|
Belleville priest axed over Missal
As our website is being set up and our Newsletter taking shape, the leadership team of the Association of US Catholic Priests is aware that members want to care about each other and express their solidarity with brother priests as they face the struggle to be faithful to the service of the Church in the vision of Vatican II. One of our members, Fr. William Rowe was removed from his parish over the issue of his interpretation of the Roman Missal - an issue tender to most of us. Two responses are just out from brother AUSCP priests. If you have a response or suggestion, e-mail info4@uscatholicpriests.us.
Bob Cushing, editor
|
Fr. Don Blaes, AUSCP member, reacts to the removal of Fr. William Rowe from his parish in the Belleville Diocese:
"It is a highly complicated issue. For some time, Fr. Bill has been changing words, re-fitting things so that they made better sense. Nothing dangerous. The former bishop admonished him but did not feel it was so grevious that it merited any action. As a matter of fact, he was an ideal pastor, did a fantastic job with people, devoted, hard working. Why mess with something that great? This bishop however thinks differently. He warned, he threatened. Bill, however, I feel made the "mistake" of putting in writing to him something to the effect that "if you want me to retire, I understand". The bishop utilized this and wrote, "I accept your retirement". Had Bill not written that, the only recourse would have been to fire him, and firing a pastor is quite difficult. So, this was something the bishop COULD do - and did. However, it was something he SHOULD not have done. Had the bishop sought any consultation with anyone, I feel he would have been advised to let this alone. But he consults no one, makes his own decisions and bad ones, and it embroils everyone in a mess. Tuesday he's off to Rome so he's outta here, away from the flack, hoping that by the time he comes back, it will all be over. Naturally, if any of this gets to Rome, the bishop will have ample defense - Bill DID "violate" the rules by not adhering strictly to the new missal language.
What to do? There's a petition going on the internet asking that Bill be returned to his parish. Petitions DO have some effect on banks who want to charge silly fees, but will they have any effect on bishops? The hope is this will die down. Fr. Bill is not a fighter, he's a lover - and he won't lead any crusade. He's needed in his parish, God knows we need priests. One other guy just bailed out to join the Augustinians - I suspect guys are saying, we might just better find someplace else to minister. I guess we would like to see this pot stirred, have national attention given it, don't let it go away, maybe see if this new thing called petition-via-internet could work. We're even more depressed, feeling that noting is being heard, nothing is being done, even after many of us have written the Nuncio, the Congregation of Bishops, getting NCR to write. Nothing works.
Jesus also spoke about weeds and wheat - Bill is no weed, he's as fine a wheat as you'll find. But the bishop has torn him out and thrown him away." |
Fr. Rich Creason, AUSCP member from St Louis, provides the following comment and link to a St Louis Post-Dispatch article which is also reproduced below as text.
Fr. Rich is asking AUSCP: "What would you like to see happen on the part of those outside Belleville Diocese?"
He suggests "some type of public statement that affirms what Kevin Irwin says in the Post-Dispatch article. It is the structure of prayers that we follow, not the words. I imagine that it is a widespread practice by many clergy who adapt words to better fit the occasion and the assembled believers." He also adds, "Get William Rowe a good canon lawyer. I think Edward Braxton is abusing his authority."
An excerpt of the article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch follows. For the rest of the article, click here.
"Since December when the new translation came out, no one has said what would happen to you if you changed stuff," said the Rev. John Foley, director of the Center for Liturgy at St. Louis University. "But I find it hard to believe a priest in Illinois would be forced to resign because he wasn't using the exact words from the translation. It's not a strong-enough offense for that."
In the wake of sweeping changes in the church as a result of the Second Vatican Council, some priests in the 1970s began using their own words and phrasing in place of the verbatim translations of the original Latin liturgy in the Missal, Foley said. He said there has never been an established penalty for improvising nonalterable prayers, and bishops have traditionally looked past an individual priest's extemporizing.
Monsignor Kevin Irwin, professor of liturgical studies at the Catholic University of America, said there are some prayers said by a priest at Mass in which he is "beholden to the structure not to the words."
But there are also prayers that priests are "duty bound to say," said the Rev. John Baldovin, professor of historical and liturgical theology at Boston College. Most of the prayers in the Missal, in fact, are not optional, he said.
Rowe said Belleville's previous bishop, Wilton Gregory, had discussed his off-the-cuff prayer habit with him, referring to the practice as "pushing the envelope." He said five years ago, Braxton also discussed the matter with him, and asked him to read directly from the Missal.
"I told him I couldn't do that," Rowe said. "That's how I pray."
Click here to read the entire article. |
|
|
 |
|
About us
We are an association of U.S. Catholic priests offering mutual support and a collegial voice. We are engaged in contemplation, dialogue and prophetic action on issues affecting Church and Society.
|
|
