Bishop Tod Brown: More Defiance In Orange County?

The Cafeteria is Closed is reporting that Orange County, California bishop, Tod David Brown, has permitted his chancery to issue this directive from Lesa Truxaw, the Orange diocese's director of worship, to all priests and deacons in the Diocese of Orange, letting them know they should ignore the new directives from Rome with respect to the purification of vessels (rescinding the controversial, temporary permission for lay persons to purify the sacred vessels after the distribution of Holy Communion) until the U.S. Bishops meet to discuss the "new" norms. The need for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to discuss the implementation of the Holy See's new directive is somewhat mystifying. Some analysis of Bishop Brown's latest chess move is in order.

Here is Gerald Augustinus' blog entry: Diocese of Orange Memo on purification

Note: Gerald erroneously (but with the best of intentions) reported that the Diocese of Orange is: "in lockstep with Mahony's Los Angeles (it's part of the archdiocese)". That is not entirely accurate. While it is true that Bishop Brown's policies are often in lockstep with those of Cardinal Mahony, the Diocese of Orange is a separate entity. According to the history section of the official Diocese of Orange website: "On June 18, 1976, His Holiness Pope Paul VI established the Diocese of Orange, encompassing 782 square mile [sic] along 42 miles of Southern California coastline." On June 16th of that year, Cardinal Timothy Manning installed Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop William Johnson as the first Bishop of Orange at Holy Family Cathedral.

The Diocese of Orange website continues, saying:

The Most Reverend William R. Johnson was installed as First Bishop of Orange and served his flock during the formative years of the diocese until his death on July 28, 1986. Auxiliary Bishop John T. Steinbock served as Apostolic Administrator until February 24, 1987, when the Most Reverend Norman F. McFarland was installed Second Bishop of Orange. On September 3, 1998 Bishop Tod D. Brown was installed as Third Bishop of Orange, upon the retirement of Bishop McFarland.

When the Diocese was first established, there were 42 parishes and 179 Priests serving 330,000 Orange County Catholics. Today, 25 years later, there are 55 diocesan parishes and 289 Priests serving 1,044,191 Catholics in the county of 2,760,948 people.

Although the territory of the Diocese of Orange was once part of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, it is now a separate diocese. Bishop Tod Brown is not an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Los Angels (nor were his predecessors). The office of Bishop of Orange is a separate see, independent of the authority of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

However, it might be helpful to give some perspective on the history of Cardinal Mahony's efforts to influence policy in the Diocese of Orange.

As Jeff Nihill reported in the July 20, 2000 article, in the national Catholic weekly newspaper, The Wanderer, titled, "Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange: A Two Year Retrospective":

Bishop Tod D. Brown was installed as the third Bishop of Orange in the Diocese's Mother Church, Holy Family Cathedral, on September 3, 1998. When he arrived, little was known locally about Brown, other than that he was a friend and former classmate of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and had served for nine years as Bishop of Boise, Idaho. This relationship led many conservatives to fear that Brown was a staunch liberal, and, after nearly two years at the helm in Orange, this has proven true. Since his arrival, Brown has moved the diocesan administration steadily leftward, and has turned Orange into little more than an extension of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, responsive to the directives of Cardinal Mahony.

Norman McFarland, Brown's predecessor, served as Bishop of Orange for 11 years. He was a competent, able administrator, widely known for his financial acumen. Although his manner could be gruff and demanding, and one could easily disagree with his decisions, he was genuine and straightforward, and widely respected among the clergy and laity.

McFarland was solidly orthodox and well educated in the Catholic faith. However, McFarland's orthodoxy was frequently not shared by members of his chancery staff, nor by many of his priests and parish staffs. While he did ordain some pious, orthodox young men to the priesthood, he did little to change the far-left makeup of the religious education establishment in the diocese, intervening only in cases of the most overt heresy.

