Fr. Heilman: The Depth of My Anger of Decades of Effete Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracepoole

Guest
I’m…I’m not even sure what to say about this. Anyone want to offer his or her thoughts? Help?
Over the years that followed, I became more dedicated to reverent Masses, excessive availability of Confession and Adoration, teaching about the beautiful devotions of our faith, especially a devotion to the Blessed Mother. I fell more deeply in love with God and more deeply in love with the rich treasury of our Catholic faith.

But, here was the devastating part of that change in me. It offended my uncle , my godfather and the inspiration for my priesthood. He became distant from me, and only had time for the “liberal” priests of our diocese. At my 25th anniversary – it had become so bad by then – I was actually surprised he showed up. He was cold and distant from me, and managed to utter one comment, just before he concelebrated the Mass with me (that was offered ad orientem): “I’ll try to endure this,” he said. You can only imagine how deeply that cut into my heart.

You see? I became the enemy. My crime? I fell in love with the “whole” of our Catholic faith, not just what seemed to be allowed after 1965. My love for reverence and the Sacraments and devotions and the Blessed Mother and the teachings of the Church was considered “divisive” … I was “the problem” in the Church today, in his eyes, and in the eyes of all who seemed to “hate” everything the Church was, prior to 1965. “We don’t want to go back,” they would say with a terrifying scowl on their faces. It was tough to take, my uncle seeming to “hate me,” but I couldn’t water down or protestantize my priesthood in order to gain esteem in his eyes. All I could do is suffer the loss of my godfather, the priest, the inspiration for my priesthood.

As I looked down on my godfather’s gray, lifeless body, knowing we had been separated for 20 years before that day, I blamed you , bishops! It was your effete, weak, compromising with the world “leadership” that emboldened all of the Fr. Don Murrays of the world to hate me … to hate us. You are the ones that guarded your gay, radical priests, while you chastised anyone who dared to actually love the rich treasury of our Catholic faith or challenged our people to strive to become saints.

Unlike the mighty bishops who came before you, you are the ones who never believed our people were capable of growing; of living a superior life in God’s good graces. Do you believe in grace at all? For you, living a life of virtue is an unrealistic goal; certainly not anything anyone is capable of living. your weak, effete “leadership” has made “us” the enemy because we actually believe we are capable of living as our ancestors once did … lives totally dedicated to God and His way, not just the way of the world. you blame us for dividing the Church, when all the while we are trying to live in union with the Church as it was for 1965 years.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I think I’m still processing. It was a lot to absorb.

I also just read THE most frightening piece online about abuses in seminaries and…I’m just stunned. I can’t believe this has been happening in my Church.
 
My thoughts,for what they are worth,is that this person needs to take a break or a long retreat,because all in all these are his personal problems with his uncle or godfather.
And they are being extended in a general way and beyond.
I am sorry for him. We all have a crisis at some point. Hope he gets better. We are all human after all…
 
Last edited:
On one hand, I understand his anger. The “progressive” movement in the Church has been in the driver’s seat for over 50 years now, and all we have to show for it is the dumpster fire we have now. On the other, the other priest isn’t around to speak for himself. I do agree that we have been plagued by weak bishops – but it was his uncle’s choice alone to respond with hostility. I guess I am not buying into “the bishops made him hate me.”
 
Last edited:
I’ve been shunned by family. He shouldn’t imagine that was the bishop’s fault. It is his uncle’s fault.

I think we also need to realize that the 1960s and 1970s were going to happen with or without the 2nd Vatican Council. If you want to blame something, blame two brutal World Wars fought largely within Christendom. How did those happen? Not because of Vatican II.
 
So I’m horrified by the current crisis and what I’m sadly learning about seminaries. Some of what I’ve read (open sexual activity, drinking and drug use, priests keeping lovers in separate quarters that they visit on their off days) is mindblowingly anti-Catholic. But is this all really attributable to VII, as I think Fr. Heilman might believe? Is it all new or did seminaries struggle with these issues in previous generations as well?

(I might also be a bit sensitive here as I’ve never really bought into this priest’s “Real Catholic Men” thing. I’m not a man, though, so maybe my opinion on that issue isn’t really useful.)
 
Last edited:
My mom, who is in her 70’s, refuses to believe that this kind of thing was happening when she was young.

So CAF. Was it? Has this been going on for far longer that we want to admit?
 
gracepoole said:
(I might also be a bit sensitive here as I’ve never really bought into this priest’s “Real Catholic Men” thing. I’m not a man, though, so maybe my opinion on that issue isn’t really useful.)
Click to expand...
I’m sorry GP, are you a man or woman. That above statement is confusing. Are you a “womanpriest?” Am I reading that wrong??
 
