Skip to content
Yes, you can buy lasix medications online no prescription buy maxalt online pharmacy canada online pharmacy india coupon code buy prozac

General Confession as Social Control

TRADITIONAL Catholics who live in areas with several traditionalist chapels sometimes move from chapel to chapel, either temporarily or permanently, and for a great variety of reasons.

In the Greater Cincinnati area, one of the “options” available is Immaculate Conception Church (IC) in Norwood, operated by Father William Jenkins of Bishop Clarence Kelly’s Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). During our recent difficulties here at SGG, some of our parishioners, hoping no doubt to find a peaceful refuge, temporarily ended up at IC.

We have since heard that these Catholics were puzzled because Fr. Jenkins was telling them that, before they could receive any sacraments at IC, they must first make a general confession.

What is this all about? We begin with a definition and some principles.

What is a general confession?

A general confession is one in which the penitent repeats confessing either all the sins committed during his life or those committed during a period of time that spans many confessions.

Various writers (St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius, Pope Benedict XIV) recommend occasionally making a general confession as a means of advancement in the spiritual life, or for motives such as obtaining greater humility, fear of God, strength, peace, etc. Normally, one makes a general confession in connection with a retreat, entering a new state of life (the priesthood, religious life, etc.) or before death.

When can a priest require a penitent to make a general confession?

A priest can never require a penitent to make a general confession unless it is truly necessary.

Catholic sacramental theologians say it is necessary only if a penitent’s previous confessions were either sacrilegious or invalid. (See Regatillo-Zalba, Theologiae Moralis Summa [Madrid: BAC 1954] 3:566)

St. Alphonsus, says the Jesuit moral theologian Cappello, warns that it is not required to repeat a confession “unless invalidity is morally certain, because the principle which applies here is: the validity of the act must be upheld.” (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis [Rome: Marietti 1954] 2:211.4.

Why does Fr. Jenkins then require it of SGG parishioners?

He maintains that all the clergy at SGG, except me, are either doubtfully or invalidly ordained. Hence, our clergy must be treated as if they are not real priests, their absolutions treated as invalid, and former parishioners forced to re-confess all mortal sins to the priests at IC.

Is there any basis for his stand on the ordinations?

Nope. I have repeatedly demonstrated, citing chapter and verse from the writings of various canonists and sacramental theologians, that Fr. Jenkins’ position has no foundation whatsoever in Catholic theology.

Several years ago, I even publicly debated Fr. Jenkins on the topic. This event took place over at IC and was videotaped. I gave everyone photocopies of material from various theological treatises that supported my position, and I even handed out copies of my debate notes to those present.

While Fr. Jenkins was speaking, I looked over and noted to my amusement that the ring binder he had ceremoniously placed open on the lectern in front of him contained only blank pages!

Repeatedly over the years when I have encountered Fr. Jenkins, moreover, I have asked him to give me the number of the canon in the Code of Canon Law that he uses to justify refusing sacraments to SGG parishioners. Just the number, I tell him, would be sufficient — I have all the commentaries, and can look it up myself.

He never answers the question — because, of course, there is no such canon!

So, since there is no basis at all in Catholic theology or canon law for Fr. Jenkins’ requiring SGG parishioners to make a general confession, the rules laid down in the pre-Vatican II manuals of sacramental theology therefore forbid him from imposing it.

Are there any other theological problems with his requirement?

Lots. For one, a layman who went to SGG for many years would have trouble distinguishing sins he confessed to me (I’m the only “valid” one according the Jenkins’ system, remember?) and sins he confessed to the “doubtful” clergy (everybody else).

This difficulty alone would under the normal rules of moral theology excuse the penitent from the material integrity of confession (in the Jenkins system, re-confessing everything).

And then there is what we will politely term an “inconsistency.”

Many of the SSPX priests in the U.S and elsewhere were ordained by Bishop Williamson, whose priestly ordination (and hence, episcopal consecration) must likewise be treated as invalid according to the same principles Fr. Jenkins and SSPV have laid down for the clergy at St. Gertrude’s. As far as I know, however, Fr. Jenkins requires general confessions only from parishioners who come to him from SGG, and not those who come to him from SSPX.

This could not be because the absurdity of Fr. Jenkins’ underlying principle would become obvious to everyone if it had to be applied on such a global scale, could it?

If there is no theological basis for requiring general confession, why, then, does Fr. Jenkins force people to do it?

Purely as a means of social control.

Fr. Jenkins tells former SGG parishioners that they are not actually required to believe that the sacraments they received at SGG were doubtful or invalid, but merely conform externally to his rules on the sacraments. “I don’t look into your conscience,” Fr. Jenkins has told people.

The latter statement some people find very reassuring and appealing. Gee, awful nice of Fr. Jenkins to be so “moderate”!

Alas, it is in fact an implicit admission that he is running a cult.

Unlike Catholics who are supposed to act according to their consciences as correctly formed by Catholic moral principles, would-be parishioners at IC are required act externally against their consciences on the basis of a requirement that Fr. Jenkins invented.

Any final thoughts?

In public disputes that occasionally flare up in traditional Catholic chapels, certain souls sometimes temporarily disappear under the rubric of (I suppose), “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Everyone needs spiritual nourishment, of course. But in the case of those who have left SGG in West Chester for IC in Norwood, the results are, “Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.”

An SGG School Mother Says “Thanks”

NOTE: A mother with children in St. Gertrude the Great School sent Bishop Dolan this letter on the Feast of the Circumcision, 2010. (The children’s names have been changed.)

Your Excellency:

After Mass this morning we stopped into the church bookstore. Anna picked out a tiny plastic Baby Jesus (about an inch long) that she just had to have. After we had been home for just a few minutes, she showed me how she had taken a red rose petal she had found in the church vestibule and made a tiny crib for that little Baby Jesus. She had then carefully removed the petals from a white carnation and made a little blanket to cover Him with. It was so beautiful and touching it took me quite by surprise. And the loveliest part was that Anna seemed to think it a natural thing to do; she was happy to have made the nicest little bed she could think of for the Savior.

