Pope Pius X on Priestly Propriety and Dignity

Tradition in Action ^ | Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D.

[Land of the Irish]

RELIGIOUS: Religious Customs Pictorial Commentary on Pius X's Counsel to Priests Pope Pius X on Priestly Propriety and Dignity Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D. These were words of advice of Pope St. Pius X to Priests on the need for priestly dignity and propriety at the beginning of the last century: “In order never to be guilty of any unedifying act, the priest must regulate his actions, his movements and his habits in harmony with the sublimity of his vocation. He who on the altar almost ceases to be mortal and takes on a divine form, remains always the same, even when he comes down from the holy hill and leaves the temple of the Lord. Wherever he is, wherever he goes, he never ceases to be a priest, and the serious reasons that compel him always to be grave and appropriate accompany him with his dignity everywhere. “Hence he must have that gravity that will ensure that his words, his bearing, and his way of working arouse love, win authority and excite reverence. For, the very reasons that oblige him to be holy make it a duty for him to show it by his outward acts in order to edify all those with whom he is obliged to come into contact. A composed and dignified exterior is a powerful eloquence which wins souls in a much more efficacious manner than persuasive sermons. Nothing inspires greater confidence than an ecclesiastic who, never forgetting the dignity of his state, demonstrates in every situation that gravity which attracts and wins universal homage. “If, on the contrary, he forgets the holiness of the sacred character which he bears indelibly impressed and engraved on his souls, and if he fails to show in his outward conduct a gravity superior to that of certain men of the world, then he causes his ministry and religion itself to be despised. For when gravity is wanting in its leaders, the people lose respect and veneration for them.” (1) (1) Recipe for Holiness: St. Pius X and the Priest, (Lumen Christi Press, Houston: 1970), “Dignity and Propriety,” pp. 81-2. These comments of Pius X to priests reflect the customary teaching of the Church since the time of St. Peter until Vatican II. Rather than analyze this farsighted warning, let us apply the Pontiff’s words to the pictures we have before us in this article. Informations Catholique Internationales, December 1, 1968 At left, the first picture we will look at, the year is 1968, shortly after the close of Vatican II when the first deleterious effects of the secularization of the clergy were becoming apparent. Two French priests and a nun are at a bar demonstrating their “adaptation to the modern world.” The man at the far left in the photo, with whom Father X is engaging in a conversation, seems to be displaying surprise and mistrust at being approached by a priest in these circumstances. His suspicion is one of a person who might be saying, “What are you religious doing here? This is a place for me, not for priests and nuns.” It should come as no surprise should he be censuring the attitude of the clergyman The scene recalls to us the words of Pius X that if a priest forgets the holiness of his sacred characters and fails to show in his outward conduct a gravity superior to that men in the world, “then he causes his ministry and religion itself to be despised.” On the contrary, at right, you can observe a young cleric, upright, serious, dressed with dignity, sitting erect with noble bearing, assurance and dignity in a stately chair. The position of the hands, closed with serenity but firmness, express the energy that a good priest should have to direct souls and combat errors. The face, also reflecting an air of serenity, is a face of a man who does not fear anything. The eyes reflect a man accustomed to facing the sad reality of this valley of tears and an extreme confidence in a strength much superior to his, which is the strength of the grace of God. You are looking at Giuseppe Sarto, eldest of the eight children of a village postman and his seamstress wife, as the parish priest of Tombolo, Italy. * The Leaven, August 23, 2002 Now I would ask you to direct your eyes to the picture at left, taken from the Kansas diocesan newspaper, and you will see Archbishop James Keheler trying to appear modern, joining in the “song of praise” and imitating the dance of some youth at the last World Youth Day. The dance gestures of the Prelate seem so awkward and ridiculous that even though he is trying his best to be one of the young people, it is clear he does not fit in this role. Instead of drawing sympathy, as certainly he intended to do, his accommodation to the modern revolutionary dance makes him a target for ridicule and causes sadness in the viewer, who asks himself: “Why is a prince of the Church acting like this?” It is a progressivist myth that insits the priest generates adhesion to the “good news of the Gospel” by making oneself like today’s modern youth, Pope Pius X gives words of perennial wisdom on how the priest will earn true respect and veneration: “If the faithless modern world has stripped the priest of that halo of veneration that he formerly was crowned with, it is more than necessary that in our times he should by his bearing win once again the people’s respect for his high dignity and propriety. The more so because experience teaches us that the world … is shocked not only by the slightest failings it discerns in ecclesiastics, but even by their most innocent actions whenever these do not bear the seal of that gravity which it has a right to expect of them … “Thus we recommend to you priestly gravity … With St. Ambrose I say to you: “Nihil in sacerdote commune cum multitudine.” (2) [Let nothing in the priest be like the common crowds.] (2) VI. Epistle ad Irenaeum, in ibid., pp. 82-3. At right, you can observe a man with a different mentality. Always aware of his mission of being a Prince of the Church, he wears his full Episcopal cassock, worn as a symbol of his dignity. Around his waist is the beautiful silk cincture, which symbolizes continence. On his head he wears the zucchetto, which indicates his status as Bishop. Befitting of the importance of his role, he also wears a majestic cope, a sign that as a shepherd he covers his sheep from the dangers of the world and exposure to evil. In his hand he holds his Bishop’s cap. A beautiful gold chain elegantly bears his pectoral cross, a reliquary for the True Cross, which reminds him to keep the Cