Another dissenting progressive homily

[japhy]

I’m not sure about the forum’s rules about naming names, so I won’t do so for now. Suffice to say, this is an excerpt from a homily given on Good Shepherd Sunday in a parish in Illinois.
Let me close with a reference to an article by [Fr.] Richard McBrien. Richard McBrien wrote an article on “Good Shepherd Sunday”, and he said, you know, whenever we hear reference to shepherding, we sometimes connect that with bishops, and bishops sometimes like to refer themselves as shepherds. And McBrien says in recent years, it almost seems like they like to retrieve this notion of: I am shepherd – smart leader; and you are sheep: dumb, keep your mouths shut and do what you’re told.

McBrien says in his article, that is the least kind of shepherding that people want, and sometimes it is the leaders of the Church themselves that are the lost sheep in need of shepherding by the People of God. McBrien goes on to say the shepherd that people want is not anyone shepherding with a pre-Vatican II theology or praxis, the shepherd that people want is Jesus Christ. And people want leaders and relationships that will lead them to the experience of the Good Shepherd, yes. Not just bishops, but people can manifest through the way they treat other people, the Good Shepherd; we can find the Good Shepherd by being shepherded well by other people.
Jesus had a pre-Vatican II theology and praxis, but I suppose that’s not the point here.

This homily was given the week of the Pope’s visit. This is not the first time this priest has given a homily denigrating the Church before Vatican II. Sigh.

 

[peary]

I’m not sure about the forum’s rules about naming names, so I won’t do so for now. Suffice to say, this is an excerpt from a homily given on Good Shepherd Sunday in a parish in Illinois.
Let me close with a reference to an article by [Fr.] Richard McBrien. Richard McBrien wrote an article on “Good Shepherd Sunday”, and he said, you know, whenever we hear reference to shepherding, we sometimes connect that with bishops, and bishops sometimes like to refer themselves as shepherds. And McBrien says in recent years, it almost seems like they like to retrieve this notion of: I am shepherd – smart leader; and you are sheep: dumb, keep your mouths shut and do what you’re told.

McBrien says in his article, that is the least kind of shepherding that people want, and sometimes it is the leaders of the Church themselves that are the lost sheep in need of shepherding by the People of God. McBrien goes on to say the shepherd that people want is not anyone shepherding with a pre-Vatican II theology or praxis, the shepherd that people want is Jesus Christ. And people want leaders and relationships that will lead them to the experience of the Good Shepherd, yes. Not just bishops, but people can manifest through the way they treat other people, the Good Shepherd; we can find the Good Shepherd by being shepherded well by other people.
Jesus had a pre-Vatican II theology and praxis, but I suppose that’s not the point here.

This homily was given the week of the Pope’s visit. This is not the first time this priest has given a homily denigrating the Church before Vatican II. Sigh.

It sounds like he’s had very weak seminary courses in Homiletics. Also, don’t be surprised if he’s not being hassled by his own bishop about something he did or is doing. Wait awhile and the anvil will come down.

 

[EasterJoy]

I shouldn’t judge without having heard the whole message. Still, there is a lot to dislike in the exerpt posted by the OP.

…bishops sometimes like to refer themselves as shepherds. And McBrien says in recent years, it almost seems like they like to retrieve this notion of: I am shepherd – smart leader; and you are sheep: dumb, keep your mouths shut and do what you’re told.

I can imagine that the bishops would like to go back to shepherding sheep, having spent quite enough years trying to herd cats.

With all due respect, for I don’t know the homilist, it doesn’t hurt to keep one’s mouth closed long enough to listen, anyway. Obedience for the sake of obedience, which is to say listening because the voice comes from an office to be listened to, when no ethical principle absolutely compels disobedience…this gets such a bad rap these days, and I’m afraid that is all along the spectrum.

