Bishop tells parishioners to prepare for fewer priests

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Friday, September 17, 2004 | Ann Rodgers

[Land of the Irish]

Bishop Donald Wuerl is calling on the people of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh to prepare for a future with fewer priests.

"Fewer priests does not mean less ministry," Wuerl wrote in a pastoral letter in this week's Pittsburgh Catholic.

[Conservative til I die]

The reasons for the decline in the priesthood are a point for discussion, for another day.

Are you kidding me? It's the ENTIRE issue!!!

Could you imagine businesses making decisions of strategy without consulting the reasons why something in the past succeeded or failed?

[Conservative til I die]

Yes. But Christ never mandated celibacy for his apostles.

You're employing Protestant debate methods.

You know better than that. The Church is what Christ left as His teaching authority on Earth. The Church has said that celibacy is what is required. It hasn't always required it, but most of the time it has.

The issue is not whether it's dogma or discipline. Everyone (at least those with any relevance) understand it to be discipline, and the issue is one of responding to a "crisis" of decreasing vocations.

The argument of "Christ never mandated it" is a red herring.

[Conservative til I die]

Priests that convert, primarily from Lutheranism and Anglicanism have been allowed to become priests. They can't marry after they become priests though.

[Pio]

Pope John Paul II has been a clear supporter of priestly celibacy. Are the supporters of a married priesthood in schism?

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

"Things seem to be working quite well in the parishes (five of them) served by Anglican dispensation priests in our diocese."

If I recall correctly, one of these pastors showed execrably poor judgment in permitting a priest from Pennsylvania to serve his parish without any faculties whatsoever from the bishop. Perhaps the attention paid to wife and family distracted him from his obligations to his bishop and his parishioners?


sitetest

[sinkspur]

Fr. Hawkins and the priest were old friends, and he disregarded a Scranton directive that the guy was not in ministry there.

He also didn't notify the Ft. Worth diocese that the priest was working in his parish on Sundays.

It was simply a matter of "this stuff doesn't apply to me; I know better."

That attitude affects single people and married people.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

Ah, but it is you who assured us in this thread that things are "working quite well" in all these parishes.

Apparently, that's not quite true.

Frankly, I think Fr. Hawkins' actions were very serious, and he should have been suspended for a period of time for his offense, and then denied a pastorate for the rest of his days.

In our archdiocese, it is we laypeople who have paid the heavy price for the mistakes of the priests and especially the enabler bishops. It is we laypeople who operate under ridiculous strictures because the bishops, after having given all manner of every conceivable benefit of the doubt to soul-murdering priest-molestors, deny us even the most basic human consideration.

But here we have a case of a priest throwing all caution to the wind, POST SCANDAL, and inviting someone down under the suspicion of sex abuse to minister in his parish.

The only defense you have is that Fr. Hawkins is no worse than some other priests.

Hardly an endorsement for a married priesthood.


sitetest

[gbcdoj]

Fr. Hawkins and the priest were old friends, and he disregarded a Scranton directive that the guy was not in ministry there.

Didn't Bp. Timlin come out and confirm that Clay had been offered a pastorate and was okay to be in public ministry (according to him)? Fr. Hawkins couldn't disregard a directive he didn't know about.

[sinkspur]

The only defense you have is that Fr. Hawkins is no worse than some other priests.

Hardly an endorsement for a married priesthood.

You are guilty of hoc ergo propter hoc thinking.

There is no relation between Hawkins actions and the fact that he's married, and you know it.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

I didn't say there were. You're telling us how wonderful married priests would be.

I'm telling you that this one is a clunker. A BIG clunker.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear gbcdoj,

Fr. Hawkins permitted Fr. Clay to function for an extended period of time almost as an associate pastor. This is without the permission of his own bishop, without even giving any notice at all to the bishop or the chancery.

Fr. Clay didn't have faculties from the bishop of Fr. Hawkins' diocese.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

I said married priests would add to the Catholic clergy. Married permanent deacons certainly have.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

Based on this married priest, I don't know whether they add or subtract.

Perhaps he was too busy attending to family matters to notice he was in gross violation of Canon Law.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

Maybe. Maybe not. An apocryphal story is hardly irrefutable evidence.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

Do you mean "apocryphal" (stuff of myths) or "anecdotal" (single incident - no statistal merit?


sitetest

[sinkspur]

Of course. Anecdotal.

[sitetest]

"no statistal merit?" = "no statistical merit)?"

[gbcdoj]

Fr. Hawkins permitted Fr. Clay to function for an extended period of time almost as an associate pastor.

Yes, but that is a separate issue from the allegations of abuse against Clay - Fr. Hawkins was told by Clay's (at the time, active) bishop that he was cleared.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

Well, the problem is, there aren't that many married Latin Rite priests to produce much by way of statistical evidence.

But we do know in this one case, we have a man whose judgment is very questionable. It is a reasonable speculation that it could be caused by being overburdened with pastoral and family obligations.

Here was this poor priest, Fr. Hawkins, completely overwhelmed with his pastorate and his family life, and here comes Fr. Clay, like an angel of mercy, for a nice, extended stay to help him out. I can understand.

But he thinks, if I tell the bishop, the bishop may ask questions, like, "Why is this guy staying so long? What happened back up north that his bishop let him go for this long of a period? It isn't as if Erie's got so many priests they gotta export 'em!"

Why have the bishop asking questions that might result in Fr. Clay... GOING HOME OR OTHERWISE LEAVING!!!

Then it's back to just Fr. Hawkins, that demanding family and that demanding parish.

I can see it. I feel sorry for the guy.

But it doesn't make me want to get rid of the general law of celibacy in the Latin Rite.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear gbcdoj,

I didn't say otherwise, gbcdoj.

But I imagine that one purpose of the requirement to request faculties of the bishop is so that the bishop is aware of the priests functioning in his dioceses. And so that the bishop can check on priests who come from other dioceses. I know that this has abysmally failed in the past to prevent molestor priests, with cover from their bishops, from roaming the countryside like lions to murder and devour souls, but I think that's the way it is supposed to work.

Regardless of whether Fr. Clay had any accusations against him or not, by not giving notice to the bishop, the bishop was unable to perform his oversight function, to perform due diligence.

If Fr. Clay was or is a molestor, how would the bishop have been able to prevent Fr. Clay from doing harm in his diocese, not even having been given any notice of his presence?

I bring this up in part because in my archdiocese, at least, we laypeople have been subjected to the most harsh scrutiny by the archdiocese in the execution of the child-protection policies. Yet, here we have a priest circumventing the role of the bishop to ensure that the PRIESTS, TOO, are not molestors.

And it was molestor PRIESTS and enabling, covering-up BISHOPS at the heart of the problem, not layfolks.


sitetest