Posted on 05/13/2005 9:57:43 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fr. Eugene Heidt and Archbishop Levada
Excerpted from “Priest Where Is Thy Mass, Mass Where Is Thy Priest.”
Q: So obedience is not really an objection against saying the traditional Mass, when you consider that it’s not forbidden by the Church?
Fr. H: Correct. There is no question of disobedience involved here, no way.
Q: How did your convictions about the old Mass sit with the Chancery?
Fr. H: Things just got worse. A couple of years before, I had written a letter about what they called the “Stewardship Council.” That was a program that they used to raise money for the operation of the Archdiocese. I told the people in the parish that we couldn’t contribute to that. I black-balled the “Stewardship Council”!
Q: Why did you black-ball it?
Fr. H: Because of the immoral causes that they were promoting. I named some of them in the letter I wrote. But I have to go back a little bit to explain some of this. It all came to a head with this question of the money for the “Stewardship Council” – that’s what really got Archbishop Levada going. I remember coming home from meeting with him on one of those occasions. I said, “You know, that man isn’t Catholic. The Archbishop is not Catholic!” I was telling the whole parish this. No wonder he got so angry with me, in the end of it all!
When Archbishop Levada had first come to the Archdiocese, I was the first one to have an appointment with him after he was installed. I went in there for an hour and a half, and I poured out my heart to him, because I was told he was a good, traditional, orthodox bishop, and that he was going to straighten this Archdiocese out. So I really churned my heart out to him, and he just sat there. He was like an episcopal vacuum cleaner, sucking all this stuff up and listening to it. I told him about the homosexuality in the Church, and I said “I can name six or seven homosexual priests in the diocese. They call themselves the ‘altar society.’” He said, “You’ve come in here with a bunch of rumors, and I’m not going to listen to that.” I said, “Well, one day, somebody is going to have to pay!” But he wouldn’t listen.
Every time I went to see him, I’d go in and argue with him. I think there is only one pastoral letter he wrote, supposedly on the Mass and the Eucharist. I read the thing and I took it to his office, and I said, “Did you write this? Is this supposed to be a complete treatise on the Eucharist and the Mass? How did you manage to get through this whole thing without once mentioning Transubstantiation?” “Well, that’s such a long and difficult term anyway,” he said, “and we don’t use that term anymore.”
I said, “I don’t think that’s the correct estimate of that word. When I was in the first grade and our good little Benedictine Sister was preparing us for First Holy Communion, I can remember her putting that up on the board. She put ‘trans,’ and then she put a line. Then she put ‘substantiation,’ and then she went through and explained what each of those things meant. She was able to put it in terms we could understand, so that we knew that the Bread and the Wine are substantially different from what they were before the Consecration.” He just repeated “That’s such a confusing term!” So, I said, “Let’s go on to the next item.”
The “next item” was his having gone to Our Lady of Atonement Parish – that’s what they called a “Catholic-Lutheran joint parish,” where they have a priest on one end of the altar and a Lutheran minister on the other, and they go back and forth. I asked, “What did you do over there?” and he answered, “We concelebrated liturgy.” “What does that mean?” I asked, “Did you and the Lutheran minister say Mass together? What did you do?” He just wouldn’t discuss it any more.
And then, one night during all this “Stewardship” business, the Archbishop really got angry. He called me up, it was after hours, 5:05 pm! He was supposed to be on his way home, but he stopped and called me. He was SO livid, he could hardly talk on the phone. He said, “You be in my office at ten o’clock tomorrow morning before the diocesan consulters and the other bishops of the diocese. Plead your case there!” I said, “Well, all right, I will be glad to come in and do that, but I haven’t got any time to document all this.” He said, “That’s okay, just come on in and tell us what’s on your mind.”
