Pastor calls it out in bulletin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lux_et_veritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lux_et_veritas

Guest
Fidei Defensor! That is a title I believe my pastor has earned once again.

Reprinted here in its entirety with permission from the author is the following. The link contained at the end of this article may only work for a short while as the parish does not keep them online for very long. Hence, the need to display it here in its entirety. I’ll have to break it up into two posts.

From the front page of the Assumption Grotto News, Detroit, MI

October 16, 2005

It’s been made public that the Vatican has ordered the seminaries of our country to be evaluated. The media has buzzed much over the single issue of the proposed ousting of homosexuals from the seminaries. This is, however, a small if necessary focus of this investigation.

For many years, these institutions of higher theological learning have been dizzying the brains of seminarians with confusing accounts of some pivotal teachings of the Catholic Church. Young men entering the seminary usually do not do so to become rebels against the magisterium and defamers of Catholic tradition. Rather, this is a thing inculcated in them over a period of years of ‘formation.’ They are tutored in the subtle art of theological ambiguity, of how to conserve a veneer of Catholicism while personally believing and practicing what is contrary to the faith. Especially through the technique of an oppressive psychological conditioning, they are led to espouse aberrant theological views (for example, to regard the sacred Scripture as mere literature whose inerrancy is to be debunked; or to doubt that our Lord possessed divine knowledge during His life on earth). They are permitted to hold and sometimes openly express opinions on matters contrary to the defined teaching of the Pope, such as the moral impossibility of women priests (an issue now forever determined by the definition of Pope John Paul II). They may be taught by word or example to disregard liturgical norms. Much more insidious than these is the infusion of a cynical mental attitude regarding holy things and defined beliefs, an attitude due to years of ‘formation’ in classroom teaching and group discussions, by faculty evaluations, and in psychological counseling. Often there is no single thing that is the cause of this kind of malformation. It’s rather the cumulative effect of a twisted and persistent conditioning which clouds reason, foments arrogance, stifles the devout life, and, in the end, destroys the faith of the seminarian. Behold the result: the unbelieving, rebellious, impious priest who enters the parish to undo the holy apostolic and Catholic faith and root out any vestige of Catholic piety in the faithful.
 
If someone were to demand evidence for this dire account of some of our seminaries, I would call as my witnesses you, the Catholic laity, who, without knowing how it came about, have seen and heard their ‘products’ operating in our parishes. Malformed priests have endangered or destroyed the spiritual lives of many Catholics, some of whom have stopped practicing the faith altogether. Such priests have led the laity to doubt Catholic doctrines, to denigrate the Word of God, to neglect Confession, to make light of sinful matter–even of gravely sinful things. Finally, these priests have attempted to pacify their troubled consciences by assuring themselves and their parishioners that, in the end, all will be saved anyway.

Sad to tell, there is yet more to this dismal picture. This concerns not the seminary directly but what precedes it. This is the process of interview and evaluation of the candidates. Here they are screened so that those deemed unsuitable are barred from entry into the seminary. While one might think it a good and necessary thing, one would be shocked to learn that those refused are not those who were found wanting in orthodox Catholic faith or who practice traditional forms of Catholic piety but rather those who give evidence of those very things. The special tool employed for this process of exclusion of candidates is psychological testing with a follow-up evaluation by a psychologist. If a candidate is found to be too “rigid” (a cherished term in their lexicon) because he holds to certain Catholic beliefs and religious practices, he is rejected as one unsuitable for the diocesan priesthood. One may wonder who these expert psychologists are who wield such power in determining priestly vocations. I answer with a single example. The Archdiocese employed a woman psychologist who, among her other attributes, regarded
unacceptable any candidate’s who agreed with the Church’s mandate of clerical celibacy. Without a doubt, her evaluation caused several candidates to be barred from entering our seminary. She has now left her job, but not on account of her views, but because she took off to “marry” a priest of the Archdiocese.

All these and many more shameful and underhanded dealings with seminarians and seminary candidates have been kept from the devout Catholic faithful who have continued to pray–rightly of course, but naively–for more vocations to the priesthood. I believe that we do not have a true vocations’ problem, but rather a crisis fabricated by those who are depriving the Church of many potentially good priests and unleashing upon the Church some intellectually and morally unfit men to assume the life and work of the priesthood. Not all of their efforts have succeeded. There have been some very fine men ordained in recent years. Nor would it be true to say that all our seminary professors have been dissidents. Detroit, in fact, now has many excellent faculty members. But the aforesaid problems in some seminary courses and in the formation department really do exist nonetheless.

Our archdiocesan seminary is soon to be evaluated by a Vatican appointed team. I ask you to pray that this will be effective in correcting the problems which have done so much damage to the faith of our people in recent years. We need good priests for a holy Church.

Fr Perrone
As promised, here is the link. It will be online for about 8 weeks, but you may need to go from the homepage to the Fr. Perrone tab, then select Pastor’s Column and choose October 16.

assumptiongrotto.com/pastor.htm
 
Here is Fr. Eduard Perrone at the 2005 Call to Holinessconference that took place just a few weeks ago in Sterling Heights, Michigan where I would estimate some 800 participated. This was from a short panel discussion. Next to him is Penny Lord and her husband Bob (he is seen on the screen behind). Next to them is Fr. William Casey and fellow Father of Mercy priest, Fr. Louis Guardiola to the far left of Fr. Perrone. Between Fr. Perrone and Fr. Guardiola is Jay McNally.

Fr. Perrone is also mentioned in the liturgical renewal conference discussed in the October 18 E-letter by Karl Keating.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Thanks for the info…

as always, Father is truly a defender of the Faith, and more and more area Catholics want more and more of the Truth.
 
I wouldn’t discount this description of what has been happening in our seminaries, but how then to account for the many priests of advanced age, many retired who hold these same views. They often received their formation before Vatican II even happened. They would have been the teachers and spiritual directors of those very priests Fr. Perrone is talking about. The “infection” must go back to early in the 20th century then. Is it an “American” problem or does it also have roots in Europe or even Rome itself?
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
I wouldn’t discount this description of what has been happening in our seminaries, but how then to account for the many priests of advanced age, many retired who hold these same views. They often received their formation before Vatican II even happened. They would have been the teachers and spiritual directors of those very priests Fr. Perrone is talking about. The “infection” must go back to early in the 20th century then. Is it an “American” problem or does it also have roots in Europe or even Rome itself?
Click to expand...
It’s certainly a good question - one that I have forwarded. It may take a few days for a response and may have to wait until I see him in the coming week. In the meanwhile, maybe someone else reading the thread can enlighten us with a response to this question.
 
The pre Vatican II priests were basically what I call the “hippy” priests who were more or less influenced by the culture of the late 50s/all of 60s. I believe that they led to the current problem in the first place. They came in with thier various ideas, and eventually became more powerful to the point where they could influence who was brought into seminaries and taught in the seminaries themselves.
 
I may be way, way out of my league trying to field this question but I think I know how to answer partly.

Older clergy that are retired and are some present clergy are this way becuase of the growing liberalism up to and including the 1960s. When Vatican II happened, they took that as their cue to become more “loose”. That is just one side that I understand. Another reason could be maybe a lack of understanding of what Vatican II really taught. One more “theory” is clergy became distraught with Vatican II and started teaching what they wanted.

The first reason I gave is one that I have heard many times, but the other two are eductaed guesses based on time, place, activities…almost a sociological approach.

I hope I answered something correctly…😃

peace,
dxu
 
What a wonderful article your pastor wrote for his flock. I also think there is some merit to the idea that the growing liberalism in thought and deed that was percolating pre-Vatican II saw its aberhant flowering in the 1960(s)…that was such as confusing time…many good ideas and good ideals were lost in what JPII called ‘Satan’s Smoke’ entering the Church.
 
Good points on the growing liberalism taking place in the late 50’s and all of the 60’s.

I am wondering about one more possibility too - that is, the loosening of devotion. Did this really occur in the 70’s as I once believed, or was it already taking place among the clergy in the 60’s?

Devotion is something that I’ve gone to, as has my 35 year old cousin. I’m 43 (born in 1962) and was never big on the Rosary or many of the older vocal prayers that have been around for centuries. Many have been penned by saints and used by saints throughout the years. Then, it was all shoved in a closet in favor of “talking to God”, along with the practice of adoration and of benediction. I think this led to too much “talking” to God as opposed to interior silence and listening to God.

Now, I pray a rosary daily. I pray the divine office daily. And, I am working at 30 minutes of mental prayer daily (all part of my secular Carmelite formation).

I’m finding that through devotions and adoration, and the discipline required to engage in these things, brings many graces from God. When priests began to poo-poo the Rosary and adoration wained, that is when problems began to emerge. The graces just were not there.

That is my 2 cents.
 
around here the psychologist they use to screen the entering seminarians is a Mason. :rolleyes:
 
He’s the man, that’s great to see.

I think the liberal “progressive” mentality see have seen usurp our Church was around and growing prior to Vatican II. Unfortunately, rightly or not, Vatican II was used as a launching pad and flagship (in err mind you) for their beliefs and agenda.
 
40.png
quasimodo:
around here the psychologist they use to screen the entering seminarians is a Mason. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
wow! How can that be? Masonry is forbidden for Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top