A Problem of Interpretation....

My friend Fr. Smith has a fascinating article at The Chant Cafe that I am going to repost here.  I also have a commentary which will follow.  Please do read:

Reports are coming in that Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix has promulgated a policy on Communion under both species much less restrictive than a document released earlier. It will be interesting to see if the Diocese of Madison will follow suit. “There has been much needless hurt over this issue,” Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo Nevares has stated.

But should this episode not lead us to ask the question, “What is the ultimate origin of this hurt?” Many were quick to blame Bishop Olmstead for the hurt because of enacting a policy, which, although it has now been retracted, is entirely permissible according to the Church’s liturgical law.

People all over the blogosphere were quick to turn to Church documents to support their positions for and against Olmstead’s now reversed decision. I was one of them, and even posted some of the pertinent documents in a post on Chant Café. As I watched the commentary on this issue develop, I came to realize something which frankly makes me quite uncomfortable. Everyone could appeal to authoritatively binding Church documents, without modifying or falsifying their meaning, for their position.

So this begs the question: what is the proper hierarchy of documents related to the liturgy? Theologians before the Second Vatican Council often used a system to rank the relative gravity of theological propositions: de fide divina, de fide ecclesiastica, and so on. That system has disappeared, and so there is a lack of clarity as what the weight of a papal encyclical is as opposed to, oh, for example, a note of the Vatican dicastery Iustitia et pax, or a comment made by the Pope in an interview on an airplane and an instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This is not just a question for theology or liturgy nerds. Its answer is vital to communion in the Church. Now that Pope Benedict XVI’s principle of the hermeneutic of continuity has become the cornerstone for what some see as a proper interpretation, not only of the Second Vatican Council, but of everything in the life of the Church, we have to ask: how do we establish that hermeneutic?

Where the principles of establishing that hermeneutic are reversed, that reversal is going to be played out in ways which can engender confusion and ill will. When the Visitation of female Religious in America was announced, there were some Sisters who said that religious life had to be interpreted according to Gaudium et spes, while others said according to Perfectae caritatis. The Sisters who honestly reformed their communities according to the former have been treated with suspicion for not conforming to a certain interpretation of Perfectae caritatis. We can argue over how the reform of religious life was carried out, but was either principle false?

In liturgy, these tensions can be seen. Is Redemptionis sacramentum to be seen in the light of Sacrosanctum concilium or vice-versa? Is the Missal of Paul VI to be seen in the light of the Missal of St Pius V or vice-versa? If the Missal of Paul VI does not tell you how to incense an altar, can it be presupposed that you do so in the manner of the Missal of St Pius V? I have heard both sides on all of these questions. And these questions can be multiplied ad nauseam.

It would seem to me that, if we view Church documents as becoming more explicit as time goes on, then precedence should go to the most recent document. One assumes that with each successive document, the Church becomes more specific. If we take this to be the case, then the permission in MR 2002 for Communion under both species has to take into account 2004 Redemptionis sacramentum, which places Communion under both species in the context of the prohibition against the unnecessary multiplication of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, that also hearkens back to the 1997 document On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest. Then the question becomes: which is more important: that the faithful receive under both species or the avoidance of the unnecessary multiplication of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion?

(An aside: Yet seeing the most recent Church document as more explicit, and thus the driving force for interpretation, would mean that the Missal of St Pius V should be seen in the light of the Missal of Paul VI, and not vice-versa, contrary to what seems to be the thrust of Summorum pontificum and Universae ecclesiae. So which is it?)

Different people come down on different sides of the priority of MR 2002 vs, RS 2004 question, and that drives their response to what Olmstead did originally in Phoenix. The question of priority of document drives the answer to alot of questions.

I am reminded of the fact that, outside of the United States, both Communion under both species and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are comparatively rare. The Roman Pontiff in his Masses employs neither. Do those two facts have any meaning at all, or are they aberrations from what should be the norm? And if they are aberrations, why are they allowed to continue?

Against the bewildering plethora of liturgical documents in different times and places, with no discernible ranking as to their weight and authority, we have several levels of actual practice, which are in turn sometimes enshrined in law. We have the practice of the Roman Pontiff, we have the norms of the Universal Church, the norms of the Episcopal Conferences, the norms of individual Ordinaries, the policies and praxis of individual pastors, then of individual celebrants, and then the idiosyncracies of all of them. In turn, again, we have the multiplication of endless options in the liturgical books themselves for everything under the sun, and then the reality that there are many priests and communities that just do whatever they want.

There are some who argue that this is how the Church is supposed to be. The nature of the Church and the liturgy is such that all of this diversity is part of her constitution. The Church and the liturgy must be in eternal flux, just as the human experience itself.

But, does it not seem, that with every option, every nuance, every legitimate possibility at an increasingly differentiated number of levels, the possibilities for misunderstanding, hurt and the impairment of ecclesial communion increase exponentially? If the Second Vatican Council in Lumen gentium was all about helping us to discover the Church once again as Communion, which Joseph Ratzinger’s theology so eloquently argued that it was, then is it possible that the liturgical reform after Sacrosanctum concilium has hidden within it germs which threaten that very same communion?

There will be those who will gloat over Olmstead’s retraction of a policy barring Communion under both species. Who knows to what extent popular pressure or guidance from other Bishops or the Vatican had something to do with that volte-face. But in essence, it seems to me to be a Pyrrhic victory at best. The liturgical reform at present is a collection of competing rites, books, authorities, documents, and personalities. Those who see the retraction as a vindication of their position, and those of us who maintain that both the previous proposed and the now current policy are legitimate exercises of episcopal authority under the present liturgical law, do we not have to ask ourselves a more pressing question? Why does this situation exist, in which so many possibilities exist which are all equally legal and valid, and consequently set us all at each other’s throats?

The answer to this question cannot be discovered in denunciations of clericalism or papal authority, or appeals to one theological idea over another. We have to go back to basics: What is the point of the liturgy and how does it build up the communion of the Church? Guided by the Holy Spirit, may the entire Church, under the guidance of the hierarchy, untie the knots the liturgical reform has wrought in the life of the Ecclesia orans.

We are almost fifty years out from Vatican II. It is time for the growing pains that inevitably come with change and reform to stop. It is time for the heresy of formlessness which has characterized the last fifty years of liturgical chaos to be anathematized. It is time that we find a way in which the entire Latin Church can actually celebrate the liturgy in a way which respects diversity, but does not at the same time threaten the bonds of communion within the Church.

My response to Fr. Smith:

I want to take it upon myself to work through the following, since you, Fr. Ramil Fajardo, and I tried this several years ago in Chicago...

"This is not just a question for theology or liturgy nerds. Its answer is vital to communion in the Church. Now that Pope Benedict XVI’s principle of the hermeneutic of continuity has become the cornerstone for what some see as a proper interpretation, not only of the Second Vatican Council, but of everything in the life of the Church, we have to ask: how do we establish that hermeneutic?"

I think that the steps are these:

1. The rubrics of the Novus Ordo must be reworked to eliminate any and all ambiguity. I know that is a mighty undertaking, but necessary.
2. The orientation of the Mass must return to an oriented position.
3. The communion rail (or some facsimile therein) must return.
4. The use of Latin must become mandatory except for the most extraordinary of reasons.

That starts the discussion on the Liturgy. Now on to Catechesis:

1. I think that the Holy Father must create a universal and complete catechetical program.
2. He must oblige his bishops to follow this program.
3. He must oblige his bishops to TEACH the faithful as opposed to be an administrator of a conglomerate. (That is why bishops have chancellors, FYI).

This starts the discussion on catechesis. Now onto Catholic life:

1. Until recently, there was a time when there was a Catholic life in most towns, that needs to be resurrected.
2. This will fall on pastors and their "teams" to do. It really isn't that hard, most pastors grew up in that era and would recall how things were done. But, this cannot be done out of nostalgia, or simple reminiscing, but rather it must be done with an authentic goal of bringing a Catholic life back to the faithful.
3. This can be done in several ways...a) Devotions. Start them up again. If people have a reason to gather, they will. b) The Extraordinary Form. The Holy Father wants it, and it is a way to do "something new, different and en vogue" from a Catholic point of view. c) Offer Confession. I don't mean 15 minutes before Holy Mass, or by appointment. BTW, by doing the appointment thing, the secretary is then made aware of who is coming for confession and people don't come to confession, well, unless there is something to confess. And that starts the gossip mill, because we all know that the secretary is the biggest gossip in the parish, next to the curate (tongue-in-cheek, most parishes don't have a curate). d) Get girls out of the sanctuary. The existence of sodalities leads to grown up things for women like Altar and Rosary Societies, Legion of Mary, etc...If sodalities exist and the girls are encouraged to join, then several things happen....boys will start serving again, girls will have something special (because that is all the girls want), and vocations can be fostered (in both directions).

That starts the discussion on Catholic life. And finally:

We must get the faithful out of the sanctuary. Bottom line. There is no reason the priest (or deacon) cannot read the readings, bring the gifts over from the credence (eliminate the offertory procession, it is useless), and distribute Holy Communion. And for God's sake, please kick the cantor to the choir loft, with an organ....that is where they belong. (Pianos are still verboten, I have yet to find a document from the Holy See (recognitio) which lifts that little tome from Tra le Sollectitudini.) These are all extraordinary ministries which have been granted de facto status of being a right of the laity. Prior to the Bugnini reforms, the priest handled all of these things, why can't he today? The short answer is, he can. And the even shorter answer is that it is in his privy to do so. Will there be hurt feelings, sure; but that will last a week. Will there be talk, sure; but there will be talk anyways. So, I think that the sooner the pastor bites the bullet and does it, the better off he will be.

So, my dear Fr. Smith....this is how we establish the hermeneutic. Can it be done? You bet. Will it sting? You bet. Will the faithful be better off for it? You bet. Now is the time, with the new translation, they will be more open to change...but alas...we're just talking and realistically, nothing will be done....unless priests become more bold and start taking risks...there is more to being a pastor than making sure the parish reaches $5000/Mass per Sunday.

I'm just sayin'....

Trying to Bring Lapse Catholics Back....

Recently it has been mentioned that there is a movement afoot which is trying to bring back Catholics who have lapsed in England...An excerpt of what has been written in The Guardian;

It started at the weekend in York with Crossing the Threshold, a national tour of talks and workshops to help clergy and parishioners re-evangelise friends and family. Around a million people regularly attend mass on Sundays, but church leaders say there are many more who are baptised but do not go to church. Kieran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton, said no-shows were more likely to do with laziness and children’s extra-curricular commitments than controversies surrounding the pope or clerical sexual abuse scandals. Conry said: “We have something we’re trying to market and we’re just reminding people there’s something that can bring you happiness, satisfaction and friendship.”

Here is my take on this:

I understand the human part of all of this  (and it can’t be overlooked), but it sure seems that this is more a work of community organizing (a la Obama, and Salinksy) than a call for a return to Holy Mother Church.  Where is the immediate talk of salvation; shouldn’t that be the reason why people come back?

The Church has traditionally gained membership through preaching the truth (Dominic, Clare, Francis, etc….ad nauseam), as opposed to “a personal welcome” (cue the butterflies and music from Cat Stevens {errr…Yusef Islam}).


I realize that we live in a different time, but look at what community organizing has done to the Church, it has failed. It has spent the last 50 years driving people away, yet here we go again….if you build it, they will come (I am from Iowa after all). The real growth comes when the Sacraments are offered unencumbered by emotion and feelings. A very strong argument can be made that this is why the resurgence in the TLM has gone so well since 1984.

It just seems to me that if community organizing didn’t work in America, it certainly isn’t going to work in England. Perhaps the reason that Fr. Finigan’s (the hermeneutic of continuity)  success isn’t in the fact that people are going door to door, but rather that he is doing something authentically Catholic?

I apologize for my rant, but it just seems that the pattern needs to be broken. And this is reason number 30049928839399928817727438437748282 why Vatican Council II needs to be gone over with a fine toothed comb, the human person is fallible, the Church is not.

Welcome Home!!!

Per the request of Fr. Zuhlsdorf, I am posting about a group of Anglican/Episcopalian nuns in Baltimore received into full communion in the Catholic Church.

Please take a moment to go over to their site and send a quick email to Mother Christina welcoming them home to Holy Mother Church.  It takes a lot of courage to do what this order of sisters did.

I have already sent an email to them welcoming them home and I sincerely hope that you do too.  They need our support.  Perhaps if you are so called, you might consider buying greeting cards from them.

Here is their information page.

Thank you...God will bless you for this.

Funerals...

I was reading an article over at Fr. Z's bog about funerals and I thought I would share a couple of things, from a Catholic point of view.

1.  The funeral is first for praying for the dead, not celebrating their life.  Celebrations of life are not consistent with Catholic theology.  There is something very final in celebrating the life of one who has died.  As Catholics, we know that death is not the end.  We know that the person still has a journey to make.  So, we pray for that person to complete the journey.  If he be in purgatory, we pray for his release, so he may view the beatific vision.  If he be in heaven (a canonized saint), we ask for his intercession to the almighty.  We know that Hell exists and that there are souls there, but we don't assume any one person to be there.  To celebrate the life of a person, is a denial, no matter how slight of the journey that he still has to make.

