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?
Recent Comments