Unfortunately, such intervention was often ineffective. Should an abuse arise, McFarland might contact the offending party privately, and order it to cease. The person would ordinarily be left in his position of authority; someone who had no intention, despite assurances to the contrary, of being orthodox. Furthermore, McFarland would make no public statement to reassure the scandalized "layman in the pew" that the abuse had been corrected.

To the delight of many in Orange, McFarland and Cardinal Mahony had long shared a mutual dislike for each other, not only on philosophical grounds, but also because of the Cardinal's repeated attempts to meddle in the affairs of Orange.

With the appointment of Brown, however, such meddling has become commonplace. Brown is very much a different kind of bishop from McFarland. He is very much more the politician, quite pleasant and charming socially, and reserved and diplomatic in his public statements. However, in nearly two years as Bishop of Orange, he has yet to demonstrate, either in his writing or preaching, any depth of understanding of the Catholic faith.

Later in the article, Mr. Nihill reported:

In yet another indication of his obsequious relationship with Cardinal Mahony, Bishop Brown closed the Diocese of Orange's 24-year-old newspaper, the Bulletin, and is replacing it with a publication of the Tidings Corporation, which produces the L.A. Archdiocese's weekly newspaper, The Tidings. Mahony ordered the move to improve The Tidings' sagging circulation, which has today fallen to around 30,000 from a one-time high of 150,000.

Due in part to its promotion of a liberal political agenda with ideas contrary to the Catholic faith, the publication has alienated many faithful priests and lay persons. Additionally, the watered-down Catholicism of the L.A. Archdiocese has made the faith irrelevant to the lives of many Catholics, who, therefore, have no interest in the Archdiocesan newspaper. Considering the enormous sums of money the Archdiocese has spent to keep its newspaper afloat, its continuing rejection by rank-and-file Catholics has vexed Mahony and The Tidings' abrasive editor, recently appointed the Archdiocese's Director of Communications, Tod Tamberg.

So, you see, Cardinal Mahony has no authority over Bishop Tod Brown, they are simply the best of friends, and cut from the same theological cloth.

As for Lesa Truxaw's directive to the ordained ministers (priests and deacons) of the Diocese of Orange, several things come to mind:

First, why is a lay woman the Orange diocese's director of worship? Wouldn't a priest be more appropriate for such a position? Apparently, such is not the case in Tod Brown's diocese.

As Mr. Nihill noted in his article:

Brown also shares the political correctness typically found among members of the mainstream media and college professors. For example, his first high profile diocesan appointment was that of Sister Katherine Gray--a Sister of St. Joseph of Orange, the diocese's largest religious community which is rife with liberalism and rapidly dying out--as chancellor, a role traditionally held by a priest (female chancellors are the "in thing" among liberal bishops).

Second, why does the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops need to meet in order to implement a directive from the Holy See rescinding the indult allowing lay persons to purify the sacred vessels after the distribution of Holy Communion? (For background details, see: Extraordinary ministers of Eucharist barred from purifying vessels)

National espiscopal conferences are not part of the intrinsic structure of the Church, but rather an added (and frequently unnecessary) layer of bureaucracy. (For the official position of the Church on national bishops' conferences, see: Apostolos Suos) Sometimes, it can be helpful to have all of the bishops in a given country work towards uniformity within that country, but in reality, each diocese answers directly to the Holy See (and its various offices) and needn't look to or follow the directives of any intermediary body.

To put things plainly, adopting a "wait and see what the U.S. bishops say" policy seems, at best, a ploy to stall for time and end run the clear and expressed wishes of the Holy Father on this matter. At worst, it would seem to imply that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (or at least some of its members) want to create the impression that they, and not the Holy See, are the final authority on liturgical matters in the United States.

This April 16, 1999, John Allen article on (then) Cardinal Ratzinger from the ultra-liberal, dissent friendly, National Catholic Reporter reveals the tension between national bishops' conferences and the Holy See: The Vatican’s enforcer

Others have spotted politics in the evolution of Ratzinger’s own theological positions. In 1965, for example, Ratzinger in a Concilium article called national episcopal conferences “the best means of concrete plurality in unity,” arguing that they’re rooted in the ancient church. As prefect, however, Ratzinger has insisted that episcopal conferences have no such status; a bishop can teach in his own diocese and all the bishops together can teach in a council, but there’s nothing in between. That was the thrust of the recent papal document Apostolos Suos.