I wanted to share this with you because I think it is precisely the reason we moved to Ohio to be at Saint Gertrude the Great. [My husband] and I are so thankful to have such a wonderful church and school for our children; to have them surrounded by true Catholic teaching, to see all the splendors of the liturgical year displayed so beautifully before them. In a world where they are constantly bombarded with the ugliness of the world, we are grateful for all the ways in which the clergy (and laity) of Saint Gertrude’s represents for them the goodness of God’s love and the purity of Heavenly things.

In particular we wanted to thank you for the beautiful morning Anna and Tom spent on the Feast of the Holy Innocents (or Holy Incidents as Anna called it). They came home that day just bursting with the news of all the fun activities they had done, the treats they had enjoyed, the stories they had read to them and (most important) the lessons they’d learned about the importance of the day. [My husband] and I are aware of how much preparation such things take and we are thankful for everyone who put in the effort to make it such a nice day for our children. All of these things come together for the little ones in such a precious way; the Baby Jesus would not have been so finely clothed in flower petals had the seeds of such love for Him not been planted in hundreds of little ways before today.

May God bless you and may Our Lady continue to pour forth graces on Saint Gertrude the Great.

[A school mother]

A School Parent Condemns the Campaign against SGG

NOTE: The year-long Internet campaign of lies and calumnies against our church and school has deceived and confused many people. One of our parishioners with children in St. Gertrude the Great School gave us permission to publish this e-mail to his parents, who had become worried about all the horrible accusations that our enemies have spread.

Fr. Cekada,

I just found out today that my parents have been following Dr. Droleskey’s and Bernie Hall’s websites. Just shoot me now.

Hoping for better days,

X.
[A school parent]

——————–

From: X
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 9:24 PM
To: Dad
Subject: Your Grandchildren’s School

Mom & Dad,

I am so sorry that you have been exposed to the troubles that we’ve been having at our church. This whole situation started almost exactly one year ago (on Christmas eve, of all days), when one of these men first started his crusade of writings against our church and school. I am not sure of their motives, but they make no secret that they want to destroy our parish. Their writings mix truths, half-truths, lies, and exaggerations in order to generate suspicion and dislike against our clergy, principal, and even our principal’s wife and children. Attacking children in a public internet discussion could NEVER be considered Catholic by any standard. Many good people have fallen victim to their lies and exaggerations, and have left our church. It has also worked to keep people away from the traditionalist movement throughout the country.

[My wife] and I have had a tough year, navigating through all of this, but be assured that we have made the best decisions possible. Yes, at some time in the future we may have to consider other schools. But, we feel very strongly that this is the best place for our kids right now. This is our sixth year in the school. Certainly we would have left by now if even half of these calumnies were true. We do not take any of this lightly. I have witnessed their lies first-hand, and they have even twisted MY words and posted them online for their “cause”. Your grandchildren’s physical safety is not in question. The only weapon these people have is their pen.

I have attached three items. The first two are a couple of pictures from the kids’ school Christmas party. Do these happy kids look anything like what is described on these trouble-makers websites? The third attachment is a very well written letter from [another school parent] to one of our benefactors. She’s laid out the situation much better than I could. After she had written this letter, it is true that a few families left the school. However, they left due to the instability of the situation, and they have NOT left our church to join with the troublemakers.

The internet is a dangerous place. It is filled with facts, lies, viruses, treasures, and everything in between. Anyone with a computer and $10 can setup a legitimate looking website and proclaim his or her gospel. Just a quick example: I personally don’t care for Rush Limbaugh, but I know you listen to him. I am pretty confident, though, that he is not racist. So, I searched for “Rush Limbaugh”, and on the very first page in Google, I found this convincing looking page proclaiming his racism: http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/ I hope you see my point.

Mom also mentioned that traditionalists “hate” those in the Novus Ordo. This is far from the truth. Everyone is welcome at our church, provided they are dressed modestly and don’t cause any trouble. What we traditionalists do hate is that the Bishops of the Church, from Rome on down have turned what was once a glorious institution into a shell of its former glory. In the 50’s and even into the 60’s schools and hospitals were filled with nuns laboring for the glory of God. The Church had tremendous influence over society, and even Hollywood. There was a packed church in every little town. Processions filled the streets. People lined up for confession, spilling outside, during Holy Week. All of this was destroyed by the spirit of modernism and Vatican II. That is what we fight against. We do NOT condemn the people in the pews. We condemn what the leaders have done to our church; what they have stolen from us.

Our traditionalist priests also deserve thanks. Not just for what they have done for my family, but for the changes they have helped to bring about within the Novus Ordo church. You are probably familiar with, and thankful for, Benedict’s motu proprio permitting more widespread authorized use of the traditional Mass. This was brought about, in no small part, due to the writings against the new Mass of OUR priests (Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn in particular) and other traditionalists.

In closing, I would like to say that I would hope that you would trust my judgment on these issues, over those of a handful of troublemakers, bent on destroying your grandchildren’s little school. Rather than spending time following these men’s ramblings, say a rosary that your grandchildren may persevere, and that peace returns to our church.

Your son,

X.

School Dazed

How a few complaints about our little parish school suddenly became a world-wide campaign of lies and calumny.

A GROUP OF disgruntled parents had come into my office to complain about our school principal and his wife, Joan. The principal, they said — a big man with a typical Polish face who was also our head usher — was gruff, stand-offish; you didn’t dare suggest anything to him. He didn’t smile. Everyone was afraid of him and his wife. They treated the kids unfairly. They were ruining the school. They controlled the priests and ran the parish. We were tolerating child abuse, and the state would be informed…

The foregoing scene played out, not in West Chester, Ohio in 2009, but on Long Island, New York, in 1979, when I was just two years a priest. The targets of the parents’ ire were Gerry and Joan Mallon, a lovely couple who ran St. Pius V School for us. They put in countless hours to make our little school work. Joan used to say that we managed to hold it together with spit and chewing gum. Both Joan and Gerry put in hours of volunteer work to help us with administrative tasks and our publishing operation.

