THE FAITHLESS SHEPHERD
A woman who was in attendance at Mass one morning last week asked
me, after Mass, whether or not I had seen “the article in
the newspaper about the priest up in Connecticut”. I told
her that I had not, inasmuch as reading the morning paper is
a ritual I perform after the morning Mass, to the accompaniment
of a cup of coffee.
The woman was more than willing to give me a synopsis of the
facts as reported in the paper: A priest, the pastor of Sacred
Heart Parish in Waterbury CT, is charged with embezzling the
astounding sum of $1.3 million from the parish coffers. It is
alleged that he spent the money on luxury gifts for “male
escorts”. The priest has been arrested and, needless to
say, removed from his position in the parish. I think it would
be safe to say that this priest’s future in service to the
Archdiocese of Hartford is on indefinite hold!
Later, I ran into the woman who asked me if I had read the article.
I told her that I did, indeed, read it. She seemed to want
to know what my reaction was. I told her that my reaction to
the charges against the priest is decidedly negative. I’m
not sure what else I said. Nothing particularly memorable, I’m
sure.
But I think I shall take the opportunity now to “react”
to the article, and shall utilize the parish bulletin for that
purpose.
First of all, let me make this observation, before I do any reacting
in the public forum.
When I was a child growing up in the 1940’s and 1950’s,
priests walked on water, so to speak. Priests were beyond reproach.
If a priest were so unwise as to drink too much beer at the
Parish Summer Festival so that the sexton had to “help Father
get back to the Rectory”, this alone would have provided
sufficient reason to light up the Chancery switchboard for a
month or more and would have provided more than enough grist
for the mills of the old biddies!
Now that we have been exposed (most lamentably!) to so many stories
about priests who have broken the sixth and the seventh commandments,
some of whom seem to have done so with something akin to diabolical
zeal, we priests who have not been tempted in those directions
or, if tempted in those directions, have not succumbed, hardly
know how to react.
You have to understand that there is some tension here. By and
large, we priests see ourselves — and rightly so —
as proponents and agents of God’s mercy.
With this in mind, we think twice before throwing verbal thunderbolts
against those of our fellow priests who have fallen into deep
sin. Not only that, but there is always the haunting thought
that, if we were to dare to come on as condemnatory towards our
fallen brethren, God might punish us by withdrawing his protective
shield from us, as a result of which we might find ourselves
in dire circumstances someday.
So, we priests customarily take the path of prudence. We react
to reports about manifestly sinful deeds wrought by other priests
by uttering such pieties as these: (a) “Well, we must
pray for the poor man!” or (b) “There but for
the grace of God go you or I!” or (c) “Let us not pass
judgment until all the facts are in!” (Of course, implicit
in the latter is that we really have no intention of passing
judgment even when all the facts do come marching in!)
Without arguing against the virtue of charitable restraint, it
has often occurred to me that we priests do the people no favor,
the holy priesthood no favor and the Church no favor when we
neglect to speak the obvious, when we neglect our prophetic role
— when we neglect to display horror at sin. There is a
very simple principle involved here: Virtue is to be commended
and, when the virtue is public, it is to be publicly commended.
On the other hand, vice is to be condemned and, when the vice
is public, it is to be publicly condemned.
Notice I did not say that we have a license to condemn sinners,
but we do have a license (and a duty) to condemn sin. Some might
say that it “belabors the obvious” to condemn sin.
I think not. Just as it is the duty of parents to be explicit
about what is and is not acceptable behavior, so it is the duty
of priests to be equally explicit.
So, if you want to know how I feel or what I think
about a priest who steals money from his parish and uses it for
shameful and lustful purposes, then here it is: Here is how
I feel and here is what I think:
I feel ANGRY to learn that a priest would stoop
so low as to betray his people by stealing their hard-earned
money and I feel HUMILIATED to learn that a priest
has engaged in shameful deeds with other men.
I think that such a priest should be dismissed from the
ranks of the priesthood with as much dispatch as possible and
handed over to the authorities for whatever criminal penalties
and civil remedies the law provides. I think that such
a priest, if he dies without true repentance, will suffer eternal
damnation. May he repent before it is too late!
I learned a long time ago in the seminary these words spoken
by St. John Chrysostom (347-407), a bishop and doctor of the
Church: “The
road to Hell is paved with the bones of monks and priests and
with the skulls of bishops!”
These words frightened me when I first heard them. They still
frighten me. But, I remind myself that fear is salutary when
it is holy fear. Therefore, I pray that I may always be in fear
of betraying the priesthood of Jesus Christ. |
Saturday, 10 July
THE VENERABLE