Why the shift? NCR’s late Vatican affairs correspondent Peter Hebblethwaite suggested in 1986 that it’s an instance of Ratzinger using theology ideologically. It’s much easier to cow an individual bishop than a strong conference, so by reducing the power of conferences, Ratzinger boosts his own.

Finally, you may notice that Lesa Truxaw emphasizes that reception of Holy Communion "under both signs is a "more complete" sign of the sacrament's meaning." This is accurate, but misleading. Here is what Catholic News Service (the official news organ of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) reported about Cardinal Arinze's clarification in the letter rescinding the controversial, temporary indult allowing lay persons to purify the sacred vessels after the reception of Holy Communion:

Although receiving Communion under both kinds is a "more complete" sign of the sacrament's meaning, Cardinal Arinze said, "Christ is fully present under each of the species."

"Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace," he added.

Another "legitimate option" when "the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice" is intinction -- the practice of dipping the consecrated host into the consecrated wine -- "with reception on the tongue always and everywhere," the cardinal's letter said.

Not a few people have long viewed the movement to encourage the necessity of receiving Holy Communion under both species for the laity as an attempt to artificially multiply the "need" for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist in an effort to end run this 1997 directive from the Holy See:
On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest, which stated (in Article Eight):

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in un foreseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful".

Incidentally, the same document also said (at the end of Article One):

It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as "pastor", "chaplain", "coordinator", " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.

Be sure to check your parish bulletin to see how well that directive has been implemented. Perhaps we should ask Lesa Truxaw, the director of the Office of Worship, about that?

For more details on Bishop Tod Brown's leadership, be sure to check out the Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange, Vocations director under fire in California, and the archives of Roman Catholic Blog.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Bob]

Isn't Lesa Truxaw the red headed gal who processes with the priests and bishops at special Masses? She's the only woman who processes with the priest and wears the same alb that the other priests wear.

Maybe she's a wanna be priest.

[A Catholic]

From someone who has been to mass in the Diocese of Orange., I can assure you Rome lost Orange a long time ago. That Diocese is made up by a bunch of fruities.

[A Simple Sinner]

Is anyone sending this info to the Papal Nuncio in Washington?

If we all dropped him a line to let him know what is going on... send newspaper clippings, parish bulletins, whichever. It is this man's job to keep an eye on things and report back to Rome. Rather than preaching to the choir about Bp. Tod, the time has come to make our voices heard.

Archbishop Pietro Sambi
Embassy of the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See.
3339 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20008

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

As I have said before and repeatedly, do the Catholics of Orange County want to hire a canon lawyer and file a class-action suit charging Brown with epicopal misfeasance?

[Maximus]

Funny -- I don't recall the Diocese having to wait for a discussion by the USCCB when the Vatican said it was OK to have altar girls. They implemented that "recommendation" virtually overnight.

[DenverCatholic]

Given the bishops you have mentioned, I do know there is a lot of legitimate cause for concern. They have let you down in the past, and on the surface this appears to be more of the same.

HOWEVER...

I think you may be a bit overwrought with your reactions on this. There is good reason for the USCCB to act, but only after due deliberation. Our Denver Archbishop is holding off providing guidance to the parishes so far, and he is no heterodox liberal: Archbishop Chaput is a champion of Orthodoxy, and quite unafraid of reminding us forcefully when needed. So don't jump the gun on your criticism as you have seemed to do. This is NOT a simple issue as alter-servers are. This is the Body and Blood of our Lord, Savior and Maker. So I recommend that the Bishops do NOT rush things for once.

The reason for this is the "mega parish" (like we have several here in Denver) present some unique problems. Think about a parish with 2 priests 2 deacons and serves Mass to over 7000 every weekend 1000-1500 at a time in 7 masses (1 anticipatory on Saturday evening, 3 morning, 2 afternoon and 1 late afternoon). There are several like that - and we are all growing as well, with RCIA, teen ministry, etc.

