with a clerical collar. For decades we had become
used to each generation being more liberal than its predecessor. Suddenly
there's a shift; suddenly it's Sadie Hawkins Day. It wasn't supposed to turn
out like this!
Worse, Sociologist Dean Hoge, according to Greeley, "reports that half the
newly ordained priests he encountered believe that a priest is fundamentally
different from a layperson--that he is literally a man apart."
Well, great day in the morning! This is refreshing news, since priests
really are different from you and me. They are ordained, and we are not.
They have sacramental powers that we do not have. They have even a level of
authority that we do not have.
Greeley says that "older priests today often complain that their younger
colleagues are arrogant, pompous, and rigid, and that they love to parade
around in clerical dress." This is sweet coming from middle-aged priests who
are embarrassed to wear a Roman collar and who do not hesitate to fire
people like Kevin Murphy.
If time heals all wounds, it also wounds all heels. Liberal priests who shy
away from dressing like priests when off the parish grounds, who fail to
teach the faith from the pulpit, who endow their own theological expositions
with ex cathedra authority, who fear well-read and orthodox laymen, who are
worried about young priests who think of themselves as being "men apart" by
virtue of their ordination--these liberal priests are a dying breed.
It is worth complaining about them when they do something stupid or
insensitive. It is worth trying to show them how the Mass is supposed to be
celebrated and what the Catechism really teaches. But it no longer is worth
losing sleep over them.
Their time is passing, and they are passing. It is the rare new ordinand who
is in line with their thinking. The liberal priests are leaving no progeny.
As they become fewer and fewer, and as they become ever more marginalized,
their whining will increase, as the whine of a flywheel increases just
before the machinery freezes altogether.
LECTOR, HOLD THY TONGUE
A subscriber wrote to say, "I have been a lector at Mass off and on for 35
years. I will never forget the time (it was in the 1980s) when I was in the
sacristy completing my preparation for the readings (Eph. 5:18-30), and the
pastor asked me to leave off reading the section marked in red, verses
22-25: 'Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands ... Husbands love your
wives ....' When I asked why, I was told that the bishop felt that it was
'too inflammatory.'"
The lector complained to the bishop, who, months later, gave her a
mealy-mouthed reply. Fed up, the woman left the Catholic Church and joined a
church that was not embarrassed about the text of the Bible. Years later she
returned to the Catholic Church, even though she knew she again would meet
whimpering clericalism. At least the young priests Andrew Greeley worries
about do not seem to think they should fiddle with the sacred text. They
even seem to like what it says!
YOU COULD LOOK IT UP
In the December
16 E-Letter I wrote about a Sterling Heights, Michigan,
priest who heavyhandedly instructed his city council regarding "gay and
lesbian persons." The priest was unhappy because the council endorsed a
proposed amendment to the state constitution. The amendment would state that
marriage is between one man and one woman, period.
The priest talked about injustices such as World War II interments,
McCarthyism, and attacks on Arab-Americans. I asked, "Why didn't you list
the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the War of Jenkins' Ear?"
Reader Maureen Caren asked, "The War of Jenkins' Ear? Are you serious? I
would like to know more."
Yes, I was serious. The War of Jenkins' Ear, which lasted from 1739-1741,
was between England and Spain. Shipmaster Robert Jenkins told the House of
Commons that the Spanish had cut off his ear. Incensed, the government,
under prime minister Robert Walpole, declared war. Skirmishes took place
only at sea. This little war, which was based on commercial rivalry,
ultimately merged with the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), which
was a much bigger affair.
|
|
|
[TOP]
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up