Belleville bishop removes pastor for improvising prayers

[curlycool89]

1. Does it count when we conclude and tell the world that Fr. Rowe grievously SINNED, which implies that he is damned and going to hell? (you are trying to save his soul from that, remember?) Remember, we are all members of the “Royal Priesthood;” the Catholic Magisterium teaches that we are not to “talk stink” (e.g., assume sinfulness without ALL the facts about Fr. Rowe’s mental state, etc.) No “talk stink” about anyone whether they deliberately adlib during Mass (the true reasons only God knows) or for appearing to commit unfaithfulness to one’s spouse, for example.

First thing that needs to be cleared up right now, there is a substantial difference between the priesthood of all believers (as at baptism) and the ministerial priesthood (as at holy orders).

Second, I prefaced my response by saying “may have”. Objectively speaking this is a grave matter (as in the GIRM and RS), and all accounts say that he knows that it is a grave matter (he was told by his Bishop), and all accounts say he did it willingly as a personal choice. You’ll recognize those are the 3 requirements for something to be a moral sin.

After you become a priest, suppose your bishop were to refuse Communion to a prominent politician because of his seemingly adulterous behavior. Would that give you the right to talk indiscreetly to the world about the politicians SINFULNESS? Would it not be better, as a PRIEST, to keep one’s mouth shut? So as not to spread scandal? We laymen are members of the ROYAL PRIESTHOOD. If we both happened to go before Jesus together for our final judgment, which position do you think He would take, yours or mind? Probably neither. He has a Sacred Heart.

This example is irrelevant to the current situation and serves more as a distraction.

Objectively speaking, it is not wrong to call out someone who is publicly sinning (and it was done in times past), but that is not my personal style.

Secondly, the scandal belongs to the person doing the sinning, not to the priest.

Thirdly, in the Last Judgement Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats, and the goats will go to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. He said so Himself (Matthew 25:41). You’re not promoting universal salvation, are you?

Is it possible to be too “Catholic,” and the expense of not being enough of a Christian? "Lord, Lord, I said Mass for you, every day! "He turns and says,“I don’t even know you.” (Matt. 25:12) When God forgives, He forgets; shouldn’t we? (EZ. 18:22, Heb. 8:12, 10:12) Don’t be concerned about this, I will be making my final voyage to heaven soon, and driven by a feeling of LOVE I’ll put in a reservation for you while I’m there.

I reject that idea, it is something from hippy-happy pseudo-theology and not Catholicism.

Secondly, your quote from Matthew 25:12 is woefully out of context (for the rest of the people reading, this is from the Parable of the Virgins and the Lamps. The message of this parable is to always be ready for the End because Christ may come at any time. He says so in Matthew 25:13).

Thirdly, Ezechial 18:20-22 in full context says:

20 Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. Justice belongs to the just, and wickedness to the wicked.
21
But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live. He shall not die!
22
None of the crimes he has committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the justice he has shown.

Mercy and forgiveness can only be given to those who repent of their sins. Those who refuse God’s mercy will not receive it, God will not force it upon them.

Fourthly, Hebrews 10:12 is a Messianic reference, the verse refers to Christ.

With regard to sin, the intentions of Fr. Rowe (which no one but God really knows) do matter, don’t they? Please answer this one question.

The ends do not justify the means, they never do. The means were wrong so his motivation is irrelevant.

I shall close with “ALOHA” (which means love, mercy, compassion, Greetings, or Good-by in Hawaiian. It is APPROVED for the liturgy. If you are assigned to Hawaii, someday, you will observe, hear, and lovingly feel its meaning.

Then Thank God I will never be a priest in Hawaii. Hearing that in a liturgical context would make me cringe, this is why we have a new revision of the Mass in the first place.

Could one purpose for originating this CAF Thread be to punish Fr. Rowe? And we all took the bait?

Wait, wait, aren’t you the person who has been saying the whole time not to jump to conclusions about intentions? Oh, the irony!

Seriously, with our heart felt aloha, let’s pray for Father Rowe, so that he may have the opportunity to explain his position and reconcile with our Catholic leaders.

He did explain his position, he said “I won’t follow the words and have never followed the words”. That’s overt disobedience in spades.