The GIRM allows for deviation if there is a need for it in order to serve EVERYONE communion. Don't become so enamored of rules that you lose sight of why the rules are there: the need to make the Eucharist available for all - after all, that is THE reason for Mass.

Give the bishops the time the need to make proper rules for large parishes. Not everyone is in a tiny parish where you have barely 100 people receiving communion at Mass. Open your eyes, the tiny parishes no more representative of the Church at large than is the heterodox Bishops like Bishop Brown are. The USCCB needs to cover the entire range so that the Eucharist is not subject to abuse (and I have seen this at small and large parishes alike - especially with respect to proper purification!).

The good that will come of this, from what I have heard, will be that EMHC will be retrained and some may be made into Acolytes for parishes in need. And that will require extra commitment, training and so on - and there will need to be rules employed as well (which is why it may take them a while - consider that all acolytes MUST be *male*, that in itself will cause some hissyfits amongst the liberal and heterodox).

The end result is that EMHC will not be - and indeed should not be - treated as anything other than what they are: lay ministers to help the Priests during mass or in ministry to the sick and shut-in. And to emphasize that very point (e pluribus unum), all the decoration and "look at me" stuff will be stopped except perhaps a device to designate that they are an EMHC but nothing more (a small medallion or crucifix, either a pendant or a pin). No robes, no precessing, none of that! To any EMHC that asks for or allows that sort of thing: STOP IT! As an EMHC I welcome these changes if they come. From one EMHC to another: You are not a priest, you are not a Deacon, you are just another parishioner who has volunteered to serve. so *SERVE* by being one of the Body of Christ, don't set yourselves above others with costumes and decorations nor demand a special place at the Mass. Simply, humbly and reverently do your job in ensuring that the Eucharist is available to all, and that it is not mishandled nor disrespected.

If the rules come as I had heard them to be (above), then they will be well worth the wait, and will put a big screeching halt to a lot of the heterodox liberal practices that have crept into what should be a vital but humble ministry.

[TM Lutas]

One of the biggest challenges for us as faithful members of the Church is to continue to exhibit charity towards those who have disappointed us in the past. Bishop Brown's reaction may be disappointing but it certainly isn't defiance. At the moment it's just uninspiring and lacking in initiative.

[Joseph D'HIppolito]

uninspiring and lacking in initiative

The apt description of any burearcrat, secular or religious.

Both Lesa Truxaw and B. Brown are "on vacation " this week.
Planning a schism?

TM,
Are you on the bishop's payroll?

[TM Lutas]

Dear anonymous, occasionally I'm on a "bishop's payroll" (I put it in quotations because my work for the diocese has never been of such a nature that they've actually been able or willing to pay me) but never having been in California much less Orange Diocese in California, or even being part of the Roman Rite, I've never been on Bishop Brown's payroll.

I've seen snakes in collars roll people like you in the past and I don't like it so let me share with you my perception of how such things go.

Behind closed doors the snakes (who may or may not include Bishop Brown in their number, I can't tell from this distance) complain and whine "I'm being persecuted" with details to follow "I can't get any help", "those mean XYZ's attack me and never try to work with me to bridge differences", and other such rot. Hostile posts and comments like yours are used to excuse their inadequacies and let them get away with not doing the work they are charged to do.

I tend to adopt a different tack. I insist on fairness all around. I do my best to exercise charity, I ask for a plan on how to increase the number of Catholics and deepen our spiritual knowledge. I insist on compliance with the rules as laid down by higher authority while charitably assuming that any deviation is mere error. Once a conversation or two establishes that my meager skills at argument are insufficient to carry forward the message from on high, I ask for competent clerical assistance from the man's superior, whether it's the parish priest, the bishop, or higher (though I've never had to go higher, I've gotten close exactly once) to assist in correcting error. In these little missives, I admit that I may be the one in error and proclaim my openness to correction if that is the case.