…McBrien says in his article, that is the least kind of shepherding that people want, and sometimes it is the leaders of the Church themselves that are the lost sheep in need of shepherding by the People of God. McBrien goes on to say the shepherd that people want is not anyone shepherding with a pre-Vatican II theology or praxis, the shepherd that people want is Jesus Christ. And people want leaders and relationships that will lead them to the experience of the Good Shepherd, yes. Not just bishops, but people can manifest through the way they treat other people, the Good Shepherd; we can find the Good Shepherd by being shepherded well by other people.

Well, first off, what we want and what we need have no necessary connection. Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

If he’s saying that there were people who looked at Catholicism as a social-ethnic thing that did not necessarily include a person relationship with Jesus Christ, then yes, that was a bad thing. If he’s saying we had some bishops over our history who were more interested in making sure the Church (or they) always looked good, rather than that the Church (or they) always followed the Lord as faithfully as possible, then that was a bad thing. I can’t argue with that.

Just like the divorce statistics, though, it is wrong to hang that as a “post-Vatican II” or “pre-Vatican II” thing. Could the Medici Popes and bishops who lived scandalous lives have stood to humble themselves for some “shepherding” by those who lived their faith? Absolutely. Has scandalous failure of their call been the general trend in the heirarchy? No, I don’t think so. Will failures of bishops be cured by a homilist lumping the bishops who advocate obedience to legitimate authority with bishops who failed their call and abused their authority? Absolutely not.

Well, again, I’m not encouraged so far, but I didn’t hear the whole thing.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Jesus had a pre-Vatican II theology and praxis, but I suppose that’s not the point here.

Jesus also had a pre-Trent theology and praxis…he said mass in the vernacular not in Latin…but that’s not the point here.

I concur, the priest in question ain’t so great on homoletics.
That being said I don’t read that as denegrating the Pre-V2 Church, I read it, rather as stating the obvious, most Catholics in America do not want to return to the Pre-Vatican II church and it’s practices.

 

[puzzleannie]

I
I can imagine that the bishops would like to go back to shepherding sheep, having spent quite enough years trying to herd cats.

.

I actually recently heard a bishop (not my own) say something very similar. I can assure you that the bishops I know (and I only know a few) spend a great deal of time, energy and prayer on their role as shepherds (assigned to them by Christ, not V2, despite what Mr. (hardly qualifies for the honorific Father anymore) O’Brien says.

 

[nannygirl]

This is not the first time this priest has given a homily denigrating the Church before Vatican II. Sigh.

This person’s articles are banned by our diocese’s monthly publication.

 

[po18guy]

I’m not sure about the forum’s rules about naming names, so I won’t do so for now. Suffice to say, this is an excerpt from a homily given on Good Shepherd Sunday in a parish in Illinois.
Let me close with a reference to an article by [Fr.] Richard McBrien. Richard McBrien wrote an article on “Good Shepherd Sunday”, and he said, you know, whenever we hear reference to shepherding, we sometimes connect that with bishops, and bishops sometimes like to refer themselves as shepherds. And McBrien says in recent years, it almost seems like they like to retrieve this notion of: I am shepherd – smart leader; and you are sheep: dumb, keep your mouths shut and do what you’re told.

McBrien says in his article, that is the least kind of shepherding that people want, and sometimes it is the leaders of the Church themselves that are the lost sheep in need of shepherding by the People of God. McBrien goes on to say the shepherd that people want is not anyone shepherding with a pre-Vatican II theology or praxis, the shepherd that people want is Jesus Christ. And people want leaders and relationships that will lead them to the experience of the Good Shepherd, yes. Not just bishops, but people can manifest through the way they treat other people, the Good Shepherd; we can find the Good Shepherd by being shepherded well by other people.
Jesus had a pre-Vatican II theology and praxis, but I suppose that’s not the point here.

This homily was given the week of the Pope’s visit. This is not the first time this priest has given a homily denigrating the Church before Vatican II. Sigh.

He should stand tall before the Bishop. Send the letter. It is no charity to confirm someone in their sin - Fr. Corapi

Christ’s peace.

