Clerical Abuse
by
Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
Dear Faithful Catholics:
I have just finished my visit to Germany and the Czech Republic, a semi-annual ritual that is undertaken for the support of Catholics resisting the Modernist hi-jacking of the Roman Catholic Church and its subsequent relinquishing of the Mass and sacramental system in the post-Conciliar Churches. As a priest, it is a daunting experience that is both challenging and heart-breaking. Today a priest must have the spirit of St. Paul who says: Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? (Romans 8:35)
Previous to Vatican II, priests could expect that they would have the security of the diocese or their Order if they obediently, like any employee, fulfilled their parish or religious requirements: no less, no more. Today there is no organizational oversight for most priests. Yes, they may belong to a society or association of priests and even have a bishop claiming apostolic succession. Yet, there is no jurisdictional authority that can impose upon priests subservience to a particular society, association or bishop (this, of course, does not absolve of a moral obligation). What is more, since these societies, associations and bishops refuse to cooperate, it is easy for a priest or even a pseudo-priest to pass from one society, association or bishop to another with no impunity. Unfortunately, therefore, the inability of societies, associations and bishops to cooperate and organize the remnant Catholic Church has splintered the Catholic faithful and the consequential results of the rejection by former devout Catholics of the entire Catholic faith because of the ensuing scandals.
What causes these divisions or refusal of cooperation? Ultimately one cannot leave out the weakness of human nature and the meddling of the devil in an over-all view. But the blame cannot be completely and uniquely attributed to the powers of darkness. It lies mainly with Catholics, lay and clerical, who usurp a position that is without theological foundation and especially neglect Christian Charity. I reflect upon the 8th Commandment, which seems to be opaqued in the circles of many Catholics, justifying that they are exposing the evil of others. They point out, as Our Lord says in St. Luke (6:42), the small defects that bother them like a splinter, in a priest or lay person and cannot see the beam of their horrendous acts they themselves are committing as they lay the heavy burdens of expectations and human demands, like crushing logs, on all those around. They imitate the Pharisees and Lawyers in the time of Christ: For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. (Matthew 23:4) Forgiveness is in short supply as though our Lord said: Hate your enemies (and friends) in opposition to His true words which read: Love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil. (Luke 6:35) Yes, one’s brother may fall again and again; but when asked how often one is to forgive Our Lord responded: Jesus saith: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times. (Matthew 18:22) In this context Christ has us pray: And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. (Luke 11:4)
When you go to a community that is filled with zeal for the faith and hungry for the truth, you can’t hand them serpents instead of the bread of life (cf. Matthew 7:9-10), that is, demands that cannot be fulfilled. What does a young man or woman do when there are no Catholics available to marry in their small circle? Yes, they can send out inquiries in other Catholic circles and it is recommended that one do so. But what can one do when there is still no possibility? Can a priest force the man or woman to remain single? What of the words of St. Paul: But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. (1 Corinthians 7:8, 9)
The permission for a mixed marriage must, ordinarily speaking, be obtained from the Holy See, but the bishops of the United States [And most non-Catholic Countries] enjoy a special privilege in this matter. Without recourse to Rome they themselves may grant a dispensation when it has been found impossible to deter the Catholic party from the marriage. Only as the lesser of two evils does the Church allow such marriages to be celebrated. She may occasionally permit them, but she always strongly disapproves of them. Moreover, no dispensation will be given unless good and weighty reasons are present (for example, there are very few Catholics of marriageable age in that section of the country) and unless the prenuptial promises are sincerely made by the non-Catholic party. The "prenuptial promises" are solemn declarations by the non-Catholic party to the effect that he will permit the Catholic spouse to enjoy full freedom in l religious worship and that all the children will be reared in the Catholic Church. (Healy, Edwin S.J., 1948, Marriage Guidance, Chicago, Loyola University, p. 183)
The oft quoted Biblical source for discouragement of mixed marriages, Genesis 24:3, that thou take not a wife for my son, of the daughters of the Chanaanites, among whom I dwell, is also followed by the words to the servant if a wife cannot be found among his people: if the woman will not follow thee, thou shalt not be bound by the oath (24:8). Accepting it is generally understood as applicable to converts, still these words should ring true: to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. (1Cor. 7:12-14)
The question arises: Does the Church absolutely forbid the marriage of a Catholic with a non-Catholic? The answer is no, there are exceptions and these exceptions should not be blotted out in Catholic circles because the individual priest or lay leader does not want it to happen. To deny the existence would be a lie, and that seems to be allowable in the conscience of some if they believe they are speaking in God’s name—such arrogance! As said above, they have assumed a position that they do not possess: Taking God’s place.