At the conclusion of the (thankfully few) occasions when I have to use this method, the relevant supervisor is left with the unhappy knowledge that his trusted subordinate is telling him tales and his trust has been misplaced. I'm exhibit one of the reasonable layman who will work with, collaborate, and help establish a bigger, better, more authentic Catholicism and whines and cries of persecution from the snakes don't work that well anymore.

Act like a Catholic and your complaints will sound different and will provoke different responses from superiors. In general those responses, over the long-term, will be more to your liking. It's worth the effort.

I do not know who you are. You may be doing your own variant of this very method for all I know. In that case, forgive me for "telling grandma how to suck eggs". I just didn't see any evidence of it in your message and your intimation regarding my status via Bishop Brown was somewhat lacking in charity.

[Eileen]

Disappointed? Disappointed? TM, your initials must stand for "too much"! Everything that you mentioned above has taken place with this Bishop. The faithful in the Diocese of Orange are not disappointed, they are fed up with a Bishop who is clueless. His cluelessness is not from ignorance, it is from his years of open rebellion. Yes, we will show Bishop Brown charity as we ask him to please resign. He has disgraced the Church by sending out a memo suppporting homosexual domestic partnership. He tells the faithful to sacrifice their material spending, while he laps it up in luxury. Country club golfing, million dollar mansions for his assistant priests, who are like minded. Meanwhile he denies any decent order of nuns to come into the diocese to teach children. He moves the Tabernacles to back rooms. He supports the gay agenda. These are a little more than disappointing issues. You can smile and talk kind to the Bishop till the cows come home. He is one lost soul who is in charge of leading other souls. Bishop Brown told a couple who went to see him about a scandalous matter that he was not responsible for all of the souls in the the Diocese. That is a little more than disappointing, it is sickening.

[Central Valley Catholic]

Your article mentioned a connection between Brown and Mafoney. It would be interesting to examine that seminary class of 1967 and they damage they have done to the faithful in California. The cancer of that class spread north to several locations in the Fresno diocese.

Orange County is not the only place in California suffering from the likes of Brown and Mafoney.

A "Monsignor, a Prelate of Honor no less", recently told the RCIA class in his parish he supports women priests, another Monsignor in the Fresno diocese is renowned for his general absolutions and football game sermons, and with this guy you can rarely receive communion from him, since he allows all the women EM's to distribute communion while he sits in his chair. Not shocking, considering their classmates were Tod Brown and Roger Mafoney.

Eileen - Thanks for signing your name. Anonymous gets confusing after a time and I've no idea if you have any relationship to my prior correspondent. From the totality of my knowledge of Bishop Brown, he may very well need to be removed or resign for the good of the Church. What I have been saying here is that making any accusation that is not fully borne out by the facts is simply counterproductive to the cause of ensuring the best possible pastoral oversight for that diocese as fast as possible.

I'd swallow a lot to ensure proper education for my children and a good spiritual life for my family. In fact, I do. I'd even swallow being nice and cooperative to minimize disruption and get the maximum of what is possible with the current holder of the post until the Holy See finds somebody better. That does not mean that I would not act.

In order:
I would speak out against asking him to resign. As a substitute, I would demonstrate to his superior the damage being caused and ask him to find a solution, whether retraining, an auxiliary, or forced resignation, to fix the situation all the while gently and respectfully attempting to accomplish the retraining part from below. It is humiliating to the Bishop's superior to have his hand forced by the laity. Leave the boss a dignified way out.

Regarding homosexual domestic partnerships, I find the whole subject's debate to be scandalous because the *civil marriage* debate is conducted on both sides in a scandalously lax manner. Bishop Brown asserts that there are proper civil arrangements for sinful partnerships? I strongly doubt that he's the only guy in the debate that's thought this through properly but I'd engage him to explain why this civil support is proper for Catholics.