 

[manygift1spirit]

Posters were calling Fr, Rowe names and were ASSUMING too much about his being a SINNER, and saving his soul.

I am do not know about names, and can entertain that not all posts maintained the appropriate charity. But you keep speaking as if there is some ambiguity here about what Fr. Rowe did.

There is not. The Bishop has been trying to get Fr to change his liturgical practices for years. Let’s look at this closely.

1. These types of requests are in the scope of what the Bishop’s rightful authority is.
2. The actual requests were not requests to commit sin.

This is a canonical syllogism: thus Fr. Rowe owes the Bishop his obedience in this matter. By not doing so (which indeed he did not) he is committing the sin of disobedience, an affront to the fourth Commandment.

You can rightly claim only God knows his full culpability, but we can rightly claim his actions are objectively wrong. Empirically however, most priests (and religious, and theologians, and…) who show obedience issues do actually know what they are doing. So concern for his soul, while not deductively necessary, is prudent in a Pascal’s Wager kind of way.

Could one purpose for originating this CAF Thread be to punish Fr. Rowe? And we all took the bait?

I do not know the motive of the OP, and admit this is possible. But if so, this is an absurdly ineffective way to punish Fr. Rowe. The actions and content on this thread have next to zero influence on the canonical doings in Illinois. I hope you see that. Just sayin.

let’s pray for Father Rowe, so that he may have the opportunity to explain his position and reconcile with our Catholic leaders

I think that is a wonderful idea, and have been joining in. But let’s drop the prayers for his explaining his position. I do not pray for being subjected to occasions of sin for anybody. In this case, it would be rationalizing disobedience.

But I’ll reiterate the positive part of this. Fr. Rowe seems like he has some great gifts, personality especially, and seems dearlly loved. Let’s pray for his repentence and obedience, so he can return to ministry and be a much improved witness to his Church to a people who are already disposed to hearing him.

 

[Tigg]

Could one purpose for originating this CAF Thread be to punish Fr. Rowe? And we all took the bait?

I don’t know about that, but I, for one, am grateful that misdemeanors and more serious crimes are finally being reported IN ORDER THAT the harm may be stopped and the faithful may not be led further astray. Look around you and count the number of threads that tell of egregious acts of disobedience, rebellion and worse. And those posts that sympathize with the defectors for lack of knowledge of the faith.

When I hear of things like this thread, it gives me pause to be thankful that truth is being upheld and that wrongs are being righted - that the Church is being purified! And I hope that perhaps those in confusion just might find some clarity and get a clue if they witness similar attempts to undermine ecclesiastical authority.

 

[ProVobis]

Then Thank God I will never be a priest in Hawaii. Hearing that in a liturgical context would make me cringe, this is why we have a new revision of the Mass in the first place.

AFAIK, the revision is only to the English translation. Unfortunately English isn’t uniform in meaning around the world. You have words like “holiday,” “bath,” “billion,” “fall,” “lift,” “major,” “sick,” “well” (and a whole slew of others) which have different meanings in the U.K. as opposed to the U.S. alone. There are multiple phrases which some groups consider vulgar while the others don’t. Maybe someday the bishops will have particular translations for countries or even regions and dialects but until that time, we have to stick to the bishop-approved texts whether they be English, Latin, or Spanish.

 

[curlycool89]

AFAIK, the revision is only to the English translation. Unfortunately English isn’t uniform in meaning around the world. You have words like “holiday,” “bath,” “billion,” “fall,” “lift,” “major,” “sick,” “well” (and a whole slew of others) which have different meanings in the U.K. as opposed to the U.S. alone. There are multiple phrases which some groups consider vulgar while the others don’t. Maybe someday the bishops will have particular translations for countries or even regions and dialects but until that time, we have to stick to the bishop-approved texts whether they be English, Latin, or Spanish.

I know, it’s just that aloha makes me think of that scene from Miss Congeniality. I don’t think I could take it seriously in a Liturgical context. It would be like if we started saying “The Lord be with you, eh” here in Canada.

 

[ProVobis]

It would be like if we started saying “The Lord be with you, eh” here in Canada.

How about “The Lord IS with you, eh”?

 

[pnewton]

Could one purpose for originating this CAF Thread be to punish Fr. Rowe?

