It's time for the CDF to investigate the Worcester Diocese

In an article for The American Catholic which may be found here, The Motley Monk writes:


"It’s pretty easy to tell that the folks over at the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) aren’t happy campers these days. Some of their heroes fighting on the front lines for women’s ordination are being “disciplined.”
According to a recent NCR article:

A longtime peace and human rights activist arrested countless times, Franciscan Fr. Jerry Zawada has been removed from public ministry for concelebrating Mass with a woman priest in 2011.

Poor Fr. Zawada! After all he’s done over the decades to promote the cause of social justice. He’s been jailed numerous times and now at the age of 76, one would think the Vatican would overlook Fr. Zawada’s minor infelicity for merely concelebrating “Mass” with the Roman Catholic “WomanPriest,” the Rev. Ms. Janice Sevre-Duszynska.

The enemy in the NCR’s narrative is the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which reviewed documentation related to the November 22, 2011 “Mass.” NCR obtained a copy of the CDF’s private letter which stated:

Having carefully examined the acts of the case, and the vota of the former Minister General and the Rev. Zawada’s Provincial Superior, this Dicastery has decided to impose on Rev. Jerome Zawada, OFM, a life of prayer and penance to be lived within the Queen of Peace Friary in Burlington, Wisconsin.

The letter also forbids Fr. Zawada from presenting himself in public as a priest or celebrating the sacraments publicly. However, Fr. Zawada is allowed to concelebrate Mass with other friars at the friary and in private.

Zawada isn’t too pleased. He told the NCR:

I don’t mind the prayer part, but when they called, when they say that I need to be spending time in penance, well, I’m not going to do penance for my convictions and the convictions of so many others, too.

Apparently, CDF isn’t going to wink and ignore any priest who concelebrates “Mass” with so-called “WomenPriests.”

• Strike #1 involved the former Maryknoll priest, Ray Bourgeois, who was excommunicated in November 2012 for doing so.
• Strike #2 involved the Jesuit priest, Bill Brennen, who was relieved of his priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for concelebrating “Mass” with a “WomanPriest” one month later.
• Strike #3 is Fr. Zawada.

And that’s only the cases that the priests involved have made public.
“You’re out!” the umpire yells after a batter takes three strikes.
And, by the way, the baseball season opens today.
Perhaps those priests who support the cause for the ordination of women should place their money on the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year. Both have about an equal chance of happening anytime soon."


To read the NCR article, click on the following link:
http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/longtime-peace-activist-removed-ministry-after-concelebrating-mass-woman-priest

- See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/03/31/womenpriests-and-their-supporters-strike-three-and-youre-out/#sthash.bxKgcPW8.dpuf

For years I have fought dissent within the Worcester Diocese.  And part of that dissent has been the push for women's ordination.  Although my articles and letters to the editor of The "Catholic" Free Press have been regularly censored, Stacy Trasancos has been given space in that publication for a regular column.  This most likely because she has advanced the idea that women's ordination might be a possibility.  A while back I exposed how Trasancos had written: "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood].  We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures.  For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled.  There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say."

See here for my response.

Of course, because I have stood against such nonsense, I have been ostracized from this diocese.  But not dissidents such as Mary Donovan of the Worcester "Commission for Women."  Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan implied that women are not "active participants in the worship of God" and that women should be able to "dispute interpretation" of Church doctrine. In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

It's not renovation that Ms. Donovan stood for but wreckovation.  Her ideology was rooted in pride and falsehood.

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).
Mary Donovan and other sophomoric souls throughout the Worcester Diocese have openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."
But those who shout Non Serviam along with Lucifer will not be silent.  No amount of truth will produce the slightest crack in their wall of conviction.  The time has come to discipline them.  If necessary, with excommunication.

Such an anathema would amount to an expression of supreme charity.


Related reading here and here.

Sign the Letter of Support for Pope Benedict XVI

For background on the controversy, read Fr. Euteneuer's excellent response here. And the Holy Father's statement on condoms here.

The conduct of the media, in particular, has been offensive. And only serves to confirm what Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), had to say: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax*. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."


"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).


* See here for example.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette: A generous letters-to-the-editor policy?

