Priest: Catholic liturgy is in 'state of emergency'

By Matt C. Abbott

The following essay was written by Father James Farfaglia, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas. (It is exclusive to this column.)

STATE OF EMERGENCY

THE PRESENT SITUATION OF THE CATHOLIC LITURGY IN AMERICA

By Father James Farfaglia
Forty years have gone by since the Second Vatican Council concluded its work. The 16 conciliar documents have brought about many changes in the Catholic Church. One of the most visible changes is the way the Mass in the Latin rite is celebrated.

Unfortunately, shortly after the close of the council, the liturgical reforms the council set in motion have been upset by ignorance, misinterpretation, and even infidelity. The liturgy in America has become an ongoing battle between three groups of Catholics.

One group rejects the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Another group has misconstrued the liturgical norms of the missal and continues to spread errors and abuses that have nothing to do with the liturgy. Yet another group attempts to show the importance and beauty of the liturgical changes brought about by the council through a delicate fidelity to all the liturgical norms of the Church.

Those who reject the liturgical changes of the council and maintain a rigid adherence to the Tridentine Missal of Pope Pius V need to understand that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is not a divergence from liturgical tradition. The General Instruction on the Roman Missal clearly states:

'In setting forth its instructions for the revision of the Order of Mass, the Second Vatican Council, using the same words as did St. Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which the Missal of Trent was promulgated in 1570, also ordered, among other things, that some rites be restored 'to the original norm of the holy Fathers.' From the fact that the same words are used it can be seen how both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected upon, it also becomes clear how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfillment in the new' (General Instruction on the Roman Missal, #6).

In recent times, the Church has stated in repeated statements that those who have a special devotion to the Tridentine Mass must be treated with respect and fraternal charity. They are not to be treated as if they were part of a leper colony. Nevertheless, these Catholics are to adhere to the true teachings of the Church; they are to embrace the true teachings of the Second Vatican Council; and they must cease their continual criticisms regarding the proper celebration of the Missal of Pope Paul VI.

On the other hand, the group that believes the Mass is subject to continual personal innovations and experimentation needs to understand that no one has the right to subjectively make any changes or deviations from the prescribed norms of the liturgical texts. As a priest friend of mine says to other priests: "Say what is in black, and do what is in red."

'Therefore no other person whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on their own authority' (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, #22.3).

Since the arrival of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, much damage has been done to the fabric of the unity of the Church by irresponsible innovators who have confused and even scandalized the lay faithful. This is why the Vatican issued a recent document in an attempt to halt the many dangerous and insidious errors that have crept into the Mass.

'Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, 'the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed'' (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum, #169).

Many Catholics around the country realize that the liturgy is in a state of emergency. I am 50-years-old. Because of my age, and because of where I grew up as a kid, I have something to say about the present situation.

During the summer of 1988, Bishop Walter Curtis, of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, invited me for a visit in his office. I had grown up in his diocese. Now that I had returned to the United States, having completed my studies for the priesthood in Europe, he wanted to congratulate me on my ordination, which took place on December 24, 1987.

Our visit was cordial and rather informal. He asked me where I had grown up, and I told him in Ridgefield, and that my home parish was St. Mary's. I told him he had confirmed me, and that when my sister Donna was confirmed, I had served the confirmation Mass and met him in the parish rectory. Our conversation brought back many memories, but my telling Bishop Curtis I was from Ridgefield made him aware that I had experienced first-hand the terrible tribulations our parish had undergone shortly after the close of the Second Vatican Council.

Early into 1968, St. Mary's Parish in Ridgefield became a battleground. A very holy and wonderful pastor, Msgr. James McLaughlin, had been transferred, and a new pastor, Fr. Martin J. O'Connor (1968-1974), came onto the scene with a new assistant, Fr. Nicholas Nicodem.

Although Msgr. McLaughlin did little to prepare his parishioners for the liturgical changes of the council, the first few years of the changes were seemingly well received by the parishioners, and there was peace in the parish. All seemed well.

Then the lid came off. It was 1968. Msgr. McLaughlin had left, Fr. O'Connor was in, and all of a sudden, madness struck. Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung posters appeared on the walls of the church and the school, and wild liturgical abuses began. Numerous families left the parish and took refuge at Sacred Heart parish with the Polish Franciscans, or with Fr. Hale at St. Joseph's. Both parishes are in Danbury, located about twenty minutes from Ridgefield. For some reason, the teaching sisters left, and St. Mary's Catholic School closed. I could not graduate from the eighth grade, and having finished the seventh grade, I was forced to go to public school. Catholic junior and senior high school was out of the question. At that time, Immaculate High School in Danbury was in a worse state than the public schools.