I do not think so, but who knows for sure. The title seems to emphasize the bishop, not the priest. Rather, I think what is happening is that this report gives some sense of normality for those who have experienced abnormal liturgy. I noted that in our diocese it seems that the advent of the new translation was used as an occasion to re-establish uniformity in Mass, a uniformity that should have never been lost. From what I can tell, this is happening across the Church, much like it did under PiusV (minus the anathemas).

 

[Elizium23]

Could one purpose for originating this CAF Thread be to punish Fr. Rowe?

Certainly not. As a Knight of Columbus, I would not denigrate our holy priests and I would not seek a community “lynching” based on what we can read from the comfort of our homes. Fr. Rowe is receiving punishment from the appropriate sources, and it is not our job to add to his burden or to the deeply felt losses of his parish community.

However, I would support the bishop in his decision. His priests have promised obedience in all things, and his priests are servants of the liturgy. It is the right of the people to have a properly celebrated liturgy. I would be pleased with any bishop who chooses to take this example and exert his will on priests who may be out of bounds, and I would be especially pleased with priests who see this as a cautionary tale, and who strive to adhere even more closely than before to the liturgical texts.

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum
Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[29.] Priests, as capable, prudent and indispensable co-workers of the order of Bishops,[66] called to the service of the People of God, constitute one presbyterate with their Bishop,[67] though charged with differing offices. “In each local congregation of the faithful, in a certain way, they make present the Bishop with whom they are associated in trust and in generosity of heart; according to their rank, they take upon themselves his duties and his solicitude, and they carry these out in their daily work”. And “because of this participation in the Priesthood and mission, Priests should recognize the Bishop as truly their father and obey him reverently”[68]. Furthermore, “ever intent upon the good of God’s children, they should seek to contribute to the pastoral mission of the whole diocese, and indeed of the whole Church”.[69]

[30.] The office “that belongs to Priests in particular in the celebration of the Eucharist” is a great one, “for it is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is always brought into play within the context of the Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many”.[70]

[31.] In keeping with the solemn promises that they have made in the rite of Sacred Ordination and renewed each year in the Mass of the Chrism, let Priests celebrate “devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation”.[71] They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.[72] For as St. Ambrose said, “It is not in herself . . . but in us that the Church is injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church”.[73] Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.

Let us all pray for and support our sacred ministers as they carry out their sacramental duties to the best of their abilities. Let us practice true charity as we tolerate their faults and gently remind them of our God-given rights that the Church strives to protect.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Certainly not. As a Knight of Columbus, I would not denigrate our holy priests and I would not seek a community “lynching” based on what we can read from the comfort of our homes. Fr. Rowe is receiving punishment from the appropriate sources, and it is not our job to add to his burden or to the deeply felt losses of his parish community.

However, I would support the bishop in his decision. His priests have promised obedience in all things, and his priests are servants of the liturgy. It is the right of the people to have a properly celebrated liturgy. I would be pleased with any bishop who chooses to take this example and exert his will on priests who may be out of bounds, and I would be especially pleased with priests who see this as a cautionary tale, and who strive to adhere even more closely than before to the liturgical texts.

Aloha Elizium23:

Thank you for explaining that your OP was not to punish Fr. Rowe. Would you please explain what you purpose was when you decided to share the news article about his misconduct? Everyone on this CAF Thread agrees (including me): Fr. Rowe’s conduct was not in accord with the rules and the bishop rightfully removed him. There is no argument. How could the dialogue go any other way?

When I first read the OP, I thought, “Wow, this is going to be like a Roman circus where Christians were thrown to hungry lions, so the Roman citizens could get their adrenaline rush while watching the lions tear the Christians apart. I still don’t understand the purpose of your CAF Thread, honestly.

The very first response to your OP (#2) was, “Couldn’t he just have written his sermons to better convey the meanings of the prayers??? Talk about being full of himself!” That set the spirit of the CAF Thread, and the rest is history. Not all the CAF Posters participated in the “lynching,” and for that I’m grateful.

