POOR JUDGEMENT ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY AND NOT BRINGING TO DISCUSSION THINGS THAT WOULD INFLAME IN THE FIRST PLACE

The “Where is Peter” blog alerted me to this:

Abbot Placid Solari of Belmont Abbey in North Carolina, which is located in the Diocese of Charlotte, mentioned the (Diocese of Charlotte) controversy during the second half of his homily on Pentecost Sunday.

 Text of the second half of Abbot Placid’s homily (You can watch the entire homily here):

MY ASTUTE COMMENTS EMBEDDED IN RED.

I wish to address the events which in this past week — of which you may or may not be aware — have disturbed the peace and unity of the Church in the diocese of Charlotte.

I wish to address them precisely because these events far from giving the evident signs of the work of the Holy Spirit appear to me to be works of death — fomenting disunity, perverting truth, and utterly lacking in charity. The disturbance has arisen because of two documents both made public anonymously. (In the digital age, to release a confidential document to numerous clerics with proposals that should never have been put into print because they are so polarizing, was poor judgement by the bishop. What was he thinking?He’s been a priest long enough to know that any controversial document in a digital form can and will be revealed by someone especially if what is in that document is inflaming to a large segment of the Catholic community. It would have been wiser to discuss the more inflaming suggestions first with one or two trusted confidants before placing it into writing and when placing something like this, so inflaming, into writing to presume it will be leaked, just presume it!Why even bring to discussion things that don’t need to be whacked?

One document was an anonymous letter last fall, presuming to give Bishop Martin instructions as to how to exercise his office as bishop. It was selectively distributed with what seems to be the purpose of becoming public, which did happen. The other was an anonymous leak of a confidential document containing the bishop’s proposals for the celebration of the liturgy, which was distributed by the bishop only to priests of a subcommittee established by him and to the priests of the Presbyteral Council, so that these priests only could offer the bishop their advice and counsel, as is our responsibility. (I agree that no priest under obedience to his bishop should release something that is only a proposal to the public and the bishop asked for secrecy.  That is wrong and whoever did it should identify himself, apologize to the bishop and go to confession. But again, it was foolish to put into writing mandates for the Modern Mass which the bishop should have known himself would be inflaming and unneeded.)

Bishop Martin made it clear that the document was to be held in strict confidence for the purpose of the discussion of the Presbyteral Council and was not to be shared. The document contained both the bishop’s proposals as well as the objections of the subcommittee that some of the proposals went beyond the Church’s provisions for the celebration of the liturgy and intended to limit the legitimate freedom of the priest and the faithful in some matters. (As it concerns the proposals for cracking down on certain priests and parishes in terms of the Modern Mass (TC and its implementation by a bishop is a different issue) to demand secrecy for some of the things which are abusive if implemented, reminds me of sexual and spiritual abuse where the abuser wants complete secrecy to keep dark deeds in the darkness. Why release something that is wrong and then demand silence and secrecy? It shows poor judgement and an avoidance of the light.)

Observations, which I think were accurate.

As an elected member of the Presbyteral Council, I can testify that the discussion of that document among the priests of the Presbyteral Council was frank and respectful, and that Bishop Martin gave us — the priests — the respect of his careful listening. (We should indeed celebrate that which is good here!)

Unfortunately, this respectful process of frank conversation between the bishop and his priests has been subverted by the leak of the confidential document. This has gravely damaged trust and the resulting media frenzy, fed mostly by people away from the diocese — who do not know the issues of the diocese — has gravely injured the peace and unity of this local Church. (The things in the document are as problematic as the leak. We have to admit to both and not just blame the leaker. What was leaked was and is highly inflaming. DUH! It is a matter of poor judgement putting into writing things that provoke and anger and discussing things to prohibit which liturgical law and tradition allow.)

As a result of the unfounded assertions of this past fall’s anonymous letter and the anonymous leak of this document to one of the Church-related political action committees, which infest the internet, Bishop Martin has been unfairly accused of not listening to the priests and being authoritarian in his actions. (Yes, that’s a good point, while it was foolish to write such a secret document, widely disseminated to a large group of priests, why put such inflaming things into a document like this? But is was a proposal and it hasn’t be promulgated. Maybe the leak will keep it from being promulgated. Yes, a subversive form of synodality and wide ranging input even if not wanted by the bishop. And something like this goes beyond one diocese, the proposals if mandated would have an affect on the entire province and wider Church in the USA.)

I do not find this to be true. The bishop, shortly after his arrival, invited all the priests if they wished to have individual visits with him. He has repeatedly reminded us, the priests, of the need to attend gatherings of the presbyterate to gather. He has held open question sessions with the priests, and as I can testify, as an elected member of the Presbyteral Council, he has consistently consulted us and has established a freedom of speaking, which allows sometimes quite pointed, but always respectful, disagreement with the bishop. (It is good the bishop listens to his priests. Are there any synodal bodies that enable him to hear the laity too?)

Brothers and sisters, I propose that anonymous letter made public and anonymous leaks of confidential documents, which were never published to the faithful, are crude and clumsy plays for power and control, which obstruct the work of the Holy Spirit.

They are a confirmation of the Lord’s own teaching, “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God” (Jn 3:20-21). Let us then all together shun the works of darkness and anonymity. (Inflaming proposals placed into writing and then demanding secrecy? Excuse me, but keeping things from the light and from the faithful, even as a proposal is not living in the light is it? I don’t like declaring what is and isn’t of the Holy Spirit but bringing these proposals to the light of the world for all to see and comment,  even if leaked, could be the work of the Holy Spirit! Why release something so dark and demand that it be kept in the darkness?)

The issues facing the diocese have not arisen in the past year. They have been developing over time and need to be faced with charity and truth. The real problems facing the Church and not just the Church of Charlotte are, I propose, twofold: They are a lack of proper obedience and respect for legitimate authority, moved by the hyper-individualism and relativism of the surrounding culture, people feel free to pick and choose what teachings they choose to accept, what authority they regard as legitimate. (Picking and choosing Catholicism, cafeteria Catholicism, has been in play for 2,000 years and placed on steroids in the Church by the heterodox right and the heterodox left since Vatican II. Let’s name the elephant in the room heterodoxy and demanding obedience that goes beyond the faith and morals of the Church, like which way to face when celebrating the Mass and what prayers to say or not say before and after Mass?)

The other problem is the importation into the life of the Church, of the toxic, secular political model, which has caused such damage in our public life, namely the contest of competing factions and a zero-sum game for power and control in complete disregard for truth and charity. (There’s no doubt about this in the digital age and the problem with written communications is that you don’t really get the tone of the spoken voice which brings humanity to communications lacking in the written word, leaked or not.)

We must be careful, therefore, with the various internet sites or media which presume to identify themselves as Catholic, yet by their jargon, hyperbole, and nearly apocalyptic urgency reveal themselves, in fact, to be political action committees seeking to energize their base by appealing to the passions, often with little regard for charity. This is not a path that leads to either truth or to unity or to peace. (No doubt about it, this is correct.)

Therefore, brothers and sisters, as we celebrate this beautiful feast of Pentecost in which the wondrous plan of the Father’s love in sending his Son as our Savior is brought to its perfection and the sending of the Spirit of the living God to enliven and to guide his Church.

Let us together pray for the peace and unity of all the members of Christ and let us seek ever to discern rightly and to follow those signs of the work of the Holy Spirit, namely the works of life, the works of truth, the works of unity, and the works of charity. (Don’t write silly and dumb proposals in a document that can be leaked. Whatever is proposed should be sound if placing into writing and expect whatever is placed into writing will be revealed by someone. That’s life today in the digital age with Facebook and blogs and the like! Wake up and smell the coffee!)