As the chaos and polarization continued, the Tridentine Mass movement began to take shape. Close to Ridgefield, just over the state line, Fr. Francis Fenton and Fr. Robert McKenna of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement began to say the Tridentine Mass every Sunday in a converted barn on the property of Bob and Doris Cleary. The two priests were later assisted by the first priests ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who were just beginning their apostolate on Long Island, NY. Years later, the Society of St. Pius X purchased the Jesuit Retreat House in Ridgefield, which presently functions as a very successful retreat center.

As I told Bishop Curtis that I was from Ridgefield, I sensed from his reaction he was only too well aware of this sad history. He looked embarrassed.

Bishop Curtis died in 1997. He had attended the entire Second Vatican Council and was known as an excellent orthodox moral theologian. Why, then, did his diocese fall apart after the council? Why is the Diocese of Bridgeport, like most of the dioceses in the Northeast, still an epicenter of clergy sexual and financial scandals, parish closings, and continual bizarre liturgical abuses?

Here's the answer.

At the end of our meeting as we stood at the threshold of his office door, Bishop Curtis turned to me and said: "Well, Jim, I never thought that it was my place to tell my priests what to do."

In December 1988, I was a newly ordained priest and still very respectful of any bishop of the Church. Today, after more than 19 years of priestly service, after having been through so many trials and tribulations, what I should have asked my home bishop was, "Well, whose place is it?"

Just think for a moment. When parents are permissive and don't educate or correct their kids, family chaos takes place. The same thing happens with the Church. When a bishop does not correct and educate his spiritual sons; i.e., his priests, there is chaos, too.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, the first of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council to be approved by the Council Fathers, did not come out of a vacuum. Pope Pius X had initiated the liturgical movement, which was then intensified by Pope Pius XII. The history of the liturgical movement is documented in a scholarly work by Alcuin Reid, O.S.B., entitled The Organic Development of the Liturgy, an essential read for anyone who wishes to fully understand the reason behind the reform of the liturgy brought about by the council.

But what went wrong? Why is the liturgy in a state of emergency? Why is the Mass almost unrecognizable in many parishes around the country? There are a number of causes behind the liturgical abuses that we still experience today,

First of all, we have the problem that many bishops have taken Bishop Walter Curtis's position. They have spent their time building hospitals and parishes, but have done nothing to properly educate and correct their priests.

Secondly, it seems the council presumed the bishops would go home and properly implement the council's teachings. Some of them did.

I have never met him, but I have been told by a priest friend of mine, that Bishop Thomas Drury, who attended the last session of the council, did educate and correct his priests. His successor was Bishop Rene H. Gracida, also a very vigilant and courageous shepherd with superb moral fortitude. For this reason, my priest friend is amazed at some of the stories that I have told him about my home diocese. Moreover, due to these two bishops, the Diocese of Corpus Christi has not been a polarized battleground, at least when it comes to the liturgy. Our present bishop, Bishop Edmond Carmody, had the vision and determination to open up three new parishes and a new Catholic high school, despite a lot of stubborn opposition.

Thirdly, it is well known that after the council, certain forces went to work to create a parallel church in America. This movement was spearheaded by Cardinal John Francis Dearden, of Detroit; Papal Nuncio Jean Jadot, and then-Fr. Joseph Bernardin, who later became the popular prelate of Chicago. They were the masterminds behind the Call to Action movement. Presently, Call to Action's Web site openly states the following:

'We call upon the church to discard the medieval discipline of mandatory priestly celibacy, and to open the priesthood to women and married men, including resigned priests, so that the Eucharist may continue to be the center of the spiritual life of all Catholics.'

Catholics younger than 50 are having a hard time understanding exactly what went wrong in America after the council. The problem is not the council, nor is it the reformed liturgy.

Any serious student of the subject should read these excellent titles that document the history of the crisis still taking place today: Authority and Rebellion — Dr. Charles Rice; The Battle for the American Church — Rev. George Kelly; The Battle for the American Church Revisited — Rev. George Kelly; The Courage to be Catholic — George Weigel; God's Choice — George Weigel; The Ratzinger Report — Cardinal Josef Ratzinger; The Two Towers: The de-Christianization of America and a Plan for Renewal — John Meehan; Goodbye, Good Men — Michael Rose.

Fourthly, liturgical abuses are rooted in two major heresies that are common among the American clergy, especially the older members of the clergy. The first heresy is that many members of the clergy no longer believe in the ministerial priesthood. Secondly, many priests deny transubstantiation, or minimally, have a very ambiguous idea of what it really means.

If the priest is no different than the layman sitting in the pews, and if he no longer believes in the Real Presence, then the Mass is converted into a Protestant service. He then believes that the liturgy can be made up as he goes along. He assumes it needs to be creative in order to make it interesting for the people.

Finally, another cause of the present state of emergency with regard to the liturgy could be the underlying cause of the entire mess we're in.

Having taught the Catechism of the Catholic Church to a large number of parishioners, I have found the following insight of the Catechism to be quite amazing. When discussing the Ninth Commandment, the Catechism states:

'The sixth beatitude proclaims, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.' Pure in heart refers to those who have attuned their intellects and wills to the demands of God's holiness, chiefly in three areas: charity; chastity or sexual rectitude; love of the truth and orthodoxy of faith. There is a connection between purity of heart, of body, and of faith' (#2518).