So, I was in there probably an hour altogether, and those priests were lined up in a big horseshoe, you know, and I was at the table on the end by myself. I had my tape recorder, which I set up beside me, and, as I was trying to plug it in, I heard a voice up at the other end: “Hey, you can’t use a recorder in here!” I turned around, and it was the archbishop. I asked, “Why not?” He said, “We don’t record this kind of meeting.” And I said, “Oh, all right, but I’ll plug it in while I’m talking and unplug it while you’re talking, how’s that?” Then I set up a chair beside me, and one of the bishops, who used to be a very good friend of mine, asked what the chair was for. They were waiting for an attorney to come in, I suppose. I said “Well, that’s for my Guardian Angel.” And these priests looked at me like I was kind of crazy, you know.
At the end of my little speech, the Archbishop said, “Okay, I agree with you on everything except for the question of homosexuality in the Seminary. We took care of that a couple of weeks ago. Of course, you wouldn’t know about that meeting, but it’s already been taken care of.” But he sided with me on the rest of the other complaints that I had.
Afterwards, he got on my case, and he finally told me to take a sabbatical. He said, “You can take you sabbatical if you want, and you are free to write up a proposal of what you want to do.” I agreed, and I took a month to get my plan together and brought it back to him.
I told him that I wanted to spend five months or so studying the Council of Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, and all of the papal encyclicals from the last two hundred years. But he said, “No, No, That’s non-productive. You will go to the University and take their ‘Credo’ course” (which was an updating in theology). But I said “No, No.” I said, like the boys said when it was time to go to Vietnam: “Hell no, I won’t go! No thanks.” So he said, “Then I’ll send you to a monastery for your sabbatical, and I will draw up a course of studies for you. You will have a private mentor.” I said, “No, I do not need a guru.” Finally, he told me to go ahead and do what I wanted.
I said then that I wanted to spend the last couple of weeks of my sabbatical in Fatima, to talk all this stuff over with our Blessed Lady, and then I would come back. And he agreed. Well, I never got to Fatima, but in the meantime this place came up for sale, and I knew I had been had by that time. When I went back to see him, after the sabbatical was over, he told me that, because I had said the Latin Mass in “excommunicated” chapels, mainly Portland and Veneta [Oregon], he could no longer use my services. So I said, “Okay. You do what you have to do. But you’re going to have to tie me up in chains to stop me from offering the Latin Mass.” He threatened to suspend me if I didn’t stop.
A month or so went by, and I got a letter from him telling me to get an attorney so that we could have a hearing in Portland. I thought it was over, and I decided that, no matter who I got, the result would be the same. In conscience, no Novus Ordo priest could defend me, and, if I got one of the Society of St. Pius X priests, they wouldn’t listen to him. So I wrote back to him and asked him to appoint an attorney for me. I sent this priest the whole case, and he read it and sent it back to me. He said to go back to the Archbishop and tell him that I was sorry and then submit and obey the Archbishop. And then, at the end of the letter, he said, “Besides, the traditional Latin Mass is a thing of the past, and within ten years it will be nothing more than a footnote in the history of the Church.” And so I get nowhere with that. The next thing I knew, the Archbishop sent me a letter of suspension. I never did have a hearing.
I moved up here in 1988, the very weekend that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained the four Bishops. Then, I asked Fr. Laisney if I could help him out in the chapels in Portland and Venata, and he said, “Welcome aboard!” And I have been doing it ever since.
Q: So you’re a renegade because you won’t give up the traditional idea of the priesthood and the Mass. How would you describe the new idea of the priest? What do they think the priest is, in those theological updating courses, for instance?
Fr. H: I don’t know because I never went.
Q: You never went to a seminar?
Fr. H: No, I stopped that right in the beginning. They used to have three-day seminars, once a year. I went to the first one, and I stayed the first morning. At mid-morning, we met with the Archbishop, and we could ask him any kind of questions that we wanted. Well, the Archbishop started out with one of the directives that came from Rome, and he said that the Masses of priests who use anything other than unleavened bread and sacramental wine are to be questioned. But the Archbishop himself was pooh-poohing the idea. So these priest go the idea that they could go ahead and use pita bread, cookie dough, whatever. You could go down to Safeway and get a jug of wine or even grape juice! It didn’t seem to make too much difference to him.
I poked the priest sitting to one side of me and said, “Hey did you hear what he just said?” He said yes. I poked the one on the other side (he was a classmate of mine), and I said, “Did you hear what he just said?” He said yes. I said, “Well, in my book that’s unacceptable!” and I got up and walked out the door and went home. And that’s the last one I attended. I don’t know what they say anymore about the priesthood, the sacraments, or whatever. I just don’t pay any attention to them.
What little I do know of Levada's previous stint at the Vatican has to do with his work as a translator.
I do know that regarding ICEL, Archbishop Levada observed that "these changes amount ... to a massive revision of the basic ritual of the Church's Roman Rite".
In charity, I am assuming that his competency as a translator figured into his appointment to the CDF. Time will tell.
I'm well aware of bad diocesan circumstances, but I'll have to say no thanks to this brand of priest.
I don't think that's quite fair. I was (well, still am) one of those surprised by Levada's appointment, but that was because what I knew of Levada, I knew from spending a lot of time in SF and seeing his disappointing performance as Archbishop there.
One of the really great things about our discussions on FR, however, is that we learn more about the issue from the posts of our fellow Freepers. People have put up links to his writings that I have diligently followed, and from what I have read, I no longer think that he is unorthodox, and in fact he seems to have pretty sound opinions on many things.
I think what you're seeing is people separating some aspects of his stint in SF - that is, his inability to stand up to the out-of-control clergy, his too great desire to get along with and be liked by media-popular figures like Swing, and his timidity about dealing with liturgical problems - from his doctrinal and theological ideas, which were probably the reasons for which he was chosen. (That and to give US Catholics a little reminder that someone was watching them.)
In Rome, he's going to be dealing mostly with other bureaucrats who are also chosen by the Pope and are not going to be hostile to him (and also over whom he has no authority, anyway). I think he will function essentially as the Secretary of the CDF, with BXVI remaining as the enforcer. This was the situation with the CDF until VatII, after all - the Pope controlled it. And the fact that BXVI originally had considered not filling the position to which Levada is being appointed indicates a lot.
Furthermore, people are hysterical over one breakfast with Mahony - but forget that the Pope seems to have regular contact with Fr. Fessio, who would certainly know more about Levada than anyone. I really do think we should all take a deep breath and perhaps turn our attention to speculating on who will be the new Archbishop of SF. Candidates, anyone?
I took the occasion of the post to you to comment on other conspiracies appearing lately. Pope Benedict's reign has barely begun and a hateful, savage, scandalous attack is already being mounted by the Libertrads. I was responding to them, not to you who, obviously, is not a Libertrad.
I apologize if it appeared all the comments were directed to you.
Nah, that isn't it I don't think. I believe that while most or all of us are perplexed at the choice of Bishop Levada for the CDF, we figure B16 knows him personally a whole lot better than most/all of us Freepers know him. Maybe he sees something we don't see or know about.
Do I wish Benedict XVI chose someone else? Sure I do. But are there reasons he chose Levada? Yep, and I don't know what they are but I trust B16 the same way I've trusted him since I found out who he was and what he does way back when.
We need good bishops at the helm of the dioceses and I am glad B16 didn't take one of the strong ones like Pell or Bruskewicz or Rigali or George, etc. Let's see what happens and continue to pray for God's blessings on these men.
"No, just an ordinary Catholic layman from Cleveland who thought that John Paul II was a great, good, and holy man--one of the few giants of our age--and who thinks that Benedict XVI is a remarkable man who shows every promise of being a remarkable Pope."
You mean JPII was a good actor who liked a crowd, Ratzinger was and is a sly manipulator ..... and Levada an out-and-out heretic.
No, I mean that John Paul II was a great, good, and holy man and that Joseph Ratzinger has been a good and faithful servant of the Church, who did a very good job as Prefect for the Congreation of the Faith and who shows every promise of being an excellent Pope.