As for a bishop who laps it up in luxury while asking for heavy sacrifice, I would simply give somewhere else and report to his superior why. Call it the "missed priorities fund" and ask my fellow diocese members to fund it to the extent that it can replace the misallocated funds diverted to personal luxury.

Deny an order of nuns permission to teach in the diocese? That's fine if there is a surplus of teachers but if children are being inadequately catechized because we don't have enough teachers, the bishop needs to pastorally explain why that situation is preferable. Failure to explain should lead to requests up the line because of the bishop's failure to educate why his decision was correct. He has the right and the duty to exclude those who are improper but there's usually no reason to keep things secret to the scandal of the faithful.

If Bishop Brown is in rebellion to higher authority on the question of Tabernacles, each priest needs to be challenged on how they are to be rebellious, because they are put in the sad situation of being forced to be rebellious to either their bishop or the bishop's supervising authority.

Supporting the gay agenda sounds awful but is too vague to be commented on.

As for the Bishop saying that he is not responsible for all of the souls in the Diocese, I would, as I said before, write down that phrase in a letter for the Bishop giving him a chance to retract it and bcc: to his superior, ie not let him know that a copy was already in the hands of his boss. Periodically, I would reiterate my letter, with bcc: until I got a response, whether from the bishop or his boss.

In other words, we would be allies on probably every agenda item you raised. I think that my method would yield faster, better results. How's yours working out?

[Donald]

TM:

Actually, our method is working out pretty well, considering we have reached hundreds of thousands with newspaper articles, a circulation of "Restore the Sacred" weekly bulletins that are being disseminated around the world, radio shows...we feel that education of a fed up flock is key...we are not attacking...however, TM, you sound like every business consultant...great on the ideas, but poor on the application and implementation...if you are serious about your "method", and you truly do agree, take up the challenge, don't talk about it!

Also, you commented that the "homosexual agenda endorsement of the Bishop" is too vague to address...well, a letter of endorsement of homosexual domestic partnership by a Bishop of the Catholic Church is beyond, as they say, "reasonable doubt"...

[Eileen]

Thank you for responding T.M. I have encountered Catholics who sound very similar to you. They seem to have one common denominator. Sometimes they are disappointed in themselves for not having courage so they assuage their conscience by picking apart those that do. They may not even realize it. It is not an attractive behavior. They talk nice and deliver statements that seem reasonable. The problem is they are uninformed about many details and facts. I would place you and your well intended, ( with a little T.M. "too much" bragging )comments in the class of Frank Sinatra's song, "I Did It My Way"! The facts are evident to the Catholics in the Diocese of Orange that we have a very bad Bishop. I have yet to meet one person who has cared enough to put their words into actions, ascribe to the T.M. Lutas method of "let me tell you how I would do it". These are humble, God fearing, and generous in spirit Catholics. They are not competing for ego awards. The St. Joseph Foundation, who gives seminars on teaching faithful Catholics on how to defend the faith, said these words. "Rome Knows How Bad It Is....They are waiting for the laity to rise up and defend the Truths of our Church! Your words are nice T. M. but when it comes down to comparing how you would handle things, you would be no different, if you walked in the shoes of the faithful that are fed up. You would probably not be able to contain your fury, if you were totally aware of the level of corruption. You mentioned having children. I wonder if you would be able to handle the devastation that parents have been asked to absorb, through the likes of this corrupt clergy. I wonder if you would be as kind and patient as these Catholics have remained. Your attitude reflects that you might not be able to. I pray that you won't be put to the test because you will have to remember your "Know It All" comments with the cavalier attitude toward Catholics who have first hand witness and experience with a corrupt clergy who has and continues to defy Rome, harm and scandalize children, lead the faithful into error...and the list goes on. Alright T.M., if talking a good game makes you feel like you are accomplishing something with comments such as, "How is your method working so far?" I know by that statement that you have a long way to go. When you arrive there, forgive yourself for your previous smugness. I already have.

[DenverCatholic]

"you can rarely receive communion from him, since he allows all the women EM's to distribute communion while he sits in his chair."