2.  A funeral, for the living, is a form of comfort.  For we see the person who has died off to the next step of his journey.  Look at the final commendation prayers:

May Angels lead you into paradise;

may the Martyrs receive you at your coming

and lead you to the holy city of Jerusalem.

May a choir of Angels receive you,

and with Lazarus, who once was poor, may you have eternal rest.

 We know that the journey doesn't end.  We know that there is still much to be done, whether it be purgation or whether it be direct entrance to heaven.

3.  The reading for the funeral also opens the door to a continued life.  Please view Wisdom 3:1-10.

[1] But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. [2] In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: [3] And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. [4] And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. [5] Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.
[6] As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them. [7] The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds. [8] They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. [9] They that trust in him, shall understand the truth: and they that are faithful in love shall rest in him: for grace and peace is to his elect. [10] But the wicked shall be punished according to their own devices: who have neglected the just, and have revolted from the Lord.

We should pray at a funeral, not to celebrate the life of one who has lived an earthly life, but rather we should pray at a funeral for the soul who still has a journey to make.  And we should pray unceasingly for that soul that his time to heaven be short and that his eternal rest is granted.

I will leave this post with the 15th stanza of the Dies Irae:

Grant me a place among the sheep,
and take me out from among the goats,
setting me on the right side.

5 Misconceptions.....

1.  Ad Orientem worship.  The priest does not turn his back on us, but rather he leads us in the Sacrifice of the Mass facing the same direction.  Question:  Do you get angry with the people in the pews in front of you for having their back to you?

2.  Communion.  One receives The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity under the accident of bread.  There is no necessity of Communion under both kinds, except to create a role for the laity which should be truly extraordinary.

3.  Latin.  Latin is a liturgical language and should be retained for universal use.  The form of Latin used in the Mass was never a spoken langauge.  It isn't vuglar Latin and it isn't classical Latin.  It is liturgical Latin.  The intelligibility of the language by the faithful is easily achieved by catechesis.  If a 4th grader could learn enough Latin to serve Holy Mass in 1940, then the entirety of the faithful should be able to learn enough Latin to understand the Mass.  Vatican Council II commands that we know it.

4.  Two forms of the Mass.  The TLM (Old Mass) has equal footing with the Novus Ordo (New Mass).  All Catholics should be as familiar and comfortable with the TLM as they are with the Novus Ordo.  According the Holy Father, there is only one Roman Rite, but there are two equal forms.  Take enough time to become familiar with both.

5.  The Altar rail.  The altar rail does not separate the faithful from the altar and priest, but rather it brings the altar and priest to the faithful.  Think about it.

We should be taking time to look at the hows and whys of the Catholic Church, not only from a practical point of view, but also from a Traditional point of view.  The Church has done things the way they have for over 1600 years, only to see it all changed about 40 years ago.  Clearly the changes didn't accomplish what was intended.  Mass attendance is down, understanding of the Faith is lower, and the vocation crisis is as bad today as it was in 1980.  Perhaps if we return to what we know works, we can see the Church grow and recover in these areas.  There is no shame in admitting that the "great experiment" failed.  Thankfully, the Holy Father gave the leaders of the Church an out, by liberalizing the TLMs use.  Maybe we should not miss the forest  for the trees.

There are other examples of misconceptions I can give, but realistically, these are the 5 largest in my opinion.

Justice.....???

I think that under the circumstances, Joe Paterno needed to be relieved of his duties as head coach.  Even if he had direct knowledge of one incident, he should have reported it to his superiors AND to the police.  The abuse of the innocent is unconscionable.  There is no excuse for what Jerry Sandusky did, but there is also no excuse for what JoPa didn't do.

It has been a very difficult situation for me, personally as I vetted this in my head.  I was in seminary during a time when all of the allegations about sexual abuse were hush, hush.  I know of instances in which priests did deviant things, but it was all heresay, in other words, I had no direct knowledge of any instance, save one.  And that instance had already been dealt with by the proper authorities. 