I put my faith in the Successor of Peter, not in excommunicates and schismatics.
"However, now that the choice has been made everyone has started defending Levada."
Good point. The praise all of a sudden lavished on the Ratz before he has time to settle into his oversized garments is ear shattering. Now that Karol the Great is quickly shunted into heaven no questions asked the usual woolly minded among the Newchurch noisy brigade exhibit nun-like glee at every action now emanating from his tired old diminutive side-kick. Evidence of any heresy is quickly refuted and we are ordered to have short memories in pursuit of I know not what. To glorify the elevation of unholy men?
"Prove it. So far nobody has."
Proof enough from this humble honest priest. I have never trusted diocesan bishops; never have, never will. They are devils incarnate!
Running through all these posts, including the priest who had confrontation with Levada. I come away with a feeling that a great deal of ENVY permeates all. I would declare we, as Catholics, come to our senses and adhere to the Truth preached by the church....If at any time you feel disagreement then by all means SEEK a church that would give you the Peace, you so desire.....Why be unhappy??
Unless Levada has changed, this piece from Fr.Neuhaus in First Things (hope that's not too gossipy for our holier-than-thou crowd) implies Levada didn't appreciate Burke in St. Louis denying Communion to pro-aborts.
--
http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0410/public.html
Catholics in Political Life
Aspects of the new leadership were evident in the way the bishops addressed the question of Catholic politicians who defiantly reject the Church’s teaching, notably on abortion. Cardinal McCarrick had earlier been appointed to head up a task force on the question, and it was scheduled to issue its report to the bishops after the November elections. At the June meeting, he arranged for Cardinal Keeler and Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco to make presentations, after which he would speak. Keeler reported on consultations that had been held months earlier with bishops, theologians, canonists, and sundry lay leaders, all suggesting that it would be a big mistake to publicly sanction offending politicians. By the time of the June meeting, however, Cardinal Keeler’s report seemed very dated. Levada offered an extended pastoral-theological reflection, asking the question, "Who is to judge the state of a Catholic communicant’s soul?" He warned that penalties imposed on politicians or voters might be viewed as "an interference in the constitutional rights to political freedom." Moreover, he said, bishops should act together, since "the application of restrictive practices regarding the reception of Holy Communion in one diocese necessarily has implications for all."
The last observation was understood to refer to a few bishops, most notably Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, who had taken the pastoral initiative in cautioning offending politicians that they should refrain from communing or run the risk of being refused at the altar. At the meeting, there were some who wanted Burke put on notice that he had violated the protocols of episcopal fraternity by acting as he did. First in his diocese in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and then shortly after his move to St. Louis, Burke stood firm on the necessary connection between communing and being in communio with the Church, which includes not publicly rejecting her solemn teaching on the dignity of human life. Some canon lawyers argued that Burke had exceeded his canonical authority, but they apparently did not know their man. For five years Burke was on the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, the Church’s highest court, and he has mastered canon law in all of its sometimes befuddling intricacies. It soon became evident at Denver that the overwhelming majority of bishops, while they may not follow Burke’s precise course of action, were in no mood to reproach him or distance themselves from him. To the contrary, the final Denver statement, "Catholics in Political Life," was approved 183 to 6 and provided ample room for the approach taken by Burke and others.
Praise the Lord, Bishop Burke is backing up the priests in his diocese regarding Communion for pro-aborts instead of wasting his time sucking up to liberals.
I have a feeling that anyone who disagrees with you and the others who have their hair on fire about Levada being chosen for the CDF fits the above category?
I don't think anyone here is defending Levada against anything but I do think people are saying that maybe B16 knows more than they do.
I think there's a whole lot of people on FR who are pissed off (btw, 'holier-than-thou' people probably wouldn't use that phrase) they are not in the position to appoint bishops to the posts they want run in the way they see fit. In other words, there are those who really are their own pope and who cannot be humble enough to accept that they might not know the best thing to do in a given situation or papal appointment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.