And for all their selfless work, the only thanks they got from a certain faction in the parish was jealousy, criticism, rumors and backbiting. No good deed, the joke went, ever goes unpunished.

And so it went throughout my priestly life. Despite all the wonderful benefits that a Catholic education bestows on children, wherever there was a school, there was also always conflict, complaints and trouble, most of it from adults. The principal is too strict or too loose, too gruff or an incompetent glad-hander. There’s too much religion in the curriculum, more science is needed, you don’t teach geo-centrism, daily Mass is unnecessary, languages are a waste of time, the school is full of bullies, my kids never lie, teachers raise their voices at the kids, teachers don’t control their classrooms, the dress code is too strict, there are too many punishments, the bad kids aren’t being punished enough, you don’t expel troublemakers, you should always give a kid a second chance — the litany of contradictory complaints was endless.

In traditional Catholic chapels, since they are small operations, disputes over these issues spill over into parish life in general. Soon everyone — even parishioners without kids — is taking up sides and has a strong opinion on the subject.

As you have no doubt heard, the parish where I now work, St. Gertrude the Great in West Chester, Ohio, has recently been caught up in such a dispute. Because of the Internet, word of it has spread throughout the trad world.

Everyone, it seems, has an opinion or wants to take a side about what we’ve been accused of here. Child abuse, financial shenanigans, unjust dismissals, porn-watching teenagers, pampered kitties, heroic whistle-blowers, and maligned priestly champions of “truth and justice” — these are all issues you can weigh and then issue your judgments on, courtesy of the Internet forum of your choice. First-hand knowledge of how our school or parish actually operates is not required; just a rumor, a grudge and high-speed access.

But since I do have first-hand knowledge of how our school operates — there are no paddle-swinging ogres roaming the corridors, and the kids seem plenty happy to me — I thought I would set down my thoughts on the causes and course of this unfortunate controversy.

What got all this started?

Initially, the green-eyed monster of jealousy.

After we moved our parish and school operation to West Chester in 2005, two men, both former seminarians who had serious difficulties holding down steady jobs, had set their sights on becoming principal of St. Gertrude the Great School. One of them taught in the school for several months and was fired in 2007; the other ran a tutoring business.

Each one approached me on at least one occasion to propose that I fire our current principal and hire him. Now, neither man has any organizational skills; indeed, one of them is unstable, and later confided to some students that he was “the prophet of the last days,” not part of the ideal skill set I look for in a principal.

When I rebuffed these offers, both men made themselves into magnets for any and all petty gossip and criticism against our school and our principal. If one of them couldn’t have the principal’s job, well, neither could he.

So, beginning around Christmas 2008, they started cranking out e-mails and web-postings attacking our parish and our school. These included all sorts of wild calumnies, distortions, speculations and denunciations directed against our principal, his family, our students, Bishop Dolan and myself.

And then?

Everything metastasized, Anyone who had a gripe of any description against any of the targets piled on.

Internet forums are ideal breeding grounds for sowing such dissension and wickedness. Postings can be made anonymously or under a pseudonym. Slackers who have nothing better to do can keep the controversies stoked. Lies and distortions stay posted forever, and by merely by repetition, they are eventually assumed to be “true.”

If it’s all really lies and distortions, though, why can’t people see through it?

Traditional Catholics are particularly susceptible to any bad news, because they tend to be pessimists anyway — about the Church, politics, the economy, human nature, etc. So, it’s relatively easy to con them into believing or suspecting the absolute worst.

And if you dress lies and distortions up like some great moral crusade (Stop child abuse! Save the children! Financial shenanigans!), the truth or falsehood of the underlying allegations becomes irrelevant in the fog of righteous indignation.

How many times since this campaign started have I heard otherwise sensible traditional Catholics say “Well, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

But what they should be saying is, “Where there’s steam, there’s fresh manure.”

Soon, there was a torrent of lies flowing about our parish and school, so many that no one could possibly correct them all, even if he had the inclination to do so.

And that’s the “beauty” of how calumny works, and why it appeals. In Barber of Seville, a 19th-century comic opera, one character sings a satirical aria praising calumny, because what you start as a tiny breeze ends up “a mighty cannon roaring,” and your target (“reviled, trampled”) finally bursts under his public scourging.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the character is both a tutor and a priest.

One of your former ushers got involved. If all this stuff isn’t true, why would he say what he said?

I had inadvertently gored his ox in 2005, when I wrote an article criticizing a pompous doctor who presumed to pronounce on matters of moral theology. It turned out to be the usher’s son. Ouch! Though I personally apologized to the man for giving offense, it seems he never got over it.

When on Palm Sunday 2009 our school principal (also the head usher) tried to get the usher to ring the bell at the proper time during the procession, said usher took offense. Later in the week, he wrote to tell us he was leaving the parish.

But this wasn’t enough. In July 2009, he produced a nine-page letter denouncing the school (he had no kids in it, and no first-hand knowledge about how it ran), where we located the church, procedures for ushers, koi fish in the grotto pond, my article on his son, my opinion on the Terry Schiavo case, my taste in restaurants, staff management, elaborate liturgical ceremonies, church flowers, my ideas on SSPX, building an “extravagant” rectory (at $127 a square foot?), pastoral trips to Europe, funeral costs and a “kitty spa” (he misunderstood a joke in the church bulletin).

All this sounds petty, and it is. I mention it only to illustrate one sad truth that resurfaces throughout this whole affair. Many people seem to nurse smoldering resentments forever; they simply can’t let go. One perceived offense or even a simple misunderstanding is enough to dredge up everything — everything — you can think of against your target.

So, if I’ve criticized your son four years ago, or if the school principal uses the wrong tone of voice when he asks you to ring the bell, well, you have the automatic right by any means available to portray me as venal and the school principal as a nasty child abuser.

Never forget, never forgive. And if anything bad is said about someone who once crossed you, believe every word and put it on the Internet.

Was this sour outlook common among your parishioners?