As I weighed in my mind the correlation between PSU and the Catholic Church, which is similar,  I came to the conclusion that if the clergy were being shown no quarter (by and large) by the authorities and media,  then neither should the leadership at PSU.  So, Joe Paterno had to go.  Graham Spanier had to go.  Mike McQueary has to go.  Anyone who has had any knowledge AND didn't act should be at the very least relieved of his duties all the way up to and including prosecution, if necessary.

 So, looking at this from a Catholic point of view, I think that several things need to be accounted for:

1.  100% accountability
2.  An independent body should investigate the whole of PSU athletics
3.  Findings should be made public, it is a public institution
4.  Any person having any knowledge and failing to act should be summarily dismissed.
5.  We need to be merciful, we should forgive those who have done wrong and help them to find peace, in a just way.  If justice means losing a job, ok.  If justice means prosecution, ok.  If justice means something in between, ok.

JoPa is not above the law.  While he may have been a "god" at PSU, he is one man.  And one man cannot be more than the whole.  Should he have been able to retire and save face?  Well, my answer to that is no.  That hasn't been the case for any Catholic priest, bishop, or cardinal, so why should it be the same for JoPa?  We as a society must be consistent.

All of that aside, we must focus on the well being of the vicitims.  Many now are young adults and those young people should be taken care of, their needs should be met, their rehabilitation should be assumed by Penn State. 

Most of this will be vetted over the coming months and this certainly isn't the end of the story, but I can honestly say, JoPa needed to go.  Immediately.

N.B.  For those out there that think Card. Law got off easy for being made Archpriest, I would seriously take a closer look.  He lost one of the most influential positions in the Church, certainly in the Church in America.  He had to relocate halfway around the world, to a position which is purely ceremonial.  Card. Law has no real voice and he has no real authority any longer.  Also, he is close to the Holy Father.  While I cannot speak perfectly about this, I would be willing to put dollars toward donuts that Pope Benedict is  frequently checking up on him.   So, let's not think that Card. Law got a free pass.  I, for one, don't think that he did.

From the National Catholic Register....Bishop Slattery

An article interviewing Bishop Slattery from the diocese of Tulsa, shows the very fortitude we need if the "reform of the reform" is going to be taken seriously.  I think that the time to approach our bishops has come.  This is an issue bigger than liberalism or conservatism.  This is a matter of Sacramental honesty.  Read below:

Bishop Edward Slattery, 71, was born and raised in Chicago. He attended the archdiocese’s Mundelein Seminary and was ordained a priest in 1966. He served in Chicago parishes and was active with the Catholic Church Extension Society, which funds the American home missions.

In 1994, he was ordained a bishop by Pope John Paul II and installed as the third bishop of the Diocese of Tulsa, Okla. He is noted for his orthodoxy and piety and has publicly advocated a reform of the liturgy. As the Church prepares for the official promulgation of the new translation of the liturgy on the First Sunday in Advent, Nov. 27, he shared his thoughts on the liturgy, the priesthood and religious life, and maintaining a healthy spirituality.


You’ve made public statements about problems with the liturgy. What changes would you like to see?
I would like to see the liturgy become what Vatican II intended it to be. That’s not something that can happen overnight. The bishops who were the fathers of the council from the United States came home and made changes too quickly. They shouldn’t have viewed the old liturgy, what we call the Tridentine Mass or Missal of Pope John XXIII, as something that needed to be fixed. Nothing was broken. There was an attitude that we had to implement Vatican II in a way that radically affects the liturgy.

What we lost in a short period of time was continuity. The new liturgy should be clearly identifiable as the liturgy of the pre-Vatican II Church. Changes, like turning the altar around, were too sudden and too radical. There is nothing in the Vatican II documents that justifies such changes. We’ve always had Mass facing the people as well as Mass ad orientem [“to the east,” with priest and people facing the same direction]. However, Mass ad orientem was the norm. These changes did not come from Vatican II.

Also, it was not a wise decision to do away with Latin in the Mass. How that happened, I don’t know; but the fathers of the Council never intended us to drop Latin. They wanted us to hold on to it and, at the same time, to make room for the vernacular, primarily so that the people could understand the Scriptures.

You yourself have begun celebrating Mass ad orientem.
Yes, in our cathedral and a few parishes where the priests ask me to. Most of the time, I say Mass facing the people when I travel around the diocese or when I have a large number of priests concelebrating, because it works better that way.
A few priests have followed my example and celebrate ad orientem as well. I have not requested they change. I prefer to lead by example and let the priests think about it, pray about it, study it, and then look at their churches and see if it’s feasible to do.