For SHAME! Even our "substitute" priest here, an 78 year old long-retired Capuchin brother stands and gives communion to more than a hundred of the thousand-plus we have at any of the 7 given Sundya Masses. He may need to lean on his cane, and have one of the alter servers hold the paten for him, but he gives the Host with a smile - and a joy thats is inspiring!

And you claim that the Monignor cannot be bothered to serve and instead lets the EMHC do *ALL* the distribution?

This is ASTOUNDING behavior! He is the Celebrant and should not slough off his duties on others! I cannot imagine a priest giving Mass and Celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist and then not distributing communion as part of that. Its his HIGHEST duty and service as a Man of God.

Is the Church that bad out there? If so, it is dying! I'll pray for you and for you to have an Orthodox Bishop soon that will stop such abuse of the Mass andof the Eucharist.

Has that priest no shame?

Amazing, and not in a good way...

[DenverCatholic]

The more I read, the more thankful I am to have such a good shepherd as our Archbishop Chaput and our former Auxilliary Bishop Gomez who is now Archbishop of San Antonio, and Father Nickless who is now Bishop of Sioux City Iowa.

I pray that one day you may get such a strong, unafraid Orthodox leader. God knows the Church out there sounds like it could use one.

[carolg]

Eileen,

The tone of your whole post is so bitter. TM Lutas seems to just have a different balance between the virtues of prudence and courage. I think it's a mistake to assume that just because someone disagrees with your approach that they lack courage.

[Beeline]

This is a RadTrad site. Group think is pretty high here and those that disagree with the group are personally henpecked,disparaged, and criticized.

TM Lutas because you have a different opinion or way of dealing with something this allows will allow these people to say that you dont understand the problem or that you lack a certain crucible of character.

These people are very offensive and this is posited purposely ambigiously.

Been there done that!

[Donald]

CarolG and Beeline:

While I don't know Eileen, I sense her frustration as being that she has futily supported many of the "charitable" tactics aspired by TM and, as an insider, she knows a level of "lavender" corruption that exists in the hierarchy of the Archdiocese and diocese of Orange that most of the laity, that have not taken up the challenge, don't know...actually, they would be appalled if they did know what is contrary to what is being espoused from the pulpit as "a need for charity"...I know from our little parish, acts of reconciliation and restoration of liturgical traditions have not only been received with a deaf ear, they have been twisted to a "our way or the highway" mentality from our parish administrator.

Good will come from the fine efforts of those who are speaking up on behalf of many...in our parish, the laity is being educated and numbers growing to support...again, not knowing Eileen, and not making excuses for her comments, it appears she'd like TM and you, CarolG and Beeline, to support the efforts rather than being critical from the sidelines...I, personally, welcome opposing viewpoints, as long as they don't attack with sentiments of RADTRAD, etc. It is just a differing voice.

Let's all remember to pray for the conversion of heart of our priests and bishops, to lead with the same charities they preach.

[carolg]

I've never heard the term Rad Trad but I'll just assume that Rad is not being used with the same meaning it had back in the 80's.

I do want to clarify; I don't mean to just be critical from the sidelines. The only thing I wished to convey is that many people differ on how to approach people who use their authority poorly and in this case, where it becomes clear they don't care what others do about their poor use of authority. You said it well Donald - it is just a differing voice.

Bishop Brown is dissapointing (I don't mean to annoy Eileen with that word again, but he is). I don't like the decisions he makes. He personally denied me a Latin Mass for my wedding and that made me very sad but he has the authority to do so. He will also answer to God for how he used his authority and the money entruusted to him.

In the meantime, he can not stop me from being a good Catholic, doing devotions or teaching the faith to my children.

I don't doubt that people who have tried to restore tradition in parishes have tried friendly tactics that did not work. Bishop Brown does not like tradition and I doubt anything, save death or forced retirement, will work. But for me, I can't let him affect me and my path to holiness.

People can disagree with me and it doesn't bother me and I would like to share my own differing viewpoint without being attacked so I always try to do the same. I guess the reason why I don't sound supportive of the tactics used against Brown sometimes is because I think it's misplaced energy and emotion. But that's just my differing voice.