Only with a few. But the lies and distortions these folks believed and then endlessly repeated eventually upset other, more charitable souls, who then began to swallow at least some of the lies. They mistook steam for real smoke, and then assumed there was fire.

And remember: anyone who has been in a position of authority in a church for a long time — priest, principal, teacher, choir director — will have inevitably offended someone, no matter how hard he may try not to.

Some offendees keep score. So in a dispute like this, all the old baggage has to be sent up the chute and ride around the conveyor belt for anyone to claim.

But the Gospel, the faith, prayer, and the sacraments are supposed to be the antidote to such bitterness.

I heard that you fired a qualified high school teacher who criticized your school.

Here, unfortunately, the back story descends to the level of soap operas and telenovelas.

Beginning in May, the teacher in question had inserted himself into an internal dispute in the principal’s family, and had taken up the cause of an adult daughter against the rest of the family. This was not a wise move, since (naturally) emotions run high, and it is almost inevitable that a conflict like this will spill over into the workplace.

Nevertheless, I tried to reconcile the parties when school began in September. I treated the teacher to a lunch; he treated me to a denunciation of the principal and various school rules.

I tried to maintain a truce, but by mid-October this became impossible for another reason. Bishop Dolan and I learned that the teacher had been feeding the Prophet of the Last Days derogatory material about the principal and his family. The Prophet would then post the material on the section of a web forum he had dedicated to attacking our church and school. Imagine if your family were being mercilessly pilloried this way.

The teacher admitted these contacts to Bishop Dolan, and made no apologies — the school was paying this guy’s salary, remember. That night, another derogatory nugget that could only have come from this teacher popped up on the Prophet’s web-site. We immediately fired him by e-mail.

This wasn’t easy for us. Bishop Dolan and I had known this man since 1978, when he entered SSPX. He was on the same side with us in many theological and liturgical wars, and we considered him a good friend.

But imagine what he did being tolerated where you work: interfering in a dispute involving your supervisor’s family, and then feeding someone information to attack your employer on the Internet. We had no choice.

A young priest at St. Gertrude’s who taught in your school, Father Markus Ramolla, got involved in the controversy. What is his background and what were his duties?

Markus Ramolla, a German, was trained at our seminary, Most Holy Trinity, which is now located in Florida. Bishop Sanborn is the Rector, and I am one of the professors. St. Gertrude parishioners provide regular financial support for the seminary, and many have contributed very generously to the seminary building fund.

In 2007, during his final year of seminary studies, Father Ramolla was ordained by Bishop Dolan here at St. Gertrude’s.

On March 8, 2007, prior to his ordination to the subdiaconate, Fr. Ramolla signed a promise that, upon ordination to the priesthood, he would “assist and obey” Bishop Dolan or his designated successor, according to norms laid down for an Assistant Pastor in the Code of Canon Law and the 1954 Cincinnati Archdiocesan Statutes.

The latter (§§ 39–40) state that the is assistant “is subject to the pastor in all matters of the ministry of the parish,” that he “shall keep the pastor informed of all things in connection with his duties,” and that “he shall not initiate anything new without the consent of the pastor, and shall not interfere in any matter which the pastor has reserved to himself.”

The rationale behind such legislation was that a newly-ordained priest should serve a fairly lengthy period of “apprenticeship” during which his pastoral ministry would be supervised by a more experienced priest who was a Pastor.

In September 2008 Father Ramolla began his pastoral ministry as an Assistant. He taught religion and German in the school, supervised sacristy work, and took care of St. Clare’s Church, our mission in Columbus.

These duties he performed zealously and competently. He was personable, friendly and a good preacher. Bishop Dolan looked upon him as an eventual successor as Pastor here.

We had enough confidence in Father Ramolla to announce on September 23 that he would become school principal once the Second Quarter began on November 7. Experience shows that having a priest or a sister in that position in a traditional Catholic school often heads off many of the complaints you inevitably get with a lay principal.

So, Father Ramolla’s appointment seemed like an ideal solution, and it was well received all around.

Great. So what was the problem?

The whole thing immediately blew up in my face.

In October Bishop Dolan went with Father Ramolla on a pastoral visit to Europe. One of the priests expressed surprise that Father Ramolla would be travelling with Bishop Dolan, because during his July vacation, Father Ramolla had been very vocally criticizing our seminary, our parish, our school, Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Dolan and our clergy. Word of this had spread through Europe.

In the meantime, a friend of Father Ramolla informed me of the contact between the soon-to-be-fired teacher and the Prophet of the Last Days. Father Ramolla surely knew of this. Why didn’t he tell us? And what was going on?

At the same time, I noticed that one of our faithful benefactors had not passed along his generous monthly contribution to our school. This occurred after Father Ramolla had taken the man to dinner, supposedly to “reassure” him about the school. The gentleman had never needed “reassurance” before, and always spoke admiringly of our school, its students, its principal and his family. Again, what was really going on?

Other bits of unsettling news about Father Ramolla’s conversations with various laymen started to surface: Complaints about his clerical peers. Statements that he would not recommend our seminary. Encouraging someone to read a web site that calumniated our church and school.

A picture started to form. Instead of being a priestly peacemaker, Father Ramolla was engaging in a stealth campaign to foment unrest about seminary, school, parish, and fellow clergy. Petty complaints were welcomed and then sympathized with. All this was done behind the back and in secret.

This was a long way from the duty of a new Assistant to assist a Pastor and to be subject to him in his ministry. In this case, you’re not only biting the hands that feed you, but also the ones that ordained you. And why? Certainly not over any doctrinal issue. Power? Resentment? Who knows?

One year on the job, and you’re already undermining thirty years’ worth of work. And the man who built it all up from nothing suddenly has to watch his back.

How did this all end?

On Tuesday, November 3, Bishop Dolan and I met with Father Ramolla. Bishop Dolan outlined these problems, expressed his reservations, and laid down the conditions Father would have to fulfill in order to serve as school principal. If the conditions were not agreeable, Bishop Dolan would arrange another assignment for him. Father deferred giving an answer at that point.