 

[marchoi]

I actually recently heard a bishop (not my own) say something very similar. I can assure you that the bishops I know (and I only know a few) spend a great deal of time, energy and prayer on their role as shepherds (assigned to them by Christ, not V2, despite what Mr. (hardly qualifies for the honorific Father anymore) O’Brien says.

Yikes! While I can kinda see where you’re coming from (the whole idea of spiritual fatherhood etc. etc.), I don’t think it’s prudent to pick and choose to whom we apply the title (sounds a bit… dare I say… Protestant). Yes, you’re probably making a reference to Fr. O’Brien “not being fit for spiritual fatherhood”. But as long as Fr. O’Brien has been validly and licitly ordained, I think it’s wisest to stick with “salute the office, not the man” mentality.

But with regards to the actual homily, yeah… I don’t think that’s exactly what our Church teachings are… Obviously the homilist isn’t the paragon of orthodoxy. On the week of the Papal Visit, no less! At the same time though, I must say that, while the progressive rhetoric have their share of “denigrating pre-V2”, let’s think - aren’t traditionalists sometimes equally “denigrating” in their treatment of “post-V2”? I think the lack of charity goes both ways sometimes… And I know we all can do better.

 

[Cajetan]

Catholic progressives often sound a lot like the Protestant Reformers.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Catholic progressives often sound a lot like the Protestant Reformers.

Catholic Traditionalists often sound like Southern Baptists.

Neither statement is true…no need for insults.

 

[japhy]

Here are two other excerpts from this priest’s other homilies:

On the Feast of Christ the King:
One of the worst things that happened to Christianity was when Constantine made Christianity the state religion, the Church then looked at pagan Rome and said, “Well, that’s the structure we should have for the Church,” and they sprinkled Holy Water over a pagan system. …

The Church has become a monarchical system. [Fr.] Richard Fragomeni told me that the last couple Popes have had just a simple chair in the Vatican… but they’ve restored the Papal Throne. And our Cardinals are called “Princes of the Church”, and the new Cardinals today get gold rings from the Pope, and they wear purple, and they wear red: symbols of monarchy. There’s the throne of Jesus Christ, right there in the center of the church. The symbols of leadership in contemporary Catholicism are in stark contrast to that throne from which he led the Church and leads the Church today, on that throne he emptied himself and allowed the power of God to fill him…
Now, I like the reference to the cross and altar as the (earthly) throne of Jesus (which have a glory visible to those with faith), but the priest totally neglects the heavenly throne of Jesus which has a glory no one can deny.

And then, on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus, he said this:
I mentioned before that we went through a period of thick Catholicism, where this dynamic understanding of the Eucharist was not present in Catholic culture. I worry that we’re going back to that period, and we’re losing that dynamism that we rediscovered in the Scriptures and through Vatican II regarding the Eucharist. I don’t know if you saw the front page of The Daily Herald this morning. The front page of The Herald says-- right now, if you want to offer a Latin Tridentine Mass, you have to go to the Bishop and say “can I do that?” And the Bishop may or may not give you permission to do a Latin Tridentine Mass. The Pope has just issued [sic] a document that says any priest that wants to can offer a Latin Tridentine Mass.

Those of you my age and older, this is what it looked like… mumbling Latin words over objects. “Dominus Vobiscum.” One of these days you’re going to come to church and this is what it’s going to look like. Any priest can offer a Tridentine Latin Mass! Question: why is the Church so liberal in propagating medieval traditionalism-type rituals, and so conservative when it comes to the vision of Vatican II? Why can any priest do Latin stuff now, Tridentine stuff now, but just a few months ago: [he goes on to mention some Novus Ordo liturgical rules that were then being more enforced]

…

…let’s pray that the Holy Spirit will bring forth new leaders in our Church that are not just trying to recreate a Church that aging male celibates are comfortable with. Let’s pray that the Holy Spirit will call forth leaders that will create a Church that the world really needs.
I have that entire homily (with Fr. Z-esque commentary) on my blog (in my signature)… I’ll link to it (I’d still rather not say the name of the priest or parish here) for interested parties.