Donald is right - we should all pray for the conversion of heart of our priests and bishops!

[TM Lutas]

Donald - I'm not sure what your method is, nor your goals. You certainly have no knowledge of the problems facing the diocese that I belong to unless you've done some Google research and you very likely have no idea what I am doing about them because I usually don't write much about my actions for the Church. I'm in an entirely different rite so, to a certain extent, I *should* be on the sidelines. But methods can be shared, even across rites. That's what I was aiming for.

Regarding homosexual domestic partnerships, my first reaction is that such sinful relationships should not be recognized in the civil law. But I'm mature enough to realize that my first reaction may not be correct and so when a high cleric speaks out in favor of a particular law, I'd be inclined to listen to details. I might still, in fact I have, ended up in opposition to clerics after explanation but I don't arrogate any sort of magesterium light powers to my own opinions.

Later on, in response to carolg and beeline you suppose that Eileen has tried my methods in the past. I also do not know Eileen but had I a bishop like the Todd Brown I'm reading about, Rome would be a regular correspondant of mine and I would plan my vacations for Italy in order to hand carry petitions. Yet I would still offer a road to reconciliation and orthodoxy with every request for higher intervention. I would force the cleric whose practices I oppose to be the one to reject reconciliation, reject authority. Were Eileen doing that, I do not think she would have reacted so negatively to what I wrote.

Concretely, I'm not quite sure how I would offer support. As I said earlier, I'm in a different parish, diocese, and rite. I will keep the laity of the Diocese of Orange in my prayers. That is all that I can think of to do.

Eileen - I won't deny your personal experience but, frankly, you don't know me or my life story. My perception is that, in effect, you are calling me a coward from a position of abject ignorance of my life and my actions. This does not give me a high opinion of how you go about things.

I put my words into action. It is just that I put them into action in my own rite, in my own diocese, and in my own parish. I started off by saying that I've seen how poor clerics escape responsibility for their own failings by putting the blame on laity, individually and by group and I don't like it. Where I have the power to intervene, I do and have been successful in the past.

The poor laity in Orange have a much tougher row to hoe than I have because my bishop's fundamentally sound. You say that "Rome Knows How Bad It Is....They are waiting for the laity to rise up and defend the Truths of our Church!" Well I rise up on a fairly regular basis, thank you very much. That I do so in a manner that minimizes scandal and a division of the community. This seems to irk you. So be it.

For my part, I accept that sometimes the harder, more confrontational road is ultimately necessary. My intervention in this thread is to point out that one can take action that is less divisive and still be effective, sometimes more effective.

You suggest that I would not be able to control my fury were I to confront abuse and corruption as the Orange Diocese faithful do. I have been told by a roman rite catholic priest to not bring my young children to communion as that priest was not going to recognize their chrismation (you'd call it confirmation). I've been called a "fake catholic", "sorta catholic", "not a real catholic" and any number of other slurs. Do not tell me about my own self-control, assuming that I have not been tested. Again, you do not know me and what I have gone through as I do not know you except for what you share on this forum.

carolg - Thank you for your kind words. I do not perceive the disagreement I'm having with others as a different balance of prudence and courage. Instead I see it as a difference of opinion in how to "love your enemies". I have my own radical moments but they manifest differently. At the extreme, it is a difference in *how* one formulates a demand for the removal of a cleric, not whether such a demand should ever be made. I believe that one should always hold open the door for a "road to Tarsus" moment and express willingness to welcome the "prodigal" cleric home with open arms were he to reform.

Beeline - I'm not sure that this site is RadTrad. But what if it were? No soul should be written off. The liberal loonies no less than the Radest of RadTrads deserve the same love and chance to reform of their errors as any other sinner.

[Donald]

TM:

Well articulated...I will pray for your family in the continuance of the True faith!

[The Emerson Avenger]

Happy All Souls' Day from The Emerson Avenger.