It is interesting to note, based upon a lifetime of observation, that those priests who habitually carry on with women, or those active homosexual priests who carry on with their proclivities, are guilty of the most obtrusive and bizarre liturgical abuses. There is a connection between purity of heart, of body, and of faith.

It is not the scope of this essay to address every cause of the crisis we are in, but I have highlighted the main causes of the problem at hand. But what about solutions?

Based upon many years of personal experience as a priest in the trenches, I can come up with what I consider important ideas that can bring back some sense of sanity into the sanctuaries of our parishes throughout the country.

First and foremost, bishops need to be courageous shepherds. As George Weigel pointed out in his excellent work, The Courage to be Catholic, something needs to be done to reform the way bishops are selected in America. The present system is broken. It encourages ambition and favoritism.

Secondly, a serious renewal of the clergy is vital. A severe selection of candidates for the seminary is of utmost importance. Some bishops, rectors of seminaries, and vocations directors are purposely ignoring the current directive from the Vatican on homosexual candidates for the seminary.

Thirdly, a serious reform of seminaries has to take place. Many leave the seminary with insufficient liturgical formation, and many do not even know how to celebrate Mass! Just observe what takes place during a concelebrated Mass — it is utterly disgusting and unbelievable. Bishops and priests need to be faithfully obedient to all of the rubrics of the Roman Missal. Here is a simple rule to follow: Say what is in black, and do what is in red. What's so difficult about that?

Another solution is that all the clergy, the American bishops included, need to read the council documents and the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. There is much intellectual laziness among the clergy. They need to study, and study very seriously: less time on the golf course, and more time hitting the books.

Regarding the Society of St. Pius X, they need to come home. It would be a terrible tragedy if this schism were to continue. Lay people involved with the SSPX are there precisely because they have been so terribly scandalized by lunatic bishops and priests who have destroyed the liturgy in many parishes around the country. The pope should grant an indult for the full use of the Tridentine Mass in order to keep the scandalized laity in the Church. The leaders of the SSPX, for the good of the people they serve, should be humble and obedient, and reconcile with Rome. At the same time, Rome cannot play games with the SSPX — nor can the leaders of the SSPX remain stubborn. The faith and spiritual fervor of the laity attached to the SSPX is remarkable. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose these good people.

Finally, the most important solution rests in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI. We all know he understands the liturgy. His books are amazing. I have never openly criticized any Roman Pontiff, and I touch upon this theme with profound reservation. My family, friends, and parishioners know my strict fidelity to the See of Peter. I do not understand why this pope does not act. Regarding the liturgy, he has already acted on one occasion and quite forcefully.

The Neocatechumenal Way had an apparent blessing from Pope John Paul II to celebrate their liturgies with certain adaptations that were not practiced in the reformed liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. The adaptations were, frankly, quite over the top, but they did have apparent approval of the Vatican.

One of the first decisions of Pope Benedict XVI was a forceful and clear decision to end the use of the liturgical adaptations. His decree insists the lay movement celebrate Mass just like everyone else in the Latin rite. The papal decision met some resistance on the part of the leaders of the movement, but the pope held his ground. I do not understand why the pope does not speak this forcefully and clearly to the American bishops.

I humbly suggest that Pope Benedict XVI call to Rome, to a special gathering, all the bishops of our country, and instruct them on the proper celebration of the liturgy. However, if this were to occur, I do know from long experience that many of our bishops would go over to Rome and put on a good show, only to return to America and continue doing their own thing justifying their actions by saying, "In America, we do things differently."

Conclusion

Sometime in the academic year of 1981 to1982, while I was studying for the priesthood in Rome, I was discussing much of what has been written here in this essay with my seminary rector after dinner one night. At the end of our discussion he said something that I will never forget: "Twenty years from now, the Church in your country will suffer greatly."

Twenty years later, in June 2002, Bishop Joseph Galante stood before the USCCB meeting in Dallas that was called to address the public explosion of the clergy sex abuse scandal. The bishop began his remarks with these words: "We have a problem."

Problem? We are in a state of emergency.

Faithful priests need to persevere and not be discouraged. Bishops need to be loyal and courageous. The laity needs to pray every day for the Church and they need to stop giving their money where liturgical abuses abound. The SSPX needs to come home. And Pope Benedict the XVI needs to act — and act now.

If the present state of emergency continues and nothing is done about it, massive closing of parishes will continue, entire dioceses will disappear, and a smaller and purified Church will emerge from the rubble. However, in the meantime, the suffering that my seminary rectory prophetically spoke about more than twenty years ago will continue.

Nevertheless, whatever happens, let us remember the words of Our Lord, who founded the Church in the first place: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

© Matt C. Abbott