The next day, however, another priest informed us that Father Ramolla was leaving St. Gertrude’s. His chalice, an ordination gift from Bishop Dolan, had already disappeared from the safe, a sure sign that a priest is leaving.

On November 5, Bishop Dolan met with Father Ramolla and asked him to leave quietly without doing further harm. He encouraged him to make a retreat in Europe with Father Schoonbroodt, perhaps with a view towards another assignment in Europe.

This advice went unheeded. Father remained somewhere in the area, where he immediately set up a competing chapel, complete with a deceptive web-site with “information about” (=attacks on) St. Gertrude the Great Church. The mask was off.

What about some of the various stories circulated about your school?

When I asked a worried parishioner about specific charges, he referred me to the November 15 and 8 postings on Dr. Thomas Droleskey’s Christ or Chaos.

Here’s what I found: “tragic events,” “scandals,” actions “not tolerated,” “wrongdoing,” “suffering sheep,” “tarnished glories,” “shame,” “minimizing evils,” “mind games,” “problems,” “longstanding patterns of stonewalling,” “abuse of clerical authority,” “misrepresentation of the truth,” “sanctimoniousness,” etc.

No factual allegations, just gas — and I don’t mean the type that powers an RV.

The goofiest charge to surface against our school was the catch-all smear of “child abuse.” This can mean anything. We heard this accusation from parents when I was on Long Island in the 1980s. If a teacher raised her voice at a misbehaving child and the child complained to mom, “child abuse” could be solemnly intoned. It was generally uttered in close proximity to the phrase “My child never lies.”

In fact, the teacher whom we fired in West Chester earlier this year had worked with me on Long Island in those days. He even wrote a little ditty about the accusation:

“Wars and tumults fill the school,
No one there obeys the rule;
Crazy parents on the loose,
Charging us with child abuse.”

You can sing it to the tune of “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.”

We don’t have corporal punishment in our school. Mostly, misbehavior is punished by writing lines. This is rarely necessary, because in general the children are extraordinarily well behaved, a credit not only to the school but to their parents.

In the one case where we administered corporal punishment for a serious offense, this was done in my presence, with parental consent (indeed, encouragement), and with a paddle provided by the parent. My only regret was that the cheap paddle broke on the first whack; I would have recommended one of my father’s favorite weapons, a paint stirrer. It concentrates the mind.

If any of that shocks you, sorry, but you may have unwittingly bought into some liberal theories on child-raising.

As for the rest of the horror stories, if you’re a parishioner who has concerns about our school, please make an appointment with me.

But otherwise, I don’t feel any obligation to answer lies and distortions spread by chat forum slackers and then debated by Internet busybodies.

Are you instituting any changes in your school anyway?

We’re inviting parents to spend one whole school day per quarter in the school. We’ll provide the baby sitting, when necessary.

This way, parents will be able to see first hand the great job our teachers are doing and how the school actually runs. This will give the parents themselves a powerful weapon to debunk many of the lies that have been endlessly recycled.

Our faculty consists of one bishop (an over-qualified middle grades religion instructor, if there ever was one), two priests, four lay teachers, and two sports instructors (fencing and archery). The kids get daily Mass with a sermon, and there are lots of “extras.” We have a lot to offer.

How about some of the other stories spread since the departure of Father Ramolla? That you’ve seized bank accounts, closed a church, expelled parishioners, refused sacraments, etc.

More lies and distortions.

After this problem became public, I phoned the man who handled the money and church maintenance for us at St. Clare’s in Columbus. He had his child hang up on me, didn’t pick up when I called again and then didn’t return my call. Another man in Columbus tried to walk off with some books that were church property.

So, I froze the bank accounts and had the church locks changed. Otherwise, what? Risk someone declaring open season on church assets?

Shutting down the Columbus church? Bishop Dolan appointed Father McGuire, a priest-son of the parish, to be acting Pastor. He will be assisted by Father Larrabee.

We were accused of “refusing the sacraments” to the teacher we fired. Hogwash. We told him to stay off the property, because we don’t want him proselytizing against our school.

We were also accused of expelling parishioners who did not agree with our decision about Father Ramolla. More hogwash, indeed, pure fantasy.

“Excommunicating” the tutor and SGG principal wannabee in early 2009? The man sent out a circular letter suggesting that some students were engaged in “repeated sexual perversion,” a vile and false accusation for which he had no proof whatsoever. Since some of the students had heard of his campaign, I asked him to sign a simple retraction for me to keep on file. He refused. I told him he couldn’t return until he signed.

“Shooting the messenger”? Never. Liars and calumniators? Lock and load…

Any lessons learned? Or any words to parishioners who may have left you over all this?

• Forget and forgive. Don’t hang on to the memory of someone’s past offenses, and then send all the old baggage up the chute whenever you perceive another slight.

• Internet forums can be sewers of gossip, calumnies, distortions and lies. Mortify your sinful curiosity and refuse to read such garbage.

• If you have a problem or a worry about something at church, make an appointment to speak with the Pastor about it. In our own case, Bishop Dolan built St. Gertrude’s up from nothing over thirty years, so he is in the best position to help. It is remarkable what good such face-to-face communication can accomplish.

• Take your worry or complaint to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, too. Often, it will fade into insignificance before the tabernacle.

————————

POSTSCRIPT, June 2015: I am occasionally asked about developments in the controversy after I wrote the foregoing in November, 2009.

In brief, Fr. Ramolla founded another Mass center in the area to draw off parishioners from St. Gertrude the Great. In short order, the group purchased a small school building to use as a chapel. But by late summer 2011, the group had already experienced a number of internal difficulties, and Fr. Ramolla himself had come into conflict with other traditional clergy as well. One of the clergymen Fr. Ramolla had invited to function in the rival chapel, moreover, turned out to be a sexual predator. The situation deteriorated and financial difficulties arose. Fr. Ramolla returned to Europe in Spring 2012 and the chapel building was repossessed in September 2012. 

The most rabid internet critics of SGG eventually turned their fire against Fr. Ramolla, then other traditional Catholic clergy, and finally limited their own religious practice to writing anonymous blog posts.

Fr. Ramolla eventually received episcopal consecration from a married man and former employee of the New Jersey Turnpike authority, and thereafter has spent his time wandering Europe and the U.S., attempting to convince small groups of Catholics that they should avail themselves of his services.

It is not hard to see the hand of divine retribution at work in all these subsequent developments. 

For our part, were very happy to welcome back to St. Gertrude a substantial number of families who had left us in 2009. Our parish has recovered very nicely from the ’09 crisis, our apostolate has greatly expanded, and during the past academic year (2014-2015), St. Gertrude School has had the largest enrollment in its twenty-year history. Deo gratias!

Bugnini’s ’51 Easter Vigil: “First Step” to the Novus Ordo

LAYMEN who frequent Masses offered under the auspices of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum or organizations such as the Society of St. Pius X are under the impression that the rites they see performed there represent the apex of pre-Vatican II Catholic liturgical tradition vis-à-vis the New Mass of Paul VI. In the case of the Holy Week, however, this impression is false, because these groups use the 1962 Missal. This Missal incorporates a great number of liturgical changes that were introduced in the 1950s and that prepared the way for the Novus Ordo.

This connection between the 1950s changes in Holy Week and the Novus Ordo (the work of the same man, Annibale Bugnini) is particularly evident in the rites for the Easter Vigil, which underwent substantial experimental modifications in 1951. These were made permanent in the 1955 Renewed Order for Holy Week, which is incorporated into the 1962 Missal.

Holy Saturday, like Good Friday, was originally a day on which no Mass was offered. Instead, during the night from Holy Saturday to Easter Sunday, the Church kept a lengthy vigil. The faithful watched the whole night in the church, assisted at the solemn administration of baptism to the adult catechumens, and awaited the celebration of the first Mass of Easter, which concluded the vigil early Easter morning.

As Christianity triumphed throughout the world, there were fewer adult converts to be baptized, so interest in assisting at the great Vigil waned. This, coupled with various relaxations in the law of fasting, led in the eleventh century to gradually anticipating the Vigil ceremony on Saturday itself, until finally it started to be observed on Holy Saturday morning.

In the 1930s and 1940s, various “progressive” bishops in Europe repeatedly asked the Holy See for permission to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night on Holy Saturday. “Pastoral reasons” were adduced for the change in time (the Saturday morning services were not well attended) as well as “authenticity” (the prayers speak of “this night”) — again, justifications repeatedly offered for the Vatican II reforms.

In February 1951, Holy See issued a decree permitting, experimentally and for period of one year, the celebration of the Easter Vigil at night Holy Saturday. Once again, merely allowing a change of time would not have been particularly objectionable.

But Bugnini and company, who since 1948 controlled the Vatican commission for liturgical reform, seized the occasion to introduce changes into the rites themselves. So secret was the work of his commission on this project, Bugnini said, “that the publication of the Renewed Order for Holy Saturday at the beginning of March 1951 caught even the officials of the Congregation of Rites by surprise.” (Annibale Bugnini, La Riforma Liturgica: 1948–1975 [Rome: CLV 1983], 25)

The 1951 Easter Vigil was the first crack the modernists had at destroying the liturgy, and they made the most of it.

The surprise of Bugnini’s (theoretical) superiors seems be reflected in the content of decree by which the Congregation promulgated the Renewed Order; it is mainly devoted to discussing the change of time, and mentions, almost as an afterthought, “the rubrics that follow.” (See SC Rites Decree Dominicae Resurrectionis Vigiliam, 9 February 1951, AAS 43 [1951], 128–9.)

But these changes in the rites for the Vigil were in fact quite extensive. They were permanently incorporated into the Renewed Order for Holy Week promulgated in 1955 and then into the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. Here is a list of the principal changes.

(1) The blessing prayers for the Easter fire are reduced from three to one.

(2) A new ceremony for inscribing and blessing the Paschal candle was introduced.

(3) The “reed” or triple candle (richly symbolic of the Trinity and the Incarnation) used to bring the Easter fire into the church was abolished.

(4) The clergy and people are supposed to carry candles.

(5) The magnificent Old Testament prophecies telling the whole story of Redemption are reduced in number from twelve to four. (So much for giving Scripture back to the people…)

(6) The celebrant sits and listens to the readings. The rubrics imply that these may be proclaimed in the vernacular.

(7) The celebrant chants the collects at the sedilia, rather than at the altar. (Again, think Novus Ordo-style president’s chair.)

(8) A pause for prayer is introduced after Flectamus genua (Let us kneel) in the orations.

(9) The baptismal water is blessed in the sanctuary facing the people (rather than in the baptistery), and carried to the baptistery in a tub.

(10) The Litany of the Saints is divided into two and abbreviated.

(11) All those present recite a “Renewal of Baptismal Vows” in the vernacular — the first time the vernacular is explicitly permitted as an integral part of a liturgical rite.

(12) The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are dropped in their entirety from the Mass, as is the Last Gospel.

Bugnini and company portrayed all this as a restoration of antiquity, just as they would for the Novus Ordo. But their claim in 1951 was equally phony.

For instance, in ancient times Christians spent all night in the church. So, the number of readings in the 1951 “restoration” should have been tripled to, say, thirty-six prophecies, rather than reduced to the mere four that Bugnini left.

And laymen holding burning candles? Wax in ancient times was a precious commodity, and laymen would contribute candles to the church for its support. In the early Church, handing out candles for laymen to burn would have been like me handing out twenty-dollar bills to my suburban parishioners and telling them to burn them during the service. Not likely.

In fact, however, in the 1951 Easter Vigil we see some principles and practices that, eighteen years later, will be imposed across the board in Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae:

(1) Abbreviating rites (three blessing prayers to one; twelve prophecies to four).

(2) Inventing new rites (inscribing the candle, people carrying candles, renewing baptismal vows).

(3) Facing the people for ceremonies (for blessing the baptismal water).

(4) Reducing actions of the priest (he sits and listens).

(5) Lopping off parts of the Order of Mass (Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Last Gospel).

