(In his introduction, the author refers to the coup de theatre of the last few days with the publication of the letters between Msgr. Fellay and the other three bishops of the FSSPX.  He thinks that all concerned knew that there was a good chance that these letters would be published, and he is very happy that this has happened, because it clearly shows the very real split in the Society that he has spoken about in the past. He then offers his analysis of the situation.)

The situation was already quite clear before the exchange of those letters:  The Fraternity of St. Pius X finds itself in the apparently enviable position of being confronted with a Pope that, in essence, supports it entirely.  ‘We will not discuss whether first the Mass of the ages will have to be set free and the excommunications revoked’ said Msgr. Fellay.   This has happened.  ‘No canonical accord without first deep discussions as equals’.  And there have followed theological discussions at the highest levels during two years (and not thirty years as predicted, with wishful thinking, by Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais.)   ‘There is a need for a structure that guarantees the freedom of action of the Fraternity’ and, even if this point is still to be made clear,  Fellay himself understands that on the part of  Rome this has never constituted a problem.

This attitude of Benedict XVI has taken away from the Fraternity every alibi.  But if the Pope has conceded everything, why is there so much agony in the body of the Fraternity itself?  Why on earth does the very same Msgr. Fellay himself write –but this was already clear to any attentive observer—that he would have preferred to remain indefinitely in the status quo, in which the Fraternity pays lip service respect to the power of the Pope, but in fact acts as a small autocephalous church?  Not certainly (or at least not only) to be able to be at the helm of an entity that, in fact superiorem non recognoscet. But above all because Msgr. Fellay knows very well that the moment of truth will be also a moment of trauma and internal fighting. This is what he, most understandably, would like to avoid at all costs.

Induratum est cor of a significant part of the representatives of the Fraternity, as happens inevitably in all dissident groups.  It is a sickness that is called sectarianism.  Jokingly, I said that for a long time that certain elements in the Fraternity would reject with horror a doctrinal preamble that contained even only the words “Credo in unum Deum”, for the sole reason that it comes from Rome.

The scolding letter written by the bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and Galarreta serves only to confirm this impression.  Read it attentively:  you do not find in the letter criticisms (which in this case would have been constructive, or at least worthy of attention) of the specific passages of the Preamble, or of the proposed canonical solution, or something similar.  No, sir: the argument put forth is dogmatic and without a direct appeal:  the Pope is a “subjectivist”, that is, he does not believe in the objective reality of the truth of faith; as such he is able to welcome into the pantheon of Conciliar Catholicism all the sensibilities and opinions, even if contradictory, since each is ‘true” only relatively within its own ambience.

Now, to affirm these things about the Pope, about this Pope, who has made the battle against religious relativism (the consequence of subjectivism) the basis of the plan of his pontificate right from the homily of his inauguration Mass,  is not even a caricature (which presumes always a partial basis in truth): it is a turning upside down of the facts and of good sense.

As Msgr. Fellay well responds to this point to his brother bishops, the Church is horribly disfigured, but, on the other hand, one cannot wait in an ivory tower in the hope that she will recover. It is necessary to participate in the battle to heal her ills; and also when her ills have passed,  other new ones will arise.  The life, not only of the individual Christian, but of the whole mystical Body is permanently militia—a fighting action against the Hydra always rising from evil and heresy. 

One should not fail to notice, in general, the dignified and analytical tone of the letter of response of Msgr. Fellay and his assistants, which contrasts with the sloganeering of his opponents.  The letter from the FSSPX headquarters seems written not only to quiet internal dissension by the force of reason, but also to furnish, thanks to its style that is studiously measured and reflective and insistently referring to the sensus ecclesiae,  a preventative weapon for the Vatican when it will have to find how to make the reconciliation with the episcopate palatable.   The apparent silence on this question can be the result of a hopeful skepticism about the outcome of the talks, but it can also be the prelude to a tempestuous rebellion at a critical moment.