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette runs the following notice relative to its letters-to-the-editor policy:

We publish letters expressing all shades of opinion because we feel a special obligation to allow readers to comment on our editorials and news coverage. We invite constructive criticism and welcome suggestions. The Telegram & Gazette has a generous letters-to-the-editor policy. Most letters meeting our guidelines appear in print. These guidelines are:

We welcome letters sent to the newspaper by e-mail. To be published, such letters must have as their subject, “Letter to the Editor.” Others will not be received.

Letters must be no longer than 250 words. Letters that exceed this maximum will be returned to the writer to shorten.

We do not publish second-hand material as letters: reprints and quotations, letters written for other publications, addressed to other people or "open letters." We do not print letters that have appeared in other newspapers. In most cases, we do not publish letters from outside our circulation area. We do not publish letters considered too personal to be of general public interest. That also includes routine thank-you notes to individuals or organizations. We do not publish letters written in verse or essay form.

At times, when we believe a given topic has been exhausted, we call a halt to further comments.

We do not publish letters that we believe come under libel laws. Material can be libelous if it holds a private person or organization up to hatred, contempt, suspicion of wrongdoing, scorn or ridicule. We review letters about active court cases carefully.

We do not publish hate mail or letters that are obviously offensive to good taste. We do not publish letters that are unsigned, unverifiable or unintelligible. Political endorsements and letters concerning federal, state and municipal elections and votes have specific deadlines announced in advance.

Letters must be signed with the writer's full name. Initials and nicknames are not acceptable. Writers must include a complete home address and a handwritten signature, plus a daytime telephone number for verification purposes. We limit an individual to one published letter in two months.

On school projects, we ask that the name of the instructor be included. One letter writer may be selected to represent the class and note will give the number of letters received.

These guidelines have been crafted to given a maximum number of writers the opportunity to be represented in our letters to the editor columns.

Now my good friend JayG, a Socratic gadfly from Worcester County, submitted the following as a letter to the editor of the T&G:

Some think that Love at First Sight is primarily between a man and a woman, but I’d argue that Love at First Sight actually happens primarily in a delivery room – when parents first see their newborn child.

Eighteen year old Sycloria Williams was not expecting Love at First Sight back in 2006, when she went to abort her 23-week old fetus at the Hialeah Woman’s Health Center outside Miami. But when she delivered a live baby instead of a dead one, a baby that autopsy reports say had filled her lungs with air, Williams had a change of heart. I suppose it’s fair to call a fetus that was delivered and actually breathed a baby, not a fetus, but Williams simply called her daughter Shanice.

Owner Belkis Gonzalez saw this change of heart as bad for business, so he cut Shanice’s umbilical cord without clamping it, threw her in a biohazard bag, and tossed her out. I suppose it’s fair to call this murder, but the State of Florida has opted only to call this practicing medicine without a license.

Sincerely,
Jay G

This was the editor's reply:

Date: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:18 AM
From: letters@telegram.com
To: jayg
Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor
Size: 7 KB

Sorry, the Telegram & Gazette cannot print a letter of such a personal issue.
Susan Mulrooney

The murder of a child is a personal issue? How so? Does Ms. Mulrooney honestly expect anyone to buy that load of bovine scatology? Bernard Goldberg was right, "..the majority of journalists in big newsrooms slant leftward in their personal politics, especially on issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun control; and so in their professional role they tend to assume those positions are reasonable and morally correct. Bias in the news stems from that.." (Arrogance, p. 4). Like JayG, I encountered this bias when I submitted an Op-Ed piece to the T&G several months ago relative to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and its decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (see here). I received no response whatsoever (even after several queries to the appropriate editor). Obviously, when it comes to issues such as abortion, homosexuality and same-sex "marriage," the Telegram & Gazette isn't really interested in a free and open exchange of ideas. There is nothing "generous" in that newspaper's letters-to-the-editor policy or its Op-Ed policy unless you march in lockstep with its liberal ideology.

Interestingly, while the Telegram & Gazette will not publish letters that it believes "come under libel laws" and states that, "Material can be libelous if it holds a private person or organization up to hatred, contempt, suspicion of wrongdoing, scorn or ridicule," it seemingly made no attempt to hold one of its own reporters (Richard Nangle) to the same professional standards as he covered the case of Catholic activist Larry Cirignano - see here.