Yet this is an attitude that brings about the problems amongst Catholic circles. It can be attributed to the ignorance of those who claim authority to know the faith and have not studied or been guided in pastoral care. I know it was a problem back in the 70’s and 80’s (and even later) where senior priests ordained under the reign of Pius XII would place themselves as a special caste and consider those ordained afterwards as “untouchables.” Denying the children the bread they asked, these children have gone away hungry (Of course I will not praise the arrogant young priests who rejected the guiding hand of an elder priest, which is also a curse on many traditional priests who could have gained pastoral experience but would not submit to tutelage). These priests have departed and have left their chapels to the Modern Church or shepherdless, when the children of these faithful could have continued to enjoy the benefits of the Sacraments. Doubtless the Modernists and Pius X Fraternity benefitted from their negligence.
This brings another point that cannot be overlooked. Marcel Lefebvre gained public attention while other priests and bishops who opposed the protestantization of the Catholic Church, rejecting the Protestant Service and the extraction of all determining forms of the sacraments which provide them substance and validity, were ignored and isolated. His influence on many can be seen in the acceptance of many concepts that are contrary to Catholic theology. The greatest is the acceptance of a pope without the obligation of accepting the authority of the pope, a quasi Gallicanism if not Gallicanism itself. That meant that Marcel Lefebvre was able to call Paul VI and then John Paul II popes, but not accept their authority. This can be seen in the “pick and choose” vs. “reject and refuse” attitude that claims parts of Vatican II can be accepted, while other parts must be rejected even though Paul VI promulgated and demanded all Bishops submit to them in totality. It is seen in accepting the New Mass and Priesthood as valid while rejecting to saying the New Mass by his priests as though it was optional despite the decrees from Rome demanding all priests as obligated to say the Novus Ordo.
But the effects of his thinking goes into the very marrow of some traditional priests who still hold that can “pick and choose” vs. “reject and refuse” even the decisions of the Church under the reign of Pope Pius XII. They celebrate the feast of Pope Pius X on September 3 but refuse to celebrate St. Joseph on May 1. Saint Joseph’s feast after Easter was introduced by the Carmelites in 1621, spread to Spain in 1735 and was put in the universal Calendar by Pius IX on September 10, 1847. That is, it was only a 100 years in the Church calendar when Pope Pius XII removed—i.e., there were probably people still alive before the feast was universally introduced and therefore how can I be told that it was absolutely wrong for Pope Pius XII to change a feast that is of apostolic tradition (as I was once upbraided by a lay person who follows such priests and lay leaders for daring to defend Pius XII)? In fact, it was centuries after Pope St. Pius V. Since the feast lost its significance and impeded the emphasis of the Paschal Season it was moved to the Wednesday before the Sunday by Pope St. Pius X. Since no one specially observed the feast of the Solemnity and since the Communist at the time were parading on May 1 with their “saints” it was only proper for the Catholic Church to remind the faithful men they need not look over the fence at Uncle Joe Stalin because St. Joseph is already in their backyard to show them what real workers are like. The true idea of a laborer is seen in the life of the simple carpenter of Nazareth. That some attempt to link a conspiratorial motive between this feast and the Communists are wrong to give the devil the credit because the Holy Ghost guides the Church and inspired the Pope to remind the faithful that 6 days God gave us to work, the seventh is His and overthrowing the order God established is not the answer to modern man's spiritual poverty.—nor is disobedience to Church authority: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Some claim that one must fast from midnight as Pope Pius XII had no authority [was he Pope or not? Because if he is the Pope, he is the ultimate authority for the Church on earth: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19)] because they say it is part of Tradition; yet the priest will have an evening Mass and allow the people to fast for three hours – the Pope can’t change it but they can? The question therefore arises as to where is the authority of the Church? In the priest or in the Pope? Of course, and it is the argument against Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, that one must distinguish between what is of apostolic origin (Divine Tradition) and what was merely introduced during the early centuries as a custom (man-made tradition). The Eucharistic Fast is first discussed by St. Augustine in 430 AD as mentioned by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, Q. 80. a. 8). Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage dispensed the faithful from fast before communion on Holy Thursday and Pope Leo XIII already dispensed priests in 1884 by allowing a four hour fast if celebrated a midnight Mass. Scripturally, Saint Paul tells the Corinthians to eat at home before they come to Mass (cf. 1 Cor. 11:22) and the Apostles received Holy Communion after the Last Supper. There is no claim to Apostolic Tradition by any Father of the Church, rather to invoke reverence. Besides, there is no one stopping someone from still fasting from midnight. Rather, it is the condemnation of Pope Pius XII and those who use the dispensation Pope Pius XII granted that must be reprobated.