What will happen now?  In these final days, the Lefebvrian barometer is registering a turn towards fair weather.  In the months immediately following the delivery of the doctrinal Preamble, those against the accord prevailed, and Msgr Fellay himself could do no better than to delay as long as possible a response.  This caused in the “Romans” a certain feeling of impatience, and also some hardness of position that certainly did not help him in his difficult position of the intermediary. But if the antipapal resistance in the Fraternity organized itself, cementing the positions of the three bishops with those of the Superior of the powerful French district, Cacquerary (who still in the editorial of the last issue of Fideliter describes Benedict XVI as a prisoner of “profound and grave illusions” about the conciliar “new religion”),   there have arisen positions of several Superiors of districts in  favor of a reconciliation.  First among these is the German Schmidberger, who was also the first successor of Msgr. Lefebvre at the head of the Fraternity.  Together with him stand the Superiors of the United States, Holland-Belgium and Asia.  Above all there is the important support of Abbé Simoulin, who in full knowledge of the case—at that time he was the rector of the seminary in Écone—has overturned the reason for which it was necessary for Msgr. Lefebvre to refuse the Roman offer (of reconciliation), revealing that that refusal in 1988 did not depend at all on doctrinal disagreements, but only on the practical questions about the naming of his successor.

Fellay himself must have shrewdly figured out two things.  The first:  that Rome would not allow him to wriggle out of the problem any longer (as he would have preferred) and that he would have to decide on the basis of yes or no.  The second:  that in the case of a negative response to the accord, he, solely from the fact of having conducted the negotiations in a “moderate” way,  would end up quite rapidly dismissed and, probably, even purged from a Fraternity setting out on the road of extremism and self-ghettoization.  This is a real risk, as Msgr. Fellay writes:  ‘This incapacity to distinguish leads one or the other of you towards an absolute hardening.  This is serious because this caricature is outside of reality and will lead logically in the future to a real schism.  And perhaps that fact is one of the reasons that is pushing me to not delay any longer to respond to the Roman requests.’

The exchange of letters that ended up on the Internet in effect expresses two things. On one side, the very strong fear of the three recalcitrant bishops that the accord will indeed be reached.  On the other side, the sense of surety that Msgr. Fellay has acquired by this time. Up till now he seemed instead more similar to “King Tentenna” (ed. note:  a king who could not make up his mind) that to Clausewitz.  Thisnew sense of security is seen clearly from how he does not worry about addressing his confreres with strong accusations (of sedevacantism,  lack of faith in the supernatural, insubordination for direct opposition to his leadership).

The problems tied to the doctrinal preamble seem, in effect, resolved.  So affirms Msgr. Arrieta, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the interpretation of legislative documents (the dicastery that you can be sure is preoccupied with the next problem: the definition of a canonical structure)  An indiscretion that was revealed to us (take it as such, but I assure you that it is reliable) that the last response of Msgr. Fellay, in which he accepts the famous Preamble but with some significant modifications, before being sent officially to Ecclesia Dei and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent directly, via Msgr. Georg, to the Pope, who did not raise any objections.  This was one way to be sure that some zealous Roman functionary, perhaps because of an excessive affection to the text of the Preamble originally prepared by his dicastery, would not raise problems.  So we are able to wait for Wednesday with confidence, when the CDF is scheduled to tell what their response is to the FSSPX.

With the subject of the doctrinal preambles out of the way, we will pass on to truly serious matters, which are, naturally, the juridical questions.  On one side: what will be the destiny of the Fraternity in case of an internal split: whether in terms of numbers, or in terms of the ownership of the structures and the centers of the apostolate (on this point, however, I hazard a guess that the internal schism—which may happen—will be substantially circumscribed and probably will not involve all the three bishops:  there does not seem to me to be a great desire to create a sort of  a “Lefebvrist refoundation”.)

On the other hand, the question of the canonical structure arises.  Personally I am convinced that this may be the only point on which the FSSPX would have every reason to refuse the accord, if they were not to obtain a canonical exemption from the diocesan bishops.  But on this point, and on the solutions that are impending, I am postponing to a later post, because I realize that I have already bored you enough for today.

Enrico

Translated by Fr. Richard Cipolla

Original: http://blog.messainlatino.it/2012/05/la-tormentata-storia-delle-relazioni.html

 Deacon Peter Venezia will speak at the Breakfast about Good Counsel Homes.  Good Counsel Homes is a private Catholic agency whose primary mission is to help homeless pregnant women by providing a loving family environment in a safe and secure shelter.  Begun in 1985 by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Christopher Bell, both leaders in the pro-life movement, Good Counsel has grown to five homes in the New York greater metropolitan area. 

 The catered breakfast will include scrambled eggs, sausage and ham, pancakes and waffles, rolls, bagels, muffins and mini-Danish, fruit juices and coffee and tea.  Tickets are $20 per person and will only be available for purchase until Thursday, May 17th, after the 6 PM Solemn Mass for the Feast of the Ascension at the Church of the Holy Innocents

On the one hand,  we have First Things, various representatives of Opus Dei and John Allen advancing the idea that Rome should impose a new requirement that the FSSPX “accept the Council”  or repudiate “offensive thinking” prior to any reconciliation. Of course such new demands would torpedo any such reconciliation (and rightly so) and that is the intent of those proposing them.

 On the other hand, in an entirely foreseeable repetition of events three years ago, a party within the FSSPX  apparently close to Bishop Williamson  has disclosed correspondence showing the extent of the internal debate and disagreement within the FSSPX. But the move had the merit of placing before the broader public this luminous response of Bishop Fellay. I was struck by this passage:

First of all, the letter (of three FSSPX bishops distancing themselves from the current negotiations)indeed mentions the gravity of the crisis gripping the Church and precisely analyzes the nature of the ambient errors that pullulate in the Church. Nonetheless, the description is marred by two defects in relation to the reality in the Church: it is lacking in a supernatural spirit and at the same time it lacks realism.

Doesn’t the second sentence precisely describe the operation of the hierarchy of the Catholic church nearly everywhere today? Her bishops function as secular leaders – depending on the predilection of the local culture, as businessmen, government bureaucrats, politicians or “media figures.” Yet at the same time these non-religious managers are entirely devoid of any sense of realism, worldly or otherwise – consider the ultra-short term focus of the innumerable diocesan “realignment” plans in the US. It is distressing to see related deficiencies, if in a weirdly different way, among the bishops of the FSSPX :   a totally secular, historicist view of the Church combined with tactical incompetence.  The  poisonous influence of this world thus arises in the midst of those who thought they were preserving themselves in purity from the surrounding wasteland.

Yes,  one could despair reading the draft letter of the three FSSPX bishops (or even more so, the recent outrageous statements  by Ravasi & Co on the pro-life front or the reports of the  successful  derailing of the much ballyhooed review of the orders of American sisters ).  But fortunately,  we must always keep in mind that Someone Else is involved as well, as Bishop Fellay points out to his episcopal brethren:

I was surprised to learn today that Msgr. Eugene Clark had died on April 11, 2012. At the Month’s Mind Mass celebrated at his old parish of St. Agnes, Fr. George Rutler preached this moving sermon:

 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathrynlopez/2012/05/remembering-a-priest-who-knew-christ-knew-the-cross/

 Strange – we hear the surprising news of Monsignor Clark’s death just as we were  reminiscing about the beginnings of the recovery of liturgical Tradition in New York City in the 1980′s.  If the Novus  Ordo Latin Mass had debuted at Our Lady of Vilna and  the Traditional Mass – deliberately scheduled outside of Sunday –  at St Ann,  it was at St. Agnes under Msgr. Clark that  the regular Sunday Traditional Mass returned to the city. It has been celebrated at that parish ever since. Now in the 1980′s at St Agnes Msgr. Clark had gathered about him a number of priests who in one way or another were laboring for the preservation and restoration of Catholicism in New York.  Father George Rutler was one of these priests.  The parish became the focus of  wide variety of initiatives and apostolates, Traditionalist or (mostly) otherwise. Dare I mention our own minor contribution:  a Catholic reading club that met a number of times in the St. Agnes rectory? Although I do not think that Msgr. Clark was himself a committed proponent of the  Traditional liturgy, he nevertheless made its recovery possible. Msgr Clark also  worked for the artistic restoration of St Agnes church and later for its rebuilding.

After Msgr Clark moved to St Patrick’s  and made some very precise and provocative  statements about the moral ills afflicting our country today,  I knew he was a marked man. Disaster was not long in following. Msgr. Clark was quickly dropped by his neoconservative fan club. It was a tragic end to the career of  a man who had certainly taken positions over the years not conducive to  ecclesiastical preferment.

Now I would concede that there were serious  issues about some of the personalities and policies at St. Agnes in the 1980′s. And the rebuilding of St. Agnes  fell short of what should have been accomplished. Nevertheless, with all its failings and mistakes, this was the beginning of a recovery of Tradition and even of  the sacred within the New York Archdiocese itself.   And as the Germans say, Aller Anfang ist schwer. We owe Msgr Clark an immense  debt of gratitude for that beginning.

St. Mary, Norwalk, CT

Solemn High Mass at 5:30 p.m.

Prelude: Majesté du Christ demandant sa gloire à son Père [Majesty of Christ praying that His Father should glorify Him] (from L’Ascension) (Messiaen)
Missa Octavi toni (Orlando di Lasso, c.1532-1594)
Gregorian Mass of Ascension Day: Viri Galilaei
Alleluia: Ascendit Deus (plainsong, mode iv) [Student Schola]
Alleluia: Dominus in Sina (plainsong, mode viii) [Student Schola]
Motet at the Offertory: Jesu nostra redemptio (William Byrd, 1540-1623)
Motet at the Communion: Ascendens Christus (Jacob Handl, 1550-1591)
Motet at the Communion: Regina cæli (Tomás Luis de Victoria, 1548-1611)
Postlude: Transports de joie d’une âme devant la gloire du Christ qui est la sienne [Outbursts of joy from a soul before the Glory of Christ which is its own glory] (from L’Ascension) (Messiaen)

Church of the Holy Innocents, Manhattan

8:30 am, Missa Cantata

6 pm, Solemn Mass.  Confessions will be heard before the 6 pm Mass.

Immaculate Conception Church, Sleepy Hollow, New York

Ascension Thursday, Low Mass at 5:00 PM

Directions: www.unavocewestchester.org

Hinter dem Großen Orient
Freimaurerei und Revolutionsbewegungen
By Lorenz Jäger
(Karolingerverlag, Vienna/Leipzig, 2nd Revised Ed. 2010)

It is a pity that no more than a handful of American Traditionalist Catholics have become acquainted with the esteemed Karolingerverlag of Austria. This publisher is an amazing source of works traditional, brilliant and arcane: from a picture book of portraits of all the Holy Roman Emperors to the complete works of Nicholas Gomez Davila in German translation. Hinter dem Großen Orient: Freimaurerei und Revolutionsbewegungen (“Behind the Grand Orient: Freemasonry and Revolutionary Movements”) is a major addition to their catalogue. The author is the noted German scholar – and guest of the Society of St Hugh of Cluny in Connecticut last year – Lorenz Jäger.

We need to remind American readers that although Freemasonry in the US may be a declining force limited to certain regions and social strata quite the opposite is true elsewhere in the world. Francois Koch, who authors La Lumiere the Masonic blog of the magazine L’Express in France, states “Une certitude: le monde maçonnique est toujours en expansion. Plus de 160 000 frères et sœurs en France.” (One thing is certain: the Masonic world is still expanding. There are more than 160,000 brothers and sisters in France.) Just the fact that a leading French news magazine feels the need to sponsor a blog on Masonic news – corresponding to the Vaticanista blogs of the Italian media – demonstrates the significance of the craft in that country. We are not dealing with any mere social club.