And it’s positive when people are thinking about and talking about the liturgy.
When people make the liturgy part of their conversation, it is a good thing. As priests and laypeople discuss the liturgy, they’ll see how important it is and how it is a work of God and not our own.
But we must approach the liturgy on bended knee with tremendous humility, recognizing that it doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to God. It is a gift. We worship God not by creating our own liturgies, but by receiving the liturgy as it comes to us from the Church. The liturgy should be formed and shaped by the Church itself to help people pray better. And we all pray better when we are disposed to receive what God has offered, rather than creating something of our own.

Are you excited about the promulgation of the new translation of the Roman Missal?
I’m looking forward to it. I’ve put a lot of work into it this past year: getting the people of the diocese ready. We’ve hosted a number of large gatherings to explain the new translation, and those in attendance were attentive and grateful. I think it is going to be well received by our priests and the people.
Moreover, the announcement of the new translation has sparked an opportunity to renew our commitment to an active participation in the liturgy. We should come to the liturgy with an interior disposition that it is something which we can only receive. It is a gift from God. And, as part of our reception of that gift, we must listen with a loving heart to what God has to tell us.

In 2010, to celebrate the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s election, you celebrated a traditional Latin Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. Why did you celebrate this Mass, and how did it go?
I did it because I didn’t want a lot of people to be disappointed. Archbishop [Donald] Wuerl [of Washington], now Cardinal Wuerl, called me to say they could not find a bishop to celebrate the Mass because the bishop who was originally scheduled withdrew. It was only a few days before the event, and they needed a replacement. Since bishops’ schedules are so tight, even Archbishop Wuerl could not do it on such short notice. So, I was thrilled to have the opportunity.
I was impressed by the large crowd, but found it easy to pray, despite all the people. There was a sense of prayer, a silence and an involvement that made it easy for all of us to pray together.

You preached on suffering that day, and your homily was well received.
We were there to thank God for the Holy Father’s five years of service as the Successor of Peter. I realized that during those five years he has suffered enormously, and the Church has been the target of much persecution. It makes you more conscious of suffering itself. Suffering has always been with us; it’s something we all have to endure.
I wanted to remind the congregation that our sufferings need not be wasted; suffering in union with Christ is redemptive. However, if we suffer with resentment or with a sense of merely feeling the pain of suffering, it is wasted.
I thought that would be a good theme. I didn’t want to talk about the divisions that exist between conservatives and liberals or those who attend the Tridentine Mass and the rest of the Catholic world.
Suffering is universal. Everyone suffers as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve and our own sins. But what Christ, in his great love for us, has done is taken that which is our great enemy, suffering and death, and put it at our service. Suffering and death can be the cause of our redemption.

You obviously have quite a love for the priesthood. What first made you want to be a priest?
I can’t trace it to any one thing. My mother and father were good Catholics, and the neighborhood in which I lived had many good Catholics, so I grew up in a positive environment.
I do recall one instance, however, when I was very young. I woke up in the middle of the night and made my first adult prayer. By this, I mean I was conscious of God’s presence and moved by it. I was filled by a profound and unexplainable gratitude for his presence and love.
From that time I changed. I became interested in things of the Church: Mass, sacraments, religion classes, priests and nuns. Anything that was religious was attractive to me from that time on.
I announced to my parents when I was in the fifth or sixth grade that I would like to go to Quigley [Preparatory Seminary] and become a priest. They were happy, but I was a little disappointed that they were not as excited about it as I was. They were in favor of it, but I thought they would be thrilled. Looking back on it, I think they were thinking, Oh, this is just a child’s dream. But I was serious. My father went to Quigley himself, and my brother too, but they both left and got married.

Your ordination as a bishop by Pope John Paul must have left you with many special memories.
It was an unforgettable experience. To this day, I feel grateful and unworthy.
I had met Pope John Paul II several times before. Because I was president of the Extension Society, I traveled frequently and came to places where he was visiting. I remember meeting him in Arizona and Alaska and in Guam, where I met him the first time.
Like everyone else, I was in awe in his presence. I felt privileged that I could shake hands with him and see him face to face.