Not only is the rejection of the Restored Holy Week something that they hold, but they even dare to condemn those who do follow papal authority and observe the Easter Vigil as it should be observed, i.e., not as a liturgical service to be completed during working hours with no meaning, but as that of the early Church awaiting the resurrection of her divine Saviour. If one does a true study, and not a superficial nonsensical one done by some, such as insisting that the reason for not genuflecting during the solemn prayers while praying for the conversion of the Jews is because the Jews genuflected as they struck our Lord (even though in Scripture it was not the Jews who knelt but the Romans) – I accept that one Liturgical author had suggested this, but all others admit they have no source as to the meaning. Therefore, the meaning lost – and the Church does nothing without a good reason – it is appropriate that the faithful genuflect in reparation for what the Jewish Nation has done against the Christ and implore God on one’s knee for the graces they need to come to the knowledge of the Truth. The Holy Week ceremony developed through the centuries and the ceremonies of Holy Week are not part of the Mass, but set in the Propers and have nothing to do with the Mass itself, but are purely liturgical ceremonies which have been revised and changed through the centuries before and after Pope St. Pius V.
Because these arrogant priests and lay leaders demand submission to their whims, and the laws of the Church are ignored, the Church becomes more of a personality cult and following than properly giving true glory to God. There is no possibility of demanding these priests and lay leaders to submit since there appears no jurisdictional authority and one cannot appeal to Rome. So, for pastoral reasons, even a visiting priest may have to tolerate the idiosyncrasies displayed in certain communities. Unfortunately, though, the priests and lay leaders holding on to their idiosyncrasies more tightly than their faith close the door to many faithful because of their stubbornness by insisting on even knowledgeable Catholics who do know their faith to submit to cultism or leave. Those who remain find themselves coming only for the Mass and not to partake in a true Church life that should be part of a Catholic parish.
What lacks also in these communities, as mentioned in the beginning, is Christian charity as the example of the priest and lay leaders condemning those who disagree with their idiosyncrasies (and not the faith) scandalizes the laity who easily develop the same characteristics of rash judgment and gossip heard from the pulpit or in discussion groups. St. Paul reminds the Thessalonians:
But as touching the charity of brotherhood, we have no need to write to you: for yourselves have learned of God to love one another. For indeed you do it towards all the brethren in all Macedonia. But we entreat you, brethren, that you abound more: And that you use your endeavour to be quiet, and that you do your own business, and work with your own hands, as we commanded you: and that you walk honestly towards them that are without; and that you want nothing of any man's . . . For which cause comfort one another; and edify one another, as you also do. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them who labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you: That you esteem them more abundantly in charity, for their work's sake. Have peace with them. And we beseech you, brethren, rebuke the unquiet, comfort the feeble minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men. See that none render evil for evil to any man; but ever follow that which is good towards each other, and towards all men. (4:9-11; 5:11-15)
If somehow the bishops and priests could follow after the things that are of peace; and keep the things that are of edification one towards another (Romans 14:19), perhaps the saying would reverberate on the lips of those around: See how these Christians love one another. (Tertullian, Apologeticum, 39:7) As long as quibbles divide, the devil will provide. The Wicked One (cf. Matthew 13:38) wants nothing more than to divide and conquer.
In this spirit I thank Our Lord Jesus Christ for the strength he has given me to continue to evangelize throughout the world and the welcome I receive by the communities who stand fast; and hold the traditions which they have learned (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14) as I take to heart the words of St. Paul to Timothy: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)
With God's blessing and my prayers.
In His Service,
Father Courtney Edward Krier
|