Dr. Jäger focuses on one “denomination” of Freemasonry – that of the Grand Orient of France. This is the most resolutely political of the Freemasonic sects and the first to be officially open – to put it mildly – to atheism. But Dr. Jäger’s book is not really a history of the Grand Orient. Rather it focuses on the repeated links of continental Freemasonry – usually deriving from the Grand Orient of France – to revolutionary politics. The lodges sometimes provided ideological support and at other times direct organizational leadership of the revolutionaries. All this is most carefully documented and researched by Dr. Jäger; the usual carping about “conspiracy theories” finds no support in this book.

It is quite a story – from the role of foreign Freemasons in the French revolution to links with early communism. Freemasons fought side by side with the French communards in 1871. They played a significant role in the founding of the First International – although relations with Marxists quickly soured. Kerensky and the clique that overthrew the Czar in 1917 were members of the lodge. And we find that the “young Turks” who staged a revolution against the sultan, led the Ottoman Empire into World War I and launched the massacre of the Armenians and other Christians were also brethren. That is doubly curious because at that same time the Italian lodges were leading Italy into a disastrous war on the side of France and England.

Dr. Jäger devotes considerable space to the Masonic ties of German and Jewish revolutionaries active in France 1830-1848 and later- as well as to the Masonic membership of the intellectual leaders associated with the Weltbühne (a left-wing publication in 1920’s Germany). Now the significance of this – which German readers would immediately understand – is that the doctrines of these revolutionaries – unsuccessful as they were politically in their day – have become a key element of the quasi –totalitarian ideology of the current Federal Republic of Germany.

This brings us up to the present. Freemasonry for much of the Twentieth Century was upstaged by communism as a revolutionary force. Yet the fall of Soviet Communism, the “strange death of Marxism” (Paul Gottfried) in Western Europe and the “march through the institutions” of the 1960’s radicals resulted in Grand Orient Freemasonry reemerging more potent than ever. Dr. Jäger documents their new role in France as conscious promoters of the “culture of death.” Already in the 19th century the introduction of cremation instead of burial was a specifically Masonic initiative. (Pope Paul VI and the Church would later capitulate on this issue) At least as early as 1963 Freemasons were agitating for the unrestricted right to birth control in France – their efforts crowned with success in 1967. Later, introducing “rights” to abortion, sterilization, artificial insemination and euthanasia became the main focus – along with the consolidation of the secular society – of Masonic activity in France.

So on whatever front Freemasonry has been active over the last three centuries there has been one constant: the opposition of Freemasonry to the Catholic Faith and the political and social institutions of Christendom. Freemasonry’s war on the political order allied with the Church was concluded successfully generations ago. The battle – up till now also usually successful – to extirpate the remnants of Christian society and morality continues to the present day. Dr. Jäger’s book is a powerful key to understanding what is going on.

Our Lady of Vilna (or, as it was known in later years, Vilnius) was one of the most modest parishes on the island of Manhattan. It served a nationality, the Lithuanians, who never became as prominent or numerous here as they did in parts of the Midwest. And not too long after the completion of the church in 1910, the Holland tunnel and its approaches were built right though the neighborhood just a few doors from Our Lady of Vilna – hardly conducive to the long term health of the parish.

Yet in the early 1980′s Our Lady of Vilna seemed in relatively good health under the leadership of the pastor Fr “Vito” Padubinskas. After his arrival in 1982 he redecorated and refurbished the church and the parish hall.  The centerpiece of the restoration – if of dubious aesthetic value – was the installation of a set of disproportionately large stained glass windows, in a 1950′s modern style, showing the saints and sacred places of Lithuania. Fr. Padubinskas rescued them from a closed Lithuanian parish in Brooklyn.  Our Lady of Vilna was an object if minor lesson of how even a parish that had suffered the most adverse “demographic change” imaginable could be revitalized through energetic leadership.

It was in the early 1980′s and in this out-of-the-way parish that the Latin Mass (albeit Novus Ordo) returned to New York under the leadership of Fr. Peter Stravinskas (who, by the way, seems to be back in town once again).  There were many odd things about these early Latin Masses – and about some of the congregation as well.  Liturgical eccentrics  and cranks made their presence known just as in the comboxes of today’s websites. And it quickly emerged that the individual whims of each celebrant remained decisive for the Latin Novus Ordo, just as in the vernacular version. But despite all the criticisms that could be made, at Our Lady of Vilna the mass was at least said correctly, and in Latin.  The glorious hymns and sequences resounded once more for the first time in many a year. Could any participant forget the Corpus Christi mass and procession – led by a retired bishop?  The procession wound its way outdoors before an audience sweltering in hundreds of cars backed up before the Holland tunnel entrance. Quite a few of their occupants pulled out cameras and video equipment as if some strange, primitive ceremony were being reenacted.

Just as in the case of the later  ”indult” regime for the TLM,  when the clerical personnel changed the tentative return to tradition at Our Lady of Vilna disappeared. Father Padubinskas left in 1989 (he died in 2008). The parish seems to have fallen rapidly into decline after that  – years later the main church had to be closed because of water damage. Finally, in 2007 Cardinal Egan ordered Our Lady of Vilna to be closed and razed in a manner particularly drastic even for him. The announcement of the closing was casually made outside of the official  ”reconfiguration” plan in which Our Lady of Vilna had not been mentioned. The  pastor paid the Cardinal a visit uptown to make the case for his church  only to find that the Cardinal had had it padlocked upon his return. A long confrontation involving the parishioners, the Archdiocese and even the Lithuanian government seems to have reached an end late in 2011 when, on appeal, judicial approval was given to raze the church.

The crosses.

So now the modest church of Our Lady of Vilna, with its pretty facade and miniature towers, stands closed and forlorn, awaiting its fate. A number of plain wooden crosses have been attached by the parishioners to the exterior of the church. They remind us of the famous hills of wooden crosses in the homeland that served as a silent sign of resistance to communism for so many years.  It has been reported that Fr. Padubinskas’ windows will be heading there too – as long as the Lithuanians can come up with the money to ship them….

See this WEBSITE on the history and recent developments of this parish. More details and picutures of the interior can be found HERE.

One of the windows of Our Lady of Vilna (from Our Lady of Vilnius, NYC website)

A shot of the interior a number of years ago showing scaffolding. (From the NYC AGO website)

Address: 914 Newfield Ave
Stamford, CT

Tel: (203) 322-7426

This past Thursday, April 19, 2012 marked in important day in my life. Many will recognize this date as the 7th anniversary of the election of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, to be the 265th Vicar of Christ. I will always remember April 19, 2005, seeing Cardinal Ratzinger walk out onto the balcony, “dressed-up as the pope.” Having read much of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s writings, and having met him once as a seminarian in Rome, it gave me tremendous joy knowing that we would be led by a shepherd of such integrity and wisdom. Now, seven years later, Pope Benedict XVI still looks healthy, Deo gratias, and it is my heartfelt prayer that the Lord would give him many more years of rewarding service.

April 19, 2012 also marks a more personal anniversary, the 60th wedding anniversary of my parents. On April 19, 1952, Joseph and Gloria Markey were married at St. Joseph Church in Bogota, New Jersey, a parish run by Carmelite priests. My father had grown up in this parish where he faithfully served as an altar boy, reciting his Latin prayers at the foot of the altar: “Introibo ad altare Dei, Ad Deum qui laetificat…” My mother’s brother, Henry, was in the Jesuit seminary at that time of the wedding and was not even permitted to leave seminary to attend the marriage of his sister. These were times of more discipline within the Church.

My parents went on to have 11 children over 17 years and moved up to Ridgefield, Connecticut in 1966, after my father received a job offer from a booming optics company, Perkin Elmer. Hearing the stories and seeing the old photos of these years, it was a time filled with great hope and change. Hope because every child born is a great sign of hope. Change because the cultural revolution in the West was in full swing and the Church was attempting to implement the Second Vatican Council.