Fr. Heilman mentions the 60s but does not name Vatican II specifically. I think a lot went wrong because of the folly of the times, what people called the “spirit of” Vatican II but were far removed from what Vatican II ever intended.

I actually haven’t even seen this website until now, but I did find this article that he did write about the council. He doesn’t appear to be criticizing the council itself.


It all is such a horrifying situation. I had already been ramping up my prayer life this year but now there’s even more reason to do so. But keep the faith. God always has the last word.
 
So CAF. Was it? Has this been going on for far longer that we want to admit?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure we will ever know for sure, at least on the scale of what we are seeing today. A lot of things weren’t talked about and there was no widespread news reporting and sharing of information that we have now. But we do know the Church has never been without scandals. Maybe there were just scandals of a different nature relative to the time.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
40.png
gracepoole:
(I might also be a bit sensitive here as I’ve never really bought into this priest’s “Real Catholic Men” thing. I’m not a man, though, so maybe my opinion on that issue isn’t really useful.)
Click to expand...
I’m sorry GP, are you a man or woman. That above statement is confusing. Are you a “womanpriest?” Am I reading that wrong??
Click to expand...
?? I literally said “I’m not a man” in the post you quoted. Are you familiar with this priest’s Real Catholic Men web site and philosophy?
 
I didn’t get the impression that he was blaming Vatican II for anything. He does say that he fell in love with the whole Church, not just the post 1965 Church: “My crime? I fell in love with the “whole” of our Catholic faith, not just what seemed to be allowed after 1965. My love for reverence and the Sacraments and devotions and the Blessed Mother and the teachings of the Church was considered “divisive””

He blames weak and effete bishops. His article reminded me of an open letter by Deacon Jim Russell to Fr. James Martin, on whom he lays much blame for the current crisis.
 
Last edited:
The problem ultimately lies with the relative and not the bishops. But I do think the bishops deserve a lot of blame for the environment that was created. I realize they don’t have direct responsibility for everything that occurs under them, but they are the leaders. They can’t be the leaders and escape any culpability for what happened under their watch.

Personally I think there is a huge problem of effete bishops. The next class of problems is the jokey bishop. There is an over abundance of both. I don’t expect every bishop to have the same personality as we all have different gifts. But there are just not enough really manly bishops. In light of what we know it makes me wonder.

Regardless, as a result Christianity in the West has become very effeminate. This is not attractive to men and it isn’t real Christianity. Christianity is a nuanced Faith. It is, or was, able to combine the idea of caring for the least of us with a warrior ferocity.
gracepoole said:
My mom, who is in her 70’s, refuses to believe that this kind of thing was happening when she was young.

So CAF. Was it? Has this been going on for far longer that we want to admit?
Click to expand...
Yes it was. It was going on all over society in every institution. Sadly, historically children and young adults have suffered a lot of abuse. It wasn’t the big deal that it is today. People turned a blind eye to it.
 
JimG said:
I didn’t get the impression that he was blaming Vatican II for anything. He does say that he fell in love with the whole Church, not just the post 1965 Church: “My crime? I fell in love with the “whole” of our Catholic faith, not just what seemed to be allowed after 1965. My love for reverence and the Sacraments and devotions and the Blessed Mother and the teachings of the Church was considered “divisive””

He blames weak and effete bishops. His article reminded me of an open letter by Deacon Jim Russell to Fr. James Martin, on whom he lays much blame for the current crisis.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t Martin be a symptom and not a cause of the problem if he’s anything at all?
 
exnihilo said:
Personally I think there is a huge problem of effete bishops. The next class of problems is the jokey bishop. There is an over abundance of both. I don’t expect every bishop to have the same personality as we all have different gifts. But there are just not enough really manly bishops. In light of what we know it makes me wonder.

Regardless, as a result Christianity in the West has become very effeminate. This is not attractive to men and it isn’t real Christianity. Christianity is a nuanced Faith. It is, or was, able to combine the idea of caring for the least of us with a warrior ferocity.
Click to expand...
This is where I start wondering, though. What does it mean that the Church has become “effeminate”? Doesn’t such a judgment require belief in stereotypically male and female behaviors?
 
I think that what Deacon Russell blames Fr. Martin for is encouraging a homosexual culture in a portion of the priesthood. According to seminary guidelines many of these men should never have been admitted to seminary or been ordained.
 
When were homosexual seminarians first permitted? Was it a worldwide change?
 
I meant more soft like Aquinas uses effeminate. But I do think there are stereotypical behaviors. I see a bishop as a father and a father, or at least an ideal father, approaches things differently from a mother. As a kid I would be far less worried about my mom finding out I’d done something wrong than my father. Obviously this isn’t always the case, but I think this is the more common experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top