The following is not to implying anything about Fr. Rowe, it is just a “for instance” to clarify my objection to the nature of this CAF Thread. Let’s just suppose that Fr. Rowe deeply believes that he is right, because of his reasoning, or a pathological disorder, or something else (which he may not even be aware of). Some of his behavior during Mass did seem peculiar, if not bazaar. But, as you know, that does not give us the right to come to uncharitable conclusions about his grave mistakes against the Church. Only God knows his heart.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1860) may help me to explain my point. It reads: “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability [ability to lay blame] of a grave offense.” Do we know if Fr. Rowe has a pathological disorder that could distort his thinking and reasoning? No, we do not. Do we know if he had “full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC – 1857) required for a transgression against God? No, we do not.

For us to assume that Fr. Rowe had full knowledge and deliberate consent, and then implying his grave offense, and by this CAF Thread, assuring that the world is reminded of it may, in itself, be a “grave offense.” I don’t know, I’m not a theologian.

So, what was your purpose for sharing the article? I truly would like to know.

Peace,
Richard

 

[Elizium23]

As a practicing Catholic, I have a vested interest in the sacraments properly celebrated. As a church volunteer, I greatly appreciate the effort made my parish clergy to produce a liturgy faithful to the texts set forth by the Holy See. Any priest who celebrates Mass and the other sacraments properly is doing God’s work and faithfully serving His people by making Him present to us. Any bishop who properly regulates the liturgy is serving well in his capacity as ordinary. Any priest who humbly obeys his bishop in all matters is to be commended for his service.

I intended this as a cautionary tale. Fr. Rowe treaded a fine line in tinkering with the liturgy. He is obviously a holy man, well-loved by his parishioners. But he deprived them of right liturgy. We saw proof with our own eyes and the bishop agrees. Fr. Rowe does not deserve to be lynched here and denigrated, but his story serves as an example that all of us must follow the path of obedience or suffer the consequences. Personally, my Third Degree exemplification comes to mind. Another Knight will know what I am talking about. We learned about the value of fraternity and other important things. We are all called to obedience in service to the Lord. Fr. Rowe’s parishioners were cheated of right worship and proper sacraments, and the bishop responded in the correct way.

This issue is bigger than one priest. It would be wrong to punish every priest who changes three words in the Mass, but it is justice served that some of them must endure the consequences of willful disobedience. When one person is punished, several more will fall into line because they fear they are next. Sometimes we do not obey out of love but out of fear. Any employee who obeys his boss out of fear is acting wisely. A job means a livelihood for many of us, being fired could put us out on the street. A priest’s vocation is his entire raison d’etre, he is configured for Christ, he knows no other life. Fr. Rowe shows us what can happen when we do not fear enough.

I left the Church over 20 years ago, and I spent 11 years away. Two of the things that alienated me was liturgical abuse and heresy. I felt that the hierarchy had failed me. I lost respect for priests. I returned to the Church out of faith, and found more liturgical abuse and heresy, but I was heartened to see it on the decline. I look at the big picture, I see reforms coming down and I see who is coming out of our seminaries, and I have hope for the future. I think that priests are encouraged now more than ever to be faithful people, and I also think that faithful people are encouraged now more than ever to be priests. We must still pray, very hard, for vocations. We must support them with all our might. While I can’t support what Fr. Rowe did, I can support his sincere intent to be the best possible pastor of souls for his parishioners. He did not act out of malice. I support his parishioners in their journey of faith, and most of all I support his bishop, for doing the right thing.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t necessarily think he’s calling them dummies because the number 1 complaint I now hear from parishioners is that the new translation is awkward and its sentence structure is confusing. And this parish is mainly people with Master’s degrees!

That makes sense. Those of us without Master’s degrees have no ptoblems with it. They must have preferred the dumbed-down version used previously.

 

[rlg94086]

I am a huge fan of the new translation. It is beautiful.

And, I would add, I taught my 10- and 12-year-olds the meaning and reason. It took a day…not difficult. They don’t have Master’s degrees though, so that probably helped…

 

[YoungTradCath]

That makes sense. Those of us without Master’s degrees have no ptoblems with it. They must have preferred the dumbed-down version used previously.

From my point of view, it seems the more education one has, the tendency of being overly concerned about small things in other people’s lives goes up; essentially the tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill, to construe “problems” needing “fixing” and not only for oneself, but for other people. The, “I’m educated, and you need saving!” mentality.

 

[ProVobis]

That makes sense. Those of us without Master’s degrees have no ptoblems with it. They must have preferred the dumbed-down version used previously.

Or maybe some prefer no English translation at all, now that they’ve seen both.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

As a practicing Catholic, I have a vested interest in the sacraments properly celebrated. As a church volunteer, I greatly appreciate the effort made my parish clergy to produce a liturgy faithful to the texts set forth by the Holy See. Any priest who celebrates Mass and the other sacraments properly is doing God’s work and faithfully serving His people by making Him present to us. Any bishop who properly regulates the liturgy is serving well in his capacity as ordinary. Any priest who humbly obeys his bishop in all matters is to be commended for his service.

Amen! Amen to all of the above.

I intended this as a cautionary tale. Fr. Rowe treaded a fine line in tinkering with the liturgy. He is obviously a holy man, well-loved by his parishioners…

Thank you for explaining your intention. It is history now, but I wish you had included your intention in the OP, perhaps as a question. Cautionary for priests, I can only assume. Most of them are so overworked and overstressed (as I have observed in our parish) by having to run their parish with dictatorial power (this is the truth, not a slur), I doubt that most of them have time to surf the Catholic Answers Forums. Just my observation.

We are all called to obedience in service to the Lord. Fr. Rowe’s parishioners were cheated of right worship and proper sacraments, and the bishop responded in the correct way.

Serving the Lord, yes. I wonder if serving the LORD is what Fr. Rowe (for some unknown reason) thought he was doing, at the risk of his vocation.

Cheated? I wonder. To be cheated, one must be mislead for the cheater’s personal gain, or to have a cheater break the rules to gain an unfair advantage over those cheated. Being cheated has to do with games, gambling and spouses, not liturgy, I would think. Now days, Catholic Christians who object to their pastors style have permission and the option to go to Mass in another parish. That’s the rule now, as you know.

Those who liked Fr. Rowe’s style took the option to stay. (As you acknowledged, ”He is obviously a holy man, well-loved by his parishioners.”) Those who stayed must have felt and believed in a closer relationship with Christ Jesus at his Masses. Those who objected to his style as apparently being bizarre chose to leave. Some reported him to the bishop, which they had every right to do. No one was cheated; no one was deprived, except maybe deprived of attending Mass in the parish closest to their home.

I’m going to witness for a moment. Our Mass with its charismatic priest, Spirit-filled music, and awesome experience of the real presence of the Spirit of Christ Jesus amongst us, is celebrated with an overflow of the faithful every Sunday. Not overflowing only with us “gray heads,” but with teens and young adults with young children as well. Our Mass is alive with the Spirit of Christ Jesus’ real presents in the liturgy, Word, music ministry, charismatic priest, and in a special way, the Eucharist. And, I might add, Jesus’ real presence is in the Eucharistic ministers, greeters, and precious girls and boys who are Father’s faithful acolytes, as well. Bottom line, is there anything more that a good pastor could ask for, to accomplish his task, which is to proclaim the Word and bring Christ Jesus in the Eucharist to His people as a healing remedy?

Just before Mass, visitors are asked to stand and tell us where they are from. We have discovered that many tourists from all over the world, staying at hotels along the Maui beaches, drive for an hour up the slopes of Mt. Haleakala to attend our Mass. One visitor approached our music minister after Mass and told him that she had never experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit during Mass as she did that morning. We must be doing something right, to assist the Holy Spirit in His teaching and healing of our Catholic faith community and its visitors.

A church that is not a healing church is no church at all. Jesus’ mission was one of teaching and healing, and much of His teaching was about how to heal, as you know. Fr. Rowe may have been keenly aware of this, though he may have gone about it in a wrong way.

We Catholic Christians need to get our PRIORITIES straight: God 1st; oneself 2nd (those who cannot first love themselves, cannot love others); one’s spouse 3rd; one’s children 4th; one’s job 5th (so as to care for one’s wife and children, and one’s neighbor if necessary), one’s neighbor 6th; the Charismatic Dimension of the Church (the invisible church of which the Holy Spirit is its soul and life) 7th; and lastly, the Institutional Dimension of the Church. 8th. (The two dimensions cannot be separated, and the Institution is to serve the Charismatic Dimension, according to the late Joseph Cardinal Suenens.)

Servants of the Holy Spirit, who are priests of the Catholic Church, have the SAME PRIORITIES, no matter which of the 20 plus Catholic rites they belong to; i.e., the Latin rite and the Uniate rites (that are in full communion with the pope) including the Byzantine, Greek, Maronite, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, Ukrainian, and many more different Catholic liturgical traditions. We are a universal church of diversity! Thank God!

I know that you meant well by presenting the OP, and I admire your willingness to explain your intention. Thanks again. I can’t help but wonder, though, if your “cautionary tale” received the kind of reaction you expected. The terrible reaction regarding Fr. Rowe was no surprise to me.

This has been a learning experience for all of us, I do believe. Maybe this was the Holy Spirit’s intention when He inspired you to start the thread.

Peace,
Richard

 

[rlg94086]

From my point of view, it seems the more education one has, the tendency of being overly concerned about small things in other people’s lives goes up; essentially the tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill, to construe “problems” needing “fixing” and not only for oneself, but for other people. The, “I’m educated, and you need saving!” mentality.

Exactly.

 

[rlg94086]

Or maybe some prefer no English translation at all, now that they’ve seen both.

Lol…perhaps, but I doubt it. Personally, I love the hybrid, Latin-English Mass I attend. The common prayers are in Latin (Gloria, Kyrie-Greek, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei), and the rest is in English…music is traditional, including Gregorian chant for the offeratory and first Communion “hymn.” The only changes I would prefer are the consecration and other prayers in Latin, with the readings, Gospel and homily in English, and the priest facing East during the consecration. That would be my perfect Mass. I actually prefer the OF, done this way, to the EF. If I had to choose between a full-English-lousy-liturgical-music OF versus an EF, I would definitely go EF.

 

[pnewton]

We Catholic Christians need to get our PRIORITIES straight: God 1st; oneself 2nd (those who cannot first love themselves, cannot love others); one’s spouse 3rd; one’s children 4th; one’s job 5th (so as to care for one’s wife and children, and one’s neighbor if necessary), one’s neighbor 6th; the Charismatic Dimension of the Church (the invisible church of which the Holy Spirit is its soul and life) 7th; and lastly, the Institutional Dimension of the Church. 8th. (The two dimensions cannot be separated, and the Institution is to serve the Charismatic Dimension, according to the late Joseph Cardinal Suenens.)

I doubt you can find this list anywhere in Church teaching. I disagree for separating the 7th and the 8th from the 1st. The Body of Christ is an integral part of God. As to your placing charismatic over institution, I am reminded of Micah who reminds us that obedience is better than sacrifice. We simply can not seek our own way over the Church and contrary to the Church. Fr. Rowe may have acted as thought “he and Jesus got their own thing going, don’t need no one (bishop) to tell him what it’s all about,” but that is not the Catholic faith, or any type of genuine Christianity.

 

[Corki]

I doubt you can find this list anywhere in Church teaching. I disagree for separating the 7th and the 8th from the 1st. The Body of Christ is an integral part of God. As to your placing charismatic over institution, I am reminded of Micah who reminds us that obedience is better than sacrifice. We simply can not seek our own way over the Church and contrary to the Church. Fr. Rowe may have acted as thought “he and Jesus got their own thing going, don’t need no one (bishop) to tell him what it’s all about,” but that is not the Catholic faith, or any type of genuine Christianity.

I must agree with you.

It is impossible, for example, to attend to Richard’s priorities #3 and #4 (spouse and children) without the Sacraments which are only accessible through the Institutional dimension of the Church.

And to put #5 (job) ahead of either Church or neighbor is directly opposite Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

And to put #5 (job) ahead of either Church or neighbor is directly opposite Church teaching.

This sort of enumeration is problematic in an integrated person. For example, even one’s job, while we all know does not come before one’s family, is integrated into one’s responsibility for providing for one’s family. I have known a few people who have lost their job over “putting their family first” meaning, calling in whenever a wife asked them to. Thus they ended up not being able to provide for their family. LIkewise, one’s family comes before one’s Church. But if one does not provide for spiritual nurishment of oneself and family, he ends up failing in both.

I am reminded of C. S. Lewis’ principle of First Things. If we fail to put first things first, we often end up failing on the second thing we put first and the first thing we failed to prioritize.