The Markey’s attended St. Mary Church in Ridgefield where many of my siblings and I received our Sacraments. It seemed like an ideal suburban parish filled with thousands of families and many children. However, my parents were unaware that they had just entered a parish that would become an icon of the post-conciliar turmoil.

In 1968, St. Mary Church in Ridgefield became a battleground. The parish received a new pastor, Msgr. Martin J. O’Connor, who would begin implementing Vatican II. As our family sat in the pews each Sunday morning, Mass became a new experiment. There were “clown Masses” with lay people miming the Gospel. There were dancing girls, including nuns in tutus, prancing around in front of the Blessed Sacrament. My father found the teaching that people should receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand offensive. He initially resisted but eventually accepted under pressure from the priests.

Showing up on Sunday mornings, my family found the beautiful colonial-gothic church slowly dismantled. Marble statues were moved out of the sanctuary and the marble high altar was pulled away from the central reredos. When one of the parishioners found the parish’s hand-carved altar rail from Italy in the town dump, it became a rallying cry. Parishioners organized with petitions and protests, demanding that the demolition of the parish treasures stop. They were successful in saving some of the marble statues and preventing the removal of the classic stain glass windows.

When some parishioners asked why this was happening, they were told that “Vatican II says we can do this,” and “We have approval from the diocese.” Some parishioners asked, “Where does it say in the Council documents that Mass should be said facing the people, and that altar rails should be removed?” but they received no answer.

Around the parish, posters of Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung appeared on the walls, and a modern form of CCD began. Families were told that regular Confession was not healthy, and praying the rosary was no longer part of the life of the Church. Religious education texts promoted explicit sex-education. It was an insane time for Catholic families. As Pope Paul VI stated in 1972, the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church.

When the concerns of good families at St. Mary’s were not addressed, a group of them felt they had no other alternative but to start their own catechetical program. At their first meeting they expected about 40 children to come but word had spread and 186 showed up. Many families of influence in the town pulled their children out of the parish program and joined the new group, and the Knights of Columbus let them use their hall on the other side of town. St. Mary Church was now painfully divided.

The parents who started the new program were called in for meetings with the pastor and when that did not work, representatives from the diocese came down. The parents were told that they were “not flexible enough” and that “they needed to obey the pastor.” When the situation was still unable to be resolved, the parents were threatened with interdict, being denied the Sacraments. These families travelled around for years like pilgrims around the diocese, looking for priests who would give them the Sacraments. They were preached against from the pulpits and the parishioners were forced to decide where their loyalty lay.

What were faithful Catholics supposed to do with all of this? My parents were alarmed. They saw the problems with the “feel good” catechetical program and decided to pull their children out so they could teach all of us children at home. Their loyalty ultimately fell with the local priests, reasoning that those who represent the Church should be followed.

As the division in Ridgefield continued, a group of priests began to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the next town over, in Brewster, NY. Some of these families who had formed their own catechetical program began to attend. However, homilies at these Masses spoke out against the Pope which caused some of these same people to decide this was not the answer. Good Catholics were still unable to find a home and the Body of Christ was continuing to splinter.

Eventually this Traditional Latin Mass group would be led by the Society of St. Pius X and they purchased the Jesuit Retreat House in Ridgefield which became a successful retreat center. In 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society’s superior, ordained bishops without the express permission of Rome and incurred automatic excommunication.

During the 1970’s, many in the separate catechetical program reconciled with the parish, but St. Mary Church continued with various liturgical abuses and being soft on doctrine. The parish school closed. While most families like my parents stayed in the parish, other families drifted over to the Society of St. Pius X. St. Mary Church was not immune from numerous clergy scandals and when they finally became public my family felt both betrayed and terribly saddened.

It is worth noting that in the first 25 years of post-Vatican II period, St. Mary Church produced three vocations to the priesthood: Fr. Peter Short, Fr. Greg Short, and Fr. James Farfaglia. All three of these young men were sons of the families that refused to submit to parish’s modern catechetical program in the early 1970’s. None of them were ordained for the Diocese of Bridgeport, but to orthodox religious orders.