(6) Reciting liturgical prayers in the vernacular (the Vigil lessons and the baptismal vows).

It is therefore easy to understand why Bugnini would proclaim in 1955 that the 1951 Easter Vigil was “the first step to a general liturgical renewal.” (A. Bugnini and C. Braga, Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus Commentarium, [Rome Edizioni Liturgiche 1956], 5.)

So, whenever you assist at a Holy Saturday Easter Vigil conducted according the Bugnini rite of ’51/55/62, you are witnessing with your own eyes the first step to the Novus Ordo.

May God grant one day that the traditional Holy Week rites of the Church be everywhere restored!
———————

Traditional Holy Week Ceremonies
St. Gertrude the Great Church, West Chester, Ohio

As always, a Bugnini-free zone!

HOLY SATURDAY
8:00 AM Easter Vigil, Pontifical Mass

SIMULCAST

Good Friday: Old vs. ’55/62 Rite

GOOD FRIDAY originally had no liturgical service. No Mass was celebrated because, as Pope Innocent I explained in the 5th century, it was a day on which “the Apostles hid themselves for fear of the Jews.”

Eventually, however, the Church instituted a liturgical service for this day. In the traditional rite this consists of a Mass of the Catechumens, Solemn Orations, the Adoration of the Cross, and the Mass of the Presanctified.

During the Mass of the Presanctified, the priest brings the sacred Host back from the repository, and performs some of the rites of the Mass at the altar (including an elevation), after which he consumes the Host.

The Good Friday rite in the 1955 Renewed Order for Holy Week that Bugnini and company created is a Communion service. Here are some of the changes:

• The first part of the 1955 service is conducted from the sedilia, rather than from the altar (think Novus Ordo-style president’s chair). The celebrant does not read a scripture reading if a minister chants it.

• The celebrant, wearing a cope (rather than a chasuble) and flanked by the sacred ministers, chants the Solemn Orations from a book positioned directly in the center of the altar, an anomaly in the Roman Rite.

• In the 1955 service, the Solemn Orations underwent their first series of changes in the cause of ecumenism:

(1) The Prayer for Heretics and Schismatics has been renamed the Prayer for the Unity of Christians.

(2) Where the old rite directs that no genuflection be made in the prayer for the Jews, the new prayer directs that a genuflection be made. The omission of the genuflection in the old rite was considered “anti-Semitic.”

• The 1955 rite introduces a new option for the adoration of the Cross. The priest, standing on top step, holds cross aloft, and the people adore it in silence, rather than coming to the communion rail to kiss it. This option is also found in the Novus Ordo service.

• All the mystical ceremonies of the Mass of the Presanctified were abolished:

(1) There is no Solemn Procession from the repository with the Blessed Sacrament, accompanied by the triumphant singing of the hymn Vexilla Regis.

(2) The vestigial Offertory rite with its preparation of the chalice and incensations is gone, and the Elevation is abolished.

(3) The people recite the entire Pater Noster (Our Father) with the priest — a practice that utterly contradicts a liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite mentioned by St. Augustine.

(4) The simple communion rite from Roman Ritual is followed. All may receive Communion.

(5) Once again, a Responsorial Psalm may be sung during Communion.

———————

Traditional Holy Week Ceremonies
St. Gertrude the Great Church, West Chester, Ohio

GOOD FRIDAY
12:15 PM Mass of Presanctified, Pontifical Rite
6:30 PM Tenebrae

SIMULCAST

PS: We have been experiencing some technical glitches in these broadcasts. (The ghost of Bugnini?) We thank you for your patience as we try to resolve them.

Maundy Thursday: Old vs. ’55/62 Rite

BECAUSE THE Maundy Thursday ceremonies in the traditional Missal consist principally of rites connected with the Mass, the changes introduced in the 1955 Renewed Order for Holy Week are not as numerous as those for the other days of Holy Week.

The 1955 Ordo moves the celebration of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper to the evening. This in itself is not objectionable. Nevertheless, there are also some ritual changes.

• Following the reformers’ general practice of shortening rites whenever possible, the ’55 rite omits from the Mass the Creed and the Last Gospel.

• A responsorial Psalm is supposed to be sung during the reception of Communion. This practice will become an integral part of the Novus Ordo.

• The Maundy ceremony (washing of the feet) may be inserted into the rite of Mass itself, and the collect following the Maundy is to be recited “facing the people.”

• The traditional practices of setting up an elaborately decorated repository and adoring the Blessed Sacrament until it is removed during the Good Friday service are abolished. The 1955 Ordo (like the Novus Ordo) recommends “severity” in the decorations for the repository.

When the ’55 rite first came into effect, the existing customs of an elaborate repository altar and continuous adoration were to be tolerated temporarily, said Bugnini in his 1956 commentary. But the spirit of the decree, he added, dictated that the candles and decorations be removed at midnight, and that the adoration then cease. (A. Bugnini and C. Braga, Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus Commentarium, [Rome Edizioni Liturgiche 1956], 97.)

By 1962, the rubrician O’Connell treats this stripping of the repository as obligatory. (See Ceremonies of the Roman Rite, new ed. [London: Burns Oates 1962], 286.)

Thus after an 8:00 PM Mass on Maundy Thursday, the 1955 Holy Week rites make it nearly impossible to “watch just one hour” with Our Lord.

———————

Traditional Holy Week Ceremonies
St. Gertrude the Great Church, West Chester, Ohio

MAUNDY THURSDAY
9:00 AM Pontifical Mass of Chrism
1:30 PM Maundy (Washing of Feet)
6:30 PM Tenebrae

SIMULCAST

PS: We have been experiencing some technical glitches in these broadcasts. (The ghost of Bugnini?) We thank you for your patience as we try to resolve them.

The Office of Tenebrae: Old vs. ’55/62 Rite

ONE OF THE most dramatic and mystical ceremonies of Holy Week was the chanting in larger churches of the Office of Tenebrae (“Darkness”) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday evenings. This consists of the Offices of Matins (nine psalms, nine readings) and Lauds (five psalms, the Benedictus, an antiphon, Psalm 50 and a collect) from the Breviary. These are chanted in a darkening church, during which fifteen candles on a triangular frame (hearse) are extinguished one by one as the service progresses.

At the end, all is in darkness as the choir chants the antiphon Christus Factus Est (Christ was made obedient unto death) and then Psalm 50, the Miserere. Gregorio Allegri (1582–1652) composed his now-famous Miserere for liturgical use at this point during the chanting of Tenebrae in the papal chapel.

The celebrant somberly chants a collect. All in the church then bang their books on the pews, a sound symbolizing the earthquake at the death of Our Lord. One candle (symbolizing Christ) is held in the darkness at the side of the altar, and then placed atop the hearse. All depart in silence in the darkness.

In the 1955 Holy Week rites, the beautiful mystical features of the ceremony were abolished:

• Except for Wednesday evening in a church where the bishop will celebrate the Chrismal Mass on Holy Thursday morning, Matins and Lauds must be recited in the morning on all three days. So, the very notion of the encroaching tenebrae itself — darkness — disappears. Instead, the church is becoming lighter during the service.

The 1955 reformers (Bugnini and company) introduced this change on the basis of their “principle of truth,” one they would also use in the creation of the Novus Ordo. They maintained that the progressive extinguishing of candles originated because Matins was at first celebrated in the very early morning; fewer and fewer candles were needed to read the books as the service went on because the sun was rising. So, the sacristan extinguished unneeded candles — energy saving, perhaps, by a monastic Al Gore.

But so what? The liturgy is loaded with mystical ceremonies that were originally connected with practical functions. The reformers destroyed the symbolism.

• Also abolished in 1955: Psalm 50, the Miserere, dramatically recited in the darkness, either in a quiet monotone, or in a heart-rending polyphonic setting. Good bye, Allegri — see you in the concert hall.

• And finally, Bugnini and company declared that the earthquake goes. The reformers’ “principle of truth” tells us that it originated with the double knock on the choir stall that the superior gave to signal then end of an Office.

So, no more fit fragor et strepitus — the dramatic, mournful thunder in the darkness.

Just a knock in a light-filled church to herald breakfast — and eventually in 1969, “Happy are they who are called to his supper.”

———————

Traditional Holy Week Ceremonies
St. Gertrude the Great Church, West Chester, Ohio

WED, THU, FRI of Holy Week
6:30 PM Tenebrae

SIMULCAST

Holy Week: Palm Sunday: Old vs. 1955 Rite

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: The modifications in the Holy Week rites introduced in 1955 were part of a series of incremental liturgical changes beginning in 1951 that eventually led to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969.

The creation of the ’55 Holy Week rites, like the creation of the Novus Ordo, was orchestrated by Annibale Bugnini, the man regarded as the evil genius who destroyed the Mass.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back at the 1955 Holy Week changes and see a series of incremental changes put into place that will be permanently incorporated in the Novus Ordo.

—————–

In the traditional rite, the priest blesses the palms at the altar in a “dry Mass” (a ceremony that follows the structure of a Mass). The procession follows, and then the Mass proper at which the Passion is chanted. The dry Mass is a survival of the practice in Rome where the pope blessed the palms at Mass in one church, went in procession to another, and offered a second Mass there.

In the 1955 rite, the dry Mass (Introit, Collect, Epistle, Responsory, Gospel, Preface and Sanctus) is gone. The priest blesses the palms not at the altar, but at a table, behind which he stands “facing the people” — the first time such a direction occurs in the Roman liturgy. Instead of violet vestments, red vestments are used, as in the Novus Ordo. Only one blessing prayer is used; in the old rite there were five.

For the procession, the reformers abolished the mystical ceremony at the church door — the alternating choirs inside and outside the church, and the knocking on the door, symbolizing Christ seeking entrance into the Holy City. After the procession in the new rite, the priest chants the final collect facing the people, with his back to the tabernacle.

In the ’55 rite, the Prayers at the Foot of the altar disappear entirely from the Mass, and the priest ascends the altar to incense it. If there are other ministers to assist, the celebrant does not read the Scripture readings himself, but sits at the bench to listen to them. The anointing at Bethany is omitted from the beginning of the Passion, and the setting of the guard at the tomb is omitted from the end. The Last Gospel of the Mass is suppressed.

Calvinism in the Secret for the Living and the Dead?

QUESTION: The third Secret you recited last Sunday (For the Living and the Dead) read as follows:

“O God, who alone knowest the number of the elect to be admitted to the happiness of heaven, grant, we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of all Thy saints, the names of all who have been recommended to our prayers and of all the faithful, may be inscribed in the book of blessed predestination. Through our Lord.”

Isn’t predestination a Calvinist doctrine which the Church wholly rejects? Surely God knows those who will save their souls through faith, charity, and good works, but the idea of predestination as it is widely understood, that God has decided beforehand where you will go when you die, is regarded as heresy by the Church, is it not? Just need some clarification.

RESPONSE: Good question — and an illustration of why one has to look up terms to understand them in their proper sense.

First, the Church does teach predestination, but obviously not in the heretical sense of the Calvinists. You can find an explanation of the Catholic teaching here.

Second, the Latin text for this prayer probably predates Calvinism by nearly a thousand years.

A commentary on the language of the Missal says that the Latin term liber praedestinationis (book of predestination) in the Secret is “a combination of the Hebrew ‘Book of Works’ and Book of Life.’ Thus being inscribed in the liber beatae praedestinationis [book of blessed predestination] is a metaphorical expression for salvation by grace and good works. We have here, then, a technical legal term [adcriptus, i.e., ‘officially inscribed’] used in conjunction with one which had a Hebrew origin and a specifically Christian development.” Mary Pierre Ellbrecht, Remarks on the Vocabulary of the Ancient Orations in the Missale Romanum (Nijmegen: Dekker 1963), 152.

So, in this particular prayer, it’s a metaphor, and cannot be understood in the Calvinist sense.

Bravo for your attention to detail in the prayers — and an extra bravo for managing to follow me even for the commemorations!