Suffice to say, this priest is being relocated in a year’s time. Maybe to a parish that has kneelers.

 

[Cajetan]

I don’t intend to be insulting. It’s just that when progressive Catholics look at the Church the way it is, they see quite a lot of evil. They desire to make a lot of reforms in Church governance and practice, giving lip service to the “true spirit of Jesus” and the like as their support.

How is this different from the early Lutherans and Calvinists?

 

[Yerusalyim]

I don’t consider myself “progressive” at all, but compared to many in this forum I am. When I look at HUMANS I see quite a lot of evil. We have a divine institution which is marred with the failures of our human leadership.

Those seeking to make reforms, from my perspective, are all those trying to turn the clock back to 1948.

Had the Church been more flexible would Luther have sought to make the reforms he attempted? Martin Luther would have been quite comfortable in the Catholic Church of today…but he saw, amongst other things real and imagined, the selling of indulgences and deaf ears to his protests about it. I’m not advocating for Luther in any way, he was wrong to leave the Church, but some of the faults he pointed to were legitimate complaints.

As to people giving “lip service” to the Spirit of Jesus" do you know their hearts? Is the spirit of Jesus found only in a Church that speaks Latin?

 

[rwoehmke]

I concur, the priest in question ain’t so great on homoletics. That being said I don’t read that as denegrating the Pre-V2 Church, I read it, rather as stating the obvious, most Catholics in America do not want to return to the Pre-Vatican II church and it’s practices.

McBrien is educated as a theologian, but In most of his columns I have read, and our Diocesan Paper has carried him since creation almost, he reads in my opinion more like a sociologist who attempts to dissect the behavior and thoughts of the individual groups which come together to be our Church. I have always felt that he captures well the thinking and behavior of these various groupings. He is not much as a theologian although I expect he would “theolog” rings around most of us.

I lived in the pre-Vatican II Church until I was 30 years old. I lived through the turmoil of “the changes.” I saw both the joy of some and the sadness and anger of others as things changed. I would admit that for the most part I saw some of the changes as freeing
and supportive of spiritual growth. Some were also absolute mistakes which to some extents have been or are being corrected. I have a nostalgia for the beautiful liturgical practices, including the TLM, but would not want it all back.

To me, personally, the saddest thing is the number of Catholics who no longer practice their Faith and those myriad individuals who don’t have a clue as to its teachings and its history and really don’t seem to care a whit. On the positive side, I think that today we have a hard core of very active, involved, educated and dedicated Catholics and as a marketing man might say, “We are positioned for strong new growth and sales.” The number of converts and reverts on these forums is certainly an indication that the “product” founded by Jesus Christ is still attractive.

 

[EasterJoy]

Catholic Traditionalists often sound like Southern Baptists.

Neither statement is true…no need for insults.

Besides…even a broken clock is right twice a day!

 

[po18guy]

I don’t intend to be insulting. It’s just that when progressive Catholics look at the Church the way it is, they see quite a lot of evil. They desire to make a lot of reforms in Church governance and practice, giving lip service to the “true spirit of Jesus” and the like as their support.

How is this different from the early Lutherans and Calvinists?

It remains the mindset of the liberal. They are less happy than orthodox. In religion as in politics. Studies have consistently shown this. Living obsessed with past abuses, seeing only the bad stems from pessimism. A poster in another thread is still railing about Abu Ghraib! Never mind that it’s over and the abusers are in jail. He’s still upset over it. Such thought patterns lead astray. You nailed this one!

Christ’s peace.

 

[EasterJoy]

It remains the mindset of the liberal. They are less happy than orthodox. In religion as in politics. Studies have consistently shown this. Living obsessed with past abuses, seeing only the bad stems from pessimism. A poster in another thread is still railing about Abu Ghraib! Never mind that it’s over and the abusers are in jail. He’s still upset over it. Such thought patterns lead astray. You nailed this one!

Christ’s peace.

By orthodox, do you mean traditional? Because I haven’t been overwhelmed with an impression that traditional Catholics are either thrilled with the heirarchy or entirely opposed to pointing out where the bishops might improve their efforts. Heavens, some of them wonder out loud if some of the bishops aren’t apostate. These are two groups of Catholics, both thinking the bishops are teaching error, but for totally different reasons! I wouldn’t blame a member of the Catholic episcopacy if he were to complain to the Lord that when he answered the call to shepherd, he didn’t fully realize that he’d be herding cats.

Maybe the happy ones just don’t post a lot of complaints?

 

[po18guy]

By orthodox, do you mean traditional? Because I haven’t been overwhelmed with an impression that traditional Catholics are either thrilled with the heirarchy or entirely opposed to pointing out where the bishops might improve their efforts. Heavens, some of them wonder out loud if some of the bishops aren’t apostate. These are two groups of Catholics, both thinking the bishops are teaching error, but for totally different reasons! I wouldn’t blame a member of the Catholic episcopacy if he were to complain to the Lord that when he answered the call to shepherd, he didn’t fully realize that he’d be herding cats.

Maybe the happy ones just don’t post a lot of complaints?

For clarity, let’s use what Al Kresta uses: Faithful vs. Unfaithful. Some will scream, but that only reveals their position. The SSPX and liberal progressives are but two examples of the unfaithful fringe. I choose obedience, as Jesus taught using the example of the two sons. One said “No!” but later worked in the vineyard as his father wanted. The other said “Yes!” but never worked.

Christ’s peace.

 

[EasterJoy]

For clarity, let’s use what Al Kresta uses: Faithful vs. Unfaithful. Some will scream, but that only reveals their position. The SSPX and liberal progressives are but two examples of the unfaithful fringe. I choose obedience, as Jesus taught using the example of the two sons. One said “No!” but later worked in the vineyard as his father wanted. The other said “Yes!” but never worked.

Christ’s peace.

There are instances when silent compliance is not the most faithful course of action. There are those whose intention is to remain faithful in action, even as they complain.

Your point is well-taken, all the same. Even when complaints are valid, there is real damage done when complaints are lodged carelessly or arrogantly. This damage is suffered both by the complainers and by the Church as a whole.

I don’t think the Church should be free from all suggestion from the laity or priests that she might have room for improvement, but there is a way to do it. A potshot from the ambo is not among them. Priests who have been given faculties in a particular diocese have been put in a position of trust: that is, to share a single pastoral ministry with their bishop.

It shows more courage for a priest to refrain from public criticism, to meet questions with, “When I have criticisms or questions about how the bishop runs things, I raise those questions with the bishop in person, rather than behind his back”…and then to do that. The time for priests to question their bishop is when the priests assemble to meet with him, assuming that raising the question with the bishop in private did not meet with a satisfactory response.

The laity would do well to follow the lead of obedient priests. When there are problems, these should be addressed in a humble, respectful, and patient manner.

 

[Cajetan]

For clarity, let’s use what Al Kresta uses: Faithful vs. Unfaithful. Some will scream, but that only reveals their position.

I’ve heard ‘orthodox’ vs. ‘heterodox’ a lot as well. Same thing, I guess.

Here is a quote from Saint Ignatius Loyola, which captures the spirit of so many saints regarding faithful obedience: “To make sure of being right in all things, we ought always to hold by the principle that the white that I see I would believe to be black, if the Hierarchical Church were so to rule it.”

This spirit is, I believe, a big part of what makes Catholics Catholic: our faith in the Church, that She will not fail. Faithful Catholics do not fall into schism or apostate into sects when they’re having a hard time with some teaching or ecclesial event, or demand that the Church teach something other than what She does… ever. These aren’t options. You are to be humble before the Church as you would be before the Risen Lord, face-to-Face. The Church truly does know better than us, and we can bank on that. We should think of all of the martyrs who willingly gave up their lives rather than so much as verbally compromise one millimeter on what the Church teaches.