I was the fourth priestly vocation to come out of Ridgefield’s St. Mary Church during the post-conciliar period, and the first to be ordained for the Diocese of Bridgeport. I can in no way boast of my own merit, as if somehow I took the right course in this time of confusion. My teenage years had their share of rebellion and I was almost expelled from the parish Confirmation program for disrespecting CCD teachers. Like so many Catholics of my generation from Ridgefield, by the time I had got to college I had drifted away from the Church and lost my way. The secular version of Catholicism that my generation learned at St. Mary’s in Ridgefield did not prepare us to live the faith. It was only by a mysterious infusion of grace (which I attribute to Our Lady) that I came back to the Church, and ultimately became a priest. Certainly, the unwavering faith of my parents was an enormous influence on me.

Fifty years after the Council, now is the time for forgiveness and reconciliation: Forgiveness for the priests and lay people who led people astray with false doctrine; forgiveness for the scandal of some of the clergy’s behavior; and forgiveness for harsh words spoken against one another. We are facing an increasingly hostile secular culture, and if we are divided we are surely going to be defeated.

Those who carried the banner of change need to have the humility to recognize that many things done during this period were contrary to the Church documents and to the Tradition. A tree is known by its fruits, and statistical destruction after the Council is all too well documented. The path forward means a “religious submission of will and intellect” to the authentic teachings of the Church, and interpreting Vatican II documents, including the liturgy documents, in continuity with the Tradition the Church.

It is time for the Society of St. Pius X to come home, to be fully reconciled to the Church. As the history of St. Mary Church in Ridgefield shows, they too have suffered much and have a story to tell. To ignore their perspective is to ignore the reality of what has happened during this period. Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication and if the internet reports are to be believed, is about to receive them back into juridical union with the Church. The Holy Father has spent much of moral capital on this reconciliation, and by doing so is showing us that the voice of Society of St. Pius X has a role to play in the path forward for the Church.

One of the most memorable parts of my First Mass in 1999 was when I encountered one of my old teachers to whom I had been disrespectful. She had heard that her former student was becoming a priest and came to the Mass. Afterwards I went out of my way to find her and to apologize for the way I treated her many years ago. I also thanked her for her faithfulness. She was most gracious. Yes, forgiveness is the way forward.

For me, April 19, 2012 is an anniversary that marks the time of heroes: Catholics who kept their faith over the turmoil of the past 50 years. Pope Benedict XVI is a hero who is calling the sheep to gather around the Good Shepherd while being patient with those who are slow to respond. He knows human nature and he knows that there has been much suffering during this period. This will take time. My parents are heroes because they still have their Catholic faith intact after having lived through all the chaos and confusion. To Pope Benedict XVI and to my parents – Happy Anniversary and ad multos annos!

Sincerely in Christ,

Fr. Greg J. Markey

SOURCE: “FROM THE PASTOR” April 29. 2012

“It is about a deeper and more far reaching appeal, which should even bring into question that ecclesiastical world which is no longer in line with the papacy. Recalling the urgency of the proclamation of faith and of the need to analyse its content more carefully, should dissuade so many prelates from showing too great and close an interest in politics and political line-ups, in nominations in public entities, in the mass media and in intervening in issues frequently or very frequently, when this could be done more freely by the Catholic laity. One of the outcomes expected from the Second Vatican Council, which began fifty years ago, was indeed to do with the involvement of the laity in the Church. It is not out of place to note that half a century after the Council, the decree on the role of the laity, entitled Apostolicam actuositatem, is the document that has been implemented the least in ecclesial life. Indeed, we are witnessing, in many Countries, a sort of neo-clericalism, which seems to consider the laity merely as the “secular wing” of a hierarchy that controls everything or would like to control everything, far beyond the limits of its competence.”

Here in Vatican Insider

But the next realization must be: that this result is entirely consistent with the Council, not contradictory to it.