How has your Diocese of Tulsa changed since you first arrived nearly 18 years ago?
We’ve had a large influx of Hispanic Catholics, most of whom have come since I arrived. The diocese officially has 60,000 Catholics, but twice as many if you include Hispanics. Often, they won’t register in our parishes, however. Because of our immigration laws, they are hesitant to sign their name on anything.
We’ve also gone from having one of the older clergy populations in the country to one of the youngest. In the last 18 years, most of our priests who were on active duty have died or retired. I’ve ordained about 30 since I’ve arrived, and we have about 50 active priests total. Our average age now is about 45 or 46.
We usually ordain about two priests a year. They serve a Catholic population in this state that is a minority, but a strong and faithful minority.

You’ve expressed your concern about the decline of religious communities in the past 40 years. What do you think caused it?
Sometimes Vatican II is blamed for it, but I think it has to do with a change in our culture and the West. We have become secular, self-reliant and independent.
In the 1960s, we had the war in Vietnam, the civil-rights movement and a society that was increasingly disillusioned with people in authority. Protests arose emphasizing that people were being denied their rights — and, sometimes, they were — and the themes of responsibility, obedience, loyalty and fidelity were forgotten. We lost an important balance we needed.
Also, as technology improves, people become more and more comfortable and expect to be comfortable. We take for granted the gifts God has given us and think we’re entitled to them.
These prevailing attitudes then affect all of us, whether we’re a religious, bishop, priest, married or single person. It’s just a matter of time before some religious say, “I’m going to change the way I’m living and re-interpret the meaning of poverty, chastity and obedience.”
But for us to have a conversion of heart, we need examples. We need religious. We need reformation of the religious and consecrated life because the Catholic Church is searching for men and women who can lead us by example. That is what has been lacking in the past 40 years, as many religious left the religious life or changed to a lifestyle which is, unfortunately, even more comfortable than the average person. Sometimes I think some religious have lost their identity.
The charisms of poverty, chastity and obedience are something that all of us need to embrace, but the religious are the ones who lead us in this. They help us to stay focused on Christ in another world, another kingdom, and not the kingdom of this world.

How should we respond?
We should start with prayer. That’s where everything starts. We don’t start by talking about ourselves or even examining our consciences. We start by prayer, on our knees. We come to the Lord and ask him to let us see ourselves as he sees us. He’s the only one who can. God knows each one of us perfectly, and if we’re seeking self-knowledge, we must go to him.
Once we do that, we receive his help and a certain joy because we open our hearts to being honest. We allow ourselves to see and accept what is true about ourselves and about others in light of the Gospel. But without prayer, that can’t happen.
Once we become men and women of prayer, everything else will fall into place. But we have to put in the time. You have to schedule prayer. You have to make sure that you pray every day, and as often as you can. Become a man or woman of prayer. When we do this, we will begin to discover ourselves, perhaps for the first time.

You also frequently recommend Eucharistic adoration.
The Eucharist is the center of our lives. The reason for Eucharistic adoration is so that we might find ourselves as better participants when we do celebrate the Mass. Everything centers around our Lord in the Eucharist. Once we begin to see this and experience this, we’ll find ourselves going to Mass more often.

Are there other spiritual practices you recommend?
We have to return to the Rosary. Pope John Paul II said that when we pray the Rosary, we see the life of Christ through the eyes of his mother, Mary. And there’s no better way to look at Christ than through the eyes of Mary. The Rosary is a tried and true means of doing that. I encourage every Catholic to pray the Rosary every day. Praying the Rosary takes us through the major mysteries of our faith, especially now since John Paul has given us the five Luminous Mysteries.
I also advise a return to confession. When I say this, I don’t mean to do this in some sort of laborious, burdensome way, but rather as a form of prayer. Pray before you examine your conscience, and allow the Lord to tell you what your sins are. He loves you, and he will tell you a lot about yourself. He will help you see yourself in contrast with his infinite love for you. You will begin to see the gap between his love for you and your love for Him. And when you experience that gap, it will help you become more generous and more apt to recognize and admit your sins in confession.

Who are your heroes in the spiritual life?
St. Thérèse of Lisieux, the Little Flower. I have a picture of her in my chapel, and I talk to her every day. Since becoming a bishop, she has become my hero. She has such enormous humility, and her love for Christ is so genuine.
What impresses me most about her is that she found great peace in her life because she wanted the approval of Jesus alone for anything she thought or did. She never wanted anyone else’s approval, only his. Now, that’s really love. We often seek approval and praise from others, whether it be from our parents, co-workers or friends.
But she did not. All she wanted was that approval from Christ himself, so she was always trying to please him. That’s all that mattered to her; that simplified her life and made her a saint.