Anointing of the Sick

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1JACK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1JACK

Guest
I recently attended a student Mass at a Jesuit college where the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was celebrated during the Mass. At first, I was pleased and eager to see this Sacrament introduced to the congregation. But I became disturbed when anyone with any physical or psychological suffering was invited up to receive the Sacrament. No emphasis was given to what I understood the Catechism to teach, namely that the Sacrament is properly meant for those facing serious, life-threatening illness and that it is as much a grace for the soul preparing for death as it is a grace and call for healing. About half of the college congregation went up to receive the sacrament.

I decided to write the presiding priest about my concerns and received a thoughtful and polite reply. But I am confused by it. Did I miss the boat on the reality of this Sacrament, wrongly question this presiding priest, and owe him an apology? Or is the letter, with its sweeping references to other sources than the Catechism, nonetheless incorrect? I have included both letters below and would appreciate your thoughts.

As an aside, and taking the reply letter at face value, I am heartened by its thoughtful and polite tone. I was nervous about how my letter would be received, so it is good to know that a polite expression of concerns will be well-received.

JACK
 
My letter:

"Dear Father [X]:

On occasion, when I have been out of town for business or otherwise unable to attend a Sunday morning Mass, I have joined the students at [X University] University in their 10 P.M. celebration of the liturgy. Having experienced the large conversion of my life during college, I have always found it a special blessing to be in the presence of college students who, to varying degrees, are seeking the Lord. I have always found [X University]‘s students’ demonstration of faith inspiring and have had the opportunity to attend several Masses where you have been the celebrant, finding you to be a thoughtful homilist and one who clearly cares for the spiritual growth of [X University]'s students.

So it is with some degree of sadness that I must write that I was shocked at how the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was observed at Mass tonight. I can only assume that the intentions were noble and good. But I do not understand why you would give the assembled students such a broad and misleading definition of the Sacrament. Unlike your instructions this evening, the Church has long reserved the Sacrament for those who are suffering from grave illness (CCC, 1514). Although the hope of recovery of health is always there (CCC, 1512), the Sacrament is ultimately a means of grace for the recipient to prepare one’s soul for death (CCC, 1523).

Clearly, your students did not understand this, for it is highly doubtful that half your congregation of 18 to 21 year olds are facing life-threatening diseases. In fact, this led to so many receiving the Sacrament that, it appears, a non-priest put on a stole and started administering the Sacrament, even though only bishops and priests are permitted ministers of the Anointing of the Sick (CCC, 1516).

Again, I don’t doubt that the intentions were good. And I am certain the Lord will work in people’s lives through tonight’s activities, despite the errors. But given the apparent eagerness of the students to be instructed in the Catholic faith, I am at a loss to understand why it was not decided to teach them the faith as it really is, instead of how some might want it to be or think it must be changed for young people to accept it. I am sure it may have been more awkward to have only the handful of students who are in fact facing serious illnesses come forward, but I think it was a lost opportunity. Imagine how a congregation, instructed in the true nature of the Sacrament, might have been moved to help out and show Christian love to their brothers and sisters in such trying times. Instead, that need was left hidden, by all those who came forward because of your all-encompassing redefinition of the Sacrament.

With Best Regards,"
 
His reply:

"Thank you for your letter expressing your concerns about the Sacrament of the Anointing celebrated at the 10 pm Mass at [X University] on [date]. Like you, I too find much consolation in celebrating each Sunday with [X University] students at this Mass. They are often edifying in both their prayer and in their sense of community.

I appreciate your kindness in assuming that the intentions for administration of the Sacrament of the Anointing were “noble and good.” Indeed, that is the case. You should know further that there was much though about how to celebrate this sacrament in the context of a university community, and that every effort to stand within the Catholic tradition was discussed.

In terms of what I view your most important query, rest assured that only priests conferred the sacrament. Fr. [Y], a Jesuit priest, was in the congregation and came up to assist us that night.

In terms of the interpretation of the sacrament as being too broad, I note you quote in your letter from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, giving the most succinct teaching. Aware of these norms, the Church offers more nuanced theological language from Paul VI’s Cum nostra aetate (1966) and more practical language from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the USA in Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and Viaticum (1983). Contemporary theologians also have contributed ways to interpret the sacrament in the context of its historical development as well as the document of Vatican Council II. The Bishop’s decree, for example, often discusses those undergoing “physical and spiritual” suffering to understand who may receive the Anointing. They speak of both “those who are seriously ill” and “those who are sick.” I do not read this as two distinct categories but as a continuum in which the grace of the sacrament is offered. Finally, the documents talk about different ways and forms of the celebration. The Rites of the Catholic Church, volume 1 (1990) list distinct liturgical contexts for the sacrament: a visit to the sick, to a sick child, in a hospital, before surgery, outside the Mass, within the Mass, etc. It then follows with an entire section for “Pastoral Care of the Dying,” which includes viaticum.

As presider of this liturgy I crated the instruction and invitation for the sacrament. I admit that it was the broadest pastoral interpretation given the context of the university community. If I err, it is in two places: I allow psychological suffering (students with clinical depression, for example) to be considered a form of spiritual and often physical suffering; I did not place emphasis on the “life-threatening diseases,” as you say. It was not celebrated Sunday night to detract from or replace the traditional formulation of those suffering grave illness. Indeed, if and when a student requests the sacrament in such grave conditions, it is our hope that the community can celebrate the sacrament for this particular person in the longer rite.

Finally, I must say that, though I think I was pastorally within the sacramental tradition and resonating with the more descriptive (rather than prescriptive) theological texts, the [X University] Ministry staff will evaluate it, for it was the first time it was celebrated in this manner. I am duly forwarding your letter to the Campus Ministry director.

Again, thank you for your concerns, and the kindly manner in which they are written. I hope the above offers some consolation.

All good things,"
 
wow what a great example of how to proceed with a question or complaint about liturgy, and how to respond to a question. This is how it should be. we have investigating instituting healing services and sacrament of anointing monthly in our parish, but were told it was not supposed to be done during Mass, but after. Guess I need some more info, gratefully accept anything you have to offer.
 
This Sacrament is a neglected Sacrament. I believe that it should be exposed to the light so to speak now and then. Proper catechesis about the Sacrament is also necessary. It might have been better to have the Anointing of the Sick after the Mass with a short presentation and discussion after. It is sometimes abused in parishes when used in “healiing Masses” to attempt to draw attention. Someone commented to me that this Sacrament was always only celebrated when a person was near death. I found the “Sick Call Crucifix” from my parents house and in it was a little printed sheet explaining the Sacrament. It mentions that this Sacrament is not only for those near death but also for those who are aged or suffereing chronic illness both mental and physical. It also mentions that the Sacrament can be repeated as needed through out the illness and that one should never wait until death is near to call the priest. This was printed in 1945!
 
In our parish I have arranged for a priest to visit each of the homebound, who are obviously sick or aged or both, every four months to give them the opportunity for Confession, Communion and the anointing of the sick. We have been doing this for about ten years.
 
Yes, a neglected Sacrament, indeed. Very good question, though. It is my experience that people in any profession who are asked a question in a humane manner (i.e., not attacking), are usually received as genuinely interested people and therefore receive such responses.

The priest was totally within his bounds to celebrate the Sacrament as he did. It certainly may be celebrated during Mass, and the ritual for it is right in the book used to administer the Sacrament. Likewise, I would (and do) administer the Sacrament, regardless of age, to those who are stuggling with addictions of any kind, mental illness of any kind, etc. I choose not to differentiate between mental illness and physical illness. I don’t choose to be paranoid schizophrenic or clinically depressed any more or less than I choose to get the flu or cancer.

However, he’s also clear that the whole thing is going to be evaluated, which I would see as a very sound idea. After all, this ceremony was outside the norm of what people typically associate with Anointing of the Sick. If I were in that position, I would do the same, and solicit as much feedback from those in attendance as possible, to assess whether or not I was clear, and that their understanding of the Sacrament was clear.

Because there is such a proliferation of healing Masses and anointings that are sacramentals, rather than the Sacrament, it can be confusing to some as to what is what. When I do anointings as a sacramentAL and not the Sacrament, I use St. Joseph’s Oil (From Saint Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal. I can hardly keep the parish stocked with enough of it. Big devotion to St. Joseph and to Brother Andre here, fortuantely). I am also VERY VERY clear as to the difference between a Sacrament and a sacramentAL. My thought is that if the students in University, we can assume that they have either come from active Catholic backgrounds, wherein they may have experienced healing Masses and services that utilized sacramentAL anointings. Or they are students who are discovering their faith here and now and dont’ know one from the other. So very good to have experimented, no harm done, but also good to get feedback to see how it was actually understood by those present.

Just my 50 cents. :-))

– Fr. L.
 
I appreciate the responses so far, but I have to admit that they only leave me further confused. Fr. JLT, since you most directly addressed my questions, may I pose a few more for you?

I understood previously that the Sacrament could be celebrated within the confines of a Mass. It has been my understanding that the Church actually encourages communal celebrations of the Sacrament. So nothing about that surprised me and, rather, I found that quite encouraging. I understood previously that the sacrament was broader than just “last rites”. And to be clear, this event was a celebration of the Sacrament of Anointing not a healing Mass or a sacramental anointing.

It is the broad application of who is eligible to receive the Sacrament that I find confusing. If it’s true, it’s true, but I can’t find anything that suggests such broad interpretations are appropriate. I’m also trying to keep in mind the context. This is a congregation comprised nearly entirely of 17-22 year-olds. This is not a group that faces in any significant number serious illnesses, certainly not physical ones and I would say the same for psychological ones. Probably 150-200 students received the Sacrament that night.

The priest seems to be very thoughtful and that the celebration is being evaluated is sufficient consolation in my mind. Frankly, I’m only investigating this further because I want to know if I possibly owe this priest an apology. My letter was polite, but slightly accusatory. If I was wrong, I intend to correct it.

So I looked up the Bishops’ letter (Pastoral Care for the Sick). And I can’t say I see where it suggests that individuals other than those facing serious illness should receive the Sacrament. One need not be scrupulous in determining whether someone fits that definition, but I see nothing in there to suggest that any sickness, any psychological suffering, any addiction, qualifies one to receive the Sacrament. And it does suggest that one needs to make a prudent or reasonably sure judgment about the seriousness of the illness. I can’t say that happened. The interpretations of the letter I’ve been able to find, don’t broaden the viewpoint. Take the Archdiocese of Boston. Although it recognizes that those suffering from serious psychological illnesses may receive the Sacrament, it doesn’t appear to read that term very broadly. For example, it draws some careful distinctions on when alcoholism may be seen as appropriate to be treated with the Sacrament and when it would be best via the sacrament of penance and the Eucharist (rcab.org/OfficeForWorship/sick.html).

So I would be curious, Fr., if there is something else that bolsters your statement that this priest was “totally within his bounds to celebrate the Sacrament as he did.” I haven’t been able to find it. As far as I can see, the approach taken essentially made the error referred to by the Archdiocese of Boston: “With goodwill but misplaced inclusiveness, some parishes have even encouraged all who wish to receive anointing to do so. The nature of the sacrament in the life of the faithful is not honored by such an invitation. The sacrament is celebrated authentically only in the face of serious illness.”

I intend to write Fr. back and thank him for his thoughtful reply,his clarification about the man who came up to assist, and that I am glad the school is going to evaluate the event and see where it may better celebrate the Sacrament in the future. Based on what I have read, though, I don’t see where I owe him any further apology. But based on what I read here, I get the opposite impression – that I was off-base in my comments that it was improper to celebrate the Sacrament as he did.

Help?
 
Hello, 1Jack!

For starters, I don’t think either of you are off base. How’s that for noncommittal? hahahaha Becauase both of you are speaking from a perspective of Pastoral Application, as I read both of you, this isn’t a matter of “right and wrong” in the sense of “good and evil, vice and virtue” etc.

At the same time, I have to interject something slightly personal here. I spent 4 years in the Boston Diocese and was not at all impressed with the directives given to priests there. They varied so much, they were indecipherable. Mind you also that the bishop under which these directions have been approved is a felon who is being protected by the Vatican who cannot be asked to extradite him back here for a criminal trial for felonious behavior. I don’t put much stock into what officials from Boston say. But that aside . . .

What has been issued by Boston and many other Dioceses, are guidelines for the pastoral application of the Sacraments. THat must be remembered. These pastoral guidelaines can and will vary from diocese to diocese, well within the rights of the local ordinaries to do so. (Whether or not everyone agrees with such variations being within the powers of a local ordinary is a different subject and not applicable here since, truth is, they are allowed to do so).

As for myself and many others whom I know, we would base our pastoral application on a few things. One matter wold be that since psychological matters are allowed into Tribunal Studies investigating the validity of a marriage and may actually be the basis upon wchich a marriage id decreed null and vooid, it is obviously understood to be an inhibition of some kind. Another matter is to be consistent with the Church’s understand of when one “reasonably requests the Sacraments.” We priests cannot and, in fact, must not play some sort of triage with teh Anointing. I cannot and will not look upon someone and judge them to be “not quite sick enough” to receive the Sacrament. Another reason is that Roman Law does not prohibit the Sacrament in the case of psychological/mental problems and illnesses.

Remember, the directives from the USCCB (I believe they are the source) also say that anyone over the age of 65 may receive the Sacrament regularly, every few months, just because they are over 65. I would argue that point much more than anointing people with psychological and mental problems.

Likewise, I would caution you about judging the health of the congregation present. I worked and contiunue to work with High School and College Age students on a regular basis, and counsel them as well. The mental and psychological wounds and illnesses I encounter with them constantly are much deeper and much more destructive than a physical ilnness can ever be.

But again, we are talking about the pastoral application. There are normally not decrees issued on pastoral applications. That is left up to the conscience of the priest, and local directives. And again, the directives are not laws. Even the directoives from Boston do not say that the Sacrament may NOT be administered to addicts. They cannot say that, because the Church does not say that.

Again, I would simply say that you were well within your bounds. It shows a lot of good things, first and foremost, your desire for a full understanding of the Sacrament and the fact that you care about it! That’s something very lacking . . . people who even give a rat’s eyeball. And Father was within his pastoral bounds as well on paper. Now, a good review of how those present understood it will be very telling, to see if it was a genuine understanding and those who approached it were in true need, or if it was a licentious reception, such as with general absolution or row-by-row Holy COmmunion. (Dont’ even get me started onthat one. :-))

Keep up your respectful inquiry. And thanks for giving a derned. We need more people like you.

– Fr. L.
 
Hi, me again, looking for instruction, my perspective comes from parish work, but also working with hospital “chaplains” who are not priests (not my term, but what they are called locally even when not priests) and the difficulties they encounter trying to get priests to visit the hospitals and nursing homes and prisons for anointing of the sick. This is Texas and although executions are not done down here, prison ministers would like the condemned to receive anointing before they are shipped north.

This has to be one of the most misunderstood and underutilized sacraments. Our bishop has discouraged to the point of forbidding faithful to anoint with blessed oil and practice laying on of hands during prayer meetings or any other settings, so we have all dutifully given it up. He is concerned in this case, as with other situations like making confirmation candidates wear stoles, with blurring the distinctions between the ordained priesthood and the laity. He also takes a dim view of healing Masses, which has become a big deal at several parishes including a national shrine here. I guess because of all the hype and the possibility of losing the respect for and understanding of the Eucharist he discourages communal anointing services during Mass. He wishes there to be catechesis on the sacrament in all parishes, which I am helping to prepare for, but also to insure that the faithful understand it is only the priest who can anoint because only he has the power to forgive (remit, absolve) sins.
 
Hmmm . . . that is a discouraging situation, but I understand it. Of course, when a pastor does something in his particular parish, or when a bishop does something in his particualr diocese, we have to hope and presume that this notion that somuch rests on the judgement of the local Ordinary is being used in a way that is in response to a particular problem within his own diocese or parish. I am hoping this is the case in your diocese and not just a case of being over zealous. After all, if we ban something just because there is the POTENTIAL for abuse or misunderstanding, then about the only thing we are left with is locking ourselves in our basements, no? 🙂

I am well-aquainted with the campus and hospital ministers who are not Priests. Fortunatley, most I have encountered have been extrmely dedicated and respectful lay people. My problem is when they non-Catholic chaplains and so-called clergy do things with Catholics that cause more confusion than anything. “Don’t worry, Father. Reverend Sally-Mae gave the last rites. It was soooooooo beautiful.” I am sure you know what I mean.

In the end, thank God for the genuinely dedicated layfolk who do what they do so well, the local “mother Theresa’s” of sots. So that none of our brothers and sisters is allowed to die alone without the prayer of a fellow believer.

Fact is, there just aren’t enough of us to go around. (Hence, the need for a more regular use of communal Anointing services/Masses, etc). For instance, the local hospital is in my parish and I am responsible for the Emergency room. Now that’s a lace where I obviously can’t go ahead at a convenient time and anoint everyone. (Unless I anointed everyone in the waiting room! HAHAHA). THis morning was a case in point. I left the house at 8:30, celebrated the 9:00 Mass, shot over to CCD for about 2 minutes, ran back to church for 10:30 confessions and 11:00 Mass, after which we had a short meeting with the 40+ youth who participated in this weekend’s youth retreat. When I finally got back to the house, about 12:30, ish, and checked messages, there was the angry message from one of the hospital staff, screaming for me to get there straight-away. That was followed by the same voice again, about 10 minutes later. After that, was message number 3 that said quite specifically, “, what does it take to get a priest on a Sunday morning???” The woman sounded possessed. Well, the chances of getting apriest on a Sunday morning are about nill. Gee, I wonder why that would be? 🙂

Here’s one for you, which you’ve probably hears. We each tell the story as if it happened to us personally, so believe me (rollking eyes), this happened to me, REALLY! 🙂

A priest runs up to the hospital to give the Last Rites to a dying patient. At the bedside is one of these Chaplains, in this case, a liberal “priest-wannabe” nun. Father does the anointing and the prayers and is on his way out when Sister says to him, “Hmph. I could have done that if I had a penis!” Father responds . …
“That’s odd, Sister. I usually use my thumb.”

Classic. :-))

– Fr. L.
 
and here I was thinking you had no sense of humor. the “chaplains” I know and prison ministers are wonderful dedicated people. My pastor also has several diocesan responsibilities that 30 years ago would probably have been done by at least 3 priests. We have 5 weekend Masses, one in Spanish, and have grown exponentially as a parish (building fund campaign begins in January, oh, joy)

He has never taken a day off in the 3 years I have been here, nobody remembers him taking vacation except for his heart attack recovery period a few years ago. He is probably the best theologian in the diocese, maybe in the state, should be teaching in a university or seminary somewhere. Every priest here has at least one diocesan assignment, it is not about career points it is about necessity. We have a very fine priest from Africa, who is a hospital chaplain on the go at least 16 hours a day, who helps with weekend Masses. Pray his visa situation is approved.

There are currently at least 3 parishes without priests, and most parishes have at least one mission in the colonias. It is still not as bad as NE Ohio, where I come from, where priests routinely serve 2-3 parishes spending up to 8 hours on the road each weekend, and parishes are closing right and left.

I yield to no one in admiration for and prayer for our priests. The notion of “retired priest” is unknown here, unless they are totally debilitated by health reasons they all put in full work weeks. This includes those who come from up north to retire, all are glad to do what they can. For the Eucharistic Year we are instituting regular holy hours to pray for vocations, an intention we pray for at each Mass already. We invite the Serra club and seminarians each year to speak to our young men and we have two in formation now, please pray for them. Our diocese recently started a seminary, 26 young men in various stages, most from Mexico or Latin America, only one from US.
 
Thanks, Fr., for your reply. I think it confirms for me that I have no need to apologize in the follow-up letter I described above. I agree with you also that it is a good thing that they plan to evaluate how the night went and how people perceived it.

I don’t discount the difficulties priests have in pastorally applying the Sacraments. I do wonder, however, whether “pastoral application” is used to hide bigger issues sometimes. I agree with you entirely that “priests cannot and, in fact, must not play some sort of triage with the Anointing,” or “look upon someone and judge them to be “not quite sick enough” to receive the Sacrament.” But I imagine that assumes a few things, namely, it is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know the true nature of the Sacrament and are seeking it appropriately where there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. A wholly appropriate pastoral assumption in my view. But that’s not what we have here, as this was a situation where the priest introduced the celebration of the Sacrament, instructed the faithful that basically anyone with any psychological or physical suffering may receive it, and then so many did. I wasn’t finding any fault with the students coming up to receive it, or that the priests then provided them the sacrament, but in what led up to that. Now, I can see some of your reasons for why you would make the broader instruction and I’m certainly not suggesting a great sacrilege was done. But if you take what happened as a read of how many college students on that campus are suffering from serious psychological and physical illnesses, you would have to assume (if the congregation is a representative sample) that some 35-40% of the campus is so afflicted. Now, I bet I’m closer to my college days than most on this board, and although I don’t discount that young people suffer mental/psychological illnesses, that type of percentage would jump out to me as a red flag, unless “serious” also is just a guideline and not a requirement. But then I’m confused as to why we bother to have guidelines. Not entirely analogous, but I have known a number of priests over the years who will readily admit that most people receiving communion on most Sundays shouldn’t be, but say that “pastorally” they can’t judge people at the communion rail. True, but they don’t bother to instruct the faithful on proper reception of communion either. All that be as it may, I don’t envy the difficulty pastors have and can see where there is room for some genuine disagreements about what is a prudent application.

As for your compliments, many thanks. Ironcially, you can give credit to the Archdiocese of Boston, where I lived during my law school days.
 
Greetings again! Me, no humor??? I used to get a LOT of invitation for all the local civic events. Then I reealized, and was told, it was because of my “stand up comedy routine.” Once I realized that, I curbed it. I only do the Police and Firemen’s Balls each year (I know, that didnt’ sound very good) because I am the chaplain. They have even added me to the program, following the chirfs, as the Stand-Up. Of course, at the beginning and the conclusion of the program, I do very serious prayers without any of that stuff. There is a time to be serious, and a time to laugh. Today, I got in trouble (tongue in cheek) with half the parish. I told them, “And you thought the red votive candles were for the Sacred Heart and the blue ones were for Our Lady? WRONG! The red ones are for the Sox and the blue ones are for the Yankees. Notice there are more red ones burning today . . . becauye we already know the Blessed Mother is a Yankees fan.” And of course, we know that’s true. We dont’ need infallible dogmas for what the Sensus Fidelium already know. 🙂

All I can say about your pastor, holy and dedicated as I’m sure he is, his heart attack is the tell-tale sign that he needs to take better care of himself, for your sake.

YOur diocese is in a LOT better shape than ours, that’s for sure. Of course, I live in New England, where a church was built on every corner, thinking htat the very short-lived glut of vocations was the norm, which it never was and probably never will be again. So we have just too many properties. But currently, more than 1/3 of our parishes are yoked, meaning there is only one priest for two or more parishes. Many many more than that are slated to be granted Mission Status soon. Us younger priests joke that as soon as the “glut generation” of priests retires or dies (within about 5 years, tops), we will not be asking each other, “So how are things in your parish?” rather, “How are things in your COUNTY!” HAHAHA But the Lord provides, maybe not what we WANT but what we NEED. Just about 100 years ago, really not that long, New England had only a few priests (dingle digits) riding on horseback through this vast and dangerous territory. During that time, the Church did not decline at all. Rather, it grew and grew and grew. Maybe less IS better sometimes; it may make us pay attention more carefully to the essentials again.

– Fr. L.

– Fr. L.
 
Hello again, kind sir!
Thanks to your response to my response to your response to my response to your original posting. 🙂

Let me do some confessing/explaining, so you know where I am “coming from” when I answer someone’s question. First, I am no god, that’s for sure, If I remembered 1/10th of what I learned, I might be somebody. 🙂 But most importantly, when I give an answer, it’s a “by the book” answer and presumes and gives the benefit of the doubt to orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

That being said, Oh My Gosh! Don’t we know how certain things that are in teh “gray area” can be twisted to mean just about anything? “The Spirit of Vatican II” tells me that the one-breasted nun juggling in the sanctuary is a sacred expression." “It was my pastoral judgement that I marry those two Satanic Homosexuals in the Church because I didn’t want to risk alienating their good Catholic families.” You know, and I know it. But that’s not the attitude I read in anyone unless they specifically teach unorthodoxy.

The response you received from the Priest was a very good indication of his intentions and desires, which appear to be nothing but sincere and holy, in a genuine sense. By that, I mean not veiling the unholy with pious plattitudes. It seems he himself realised he was taking a risk and is willing to check into the fallout. I don’t think with that attutde that he can be held as being frivilous or anything like that. Really sounds like a good guy, if you can judge by a letter. When you receive a letter or call or response such as, “Who do you think you are? Get with the program!” and all that other sort of bovine excrement of which we are all aware, then you ahve to question the motive. But again, that was not him and, from your own posting, I don’t gather that he said anything “wrong” about the Sacrament.

Here’s my little sermonette for you today. I know it’s unsolicited so feel free to tell me to go incense myself if I offend. . . .

. . . In any encounter or relationship, I believe we MUST first give the benefit of the doubt. That doesn’t mean that we accept anything that comes our way. I am not saying that at all. Again, from the posture of looking at the priests, for example, as sincere, genuine, prayerful, and certainly well-educated, you are ALWAYS in the right and good to give the benefit of the doubt. Why do I say that? Because when you trust (again, this is provided someone is not clearly stating unorthodoxies), you are giving someone really the highest gift of yourself. YOu are placing your delicate heart and soul in their open hand and trusting the will not betray that. Now, in the times – God forbid – when this trust is betrayed, what does the world say to that? The world say you are a FOOL!. But what does right reason and what does God and what does your hear of hearts say to you, apart from the hurt of betrayal? It tells you clearly that the one who trusts is not a fool. It is the one who BETRAYS that incredible and intimate gift of the self to another who is the world’s most foolish fool.

When you trust with good reason to do so, you can never be a fool in the eyes of God, or in the mirror, and your pillow should be very comfortable at night.

Continued . . .
 
Can you believe this thing told me I was talking too much and had to cut my posting!?!?! Sheesh! 🙂

When we decide to police without due cause, then the pillow should see a lot of tosses and turns (though I am not acusing you of any such thing).

That’s my little sermon for you, for what it’s worth. I was going to stop there, but why bother? I am unwinding from a long day and the fingers are going like mad. 🙂

I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate and blessed. I entered the seminary in the late summer of 1985. It was in the Spring or Summer of that very year that the Papal Inquisition Team went from seminary to seminary in the USA and cleared out a lot of garbage that had gathered since the 60’s. There was a lot of house-cleaning done (and there are a few places that didn’t heed the requirements of the tem and they have their just rewards – just about defunct today, fortuantely). The one who headed that team eventually became my bishop, and ordained me. Shortly after, he developed and extremely painful form of bone cancer, suffered incredibly for a full year, publicly declared that all his suffering was being offered for his diocese and his priests, and then went to his reward.

After I was assigned, I was given to priests who were schooled well well before the mid/late 60’s. I really never had any exposure to “that era” of priests.

When I became a pastor, I inherited an assistant priest who was ordained in 1980. (Yes, all of my assitants have been well-older than I. Go figure!). Fortunately, he “came around” on his own long before I met him. But I discovered that the poor man knew nothing. Basically, nothing at all. In fact, he admitted he had been heavily into “New Age” in the seminary and in his earlier priestly years, which was fostered and encouraged. He used to spill his gutts and, if I have some gray hairs in my goatee, it’s because of listening to those things. But he knew nothing. Eight years of seminary and he had no clue what most of the Sacraments meant or even did. So what we did was make each Monday our “lunch day.” We rarely saw each other, with a full plate all the time, so come hell or high watrers, we made it a point to go to lunch together on Mondays. We wold discuss all kinds of things and he was very enamoured of the Church, for the first time in his life. I gave him good solid sources to read (we’re talking Church documents and other such official things that were never given to him in seminary). The one I have now is jsut the same, though he doesn’t seem willing to change anything or learn anything. Not sure how long I’ll keep him. If no changes soon, I’ll boot him. I’d rather have no priest than one who is stuck on prideful closed-mindedness in terms of learnign about the faith.

I am saying this just to put into perspective that there is a whoooooole generation of priests out there who don’t have a clue. This is not their fault. At the same time, when we look at the sad state of REligious Education in parishes, is it any surprise? Of course not. YOu can’t give what you dont’ have and so many of these priests were given White Zinfandel and were told that it was the Grand Crux, the Chateauneuff du Pape of the Church. I woudl sasy they deserve to be pittied rather than hated, approached with compassion rather than condemnation, and a willing hand rather than a critical eye.

This is a cross that we all must bear, and it is one that extends way outside the Church, as wel know. So much ahppened in culture and society during that time, and we are all paying for it.

Continued . . .
 
THIS IS THE END! I promise! Thanks, God, for Cut and Paste! 🙂

Just remember to pray for us, eh? Remember, you get to go home at night; I don’t. I am stuck in this horrible mess of two prior generations. It has been handed to me, both of them think theirs was the best and never noticed Rome was burning. One trained people that the priest was the only person for everything and that there was one at your beck and call at every moment of every day. One sat on the phone all day, one was at the school all day, one was at the hospital all day, and they built properties as if this were the norm. The next generation threw the blasted baby out with the bathwater. Try reviving a baby who’s been left alone outside for nearly 40 years? LOL! It’a sin’t easy, brother!! We have a long ay to go. Just pray for us, and, unless you find somone saying something celarly unorthodox out of pride, please do give the benefit of the doubt, pray, offer sacrifice for us in any way you can, and offer your hand humbly to any priest who is humbly willing to receive it.

Okay, so that was a couple sermons. Forgive me. I had caffein earlier. 🙂

Keep up the good work, and may our Lord and Lady bless you in your thirst, and amy the Hoy Spirit lead you to that Spring which is the only One who can quench.

– Fr. L.
 
No worries, Father. I agree that the Fr. I’m talking about is a good guy. I thought so before and his letter only reinforced that.

I also agree that it is best to give the benefit of the doubt. It’s a lesson I’ve tried to take to heart more and more over the years, because, frankly, life within the Church would be hard to take otherwise. Mass today only gave me another opportunity to apply that lesson. 😉 (Unfortunately, but somewhat amusing actually. I will save you the details.)

So, yes, Father, I pray for you and your brother priests. I don’t envy the task at hand. And I wish more lay people stood ready to assist. Actually, I really do think there are more than most would think that have a more accurate understanding of the true vocation of the laity and their unique charism in the Church’s mission and role in transforming the secular world, and others who if instructed would be open to the message. But maybe that’s the optimist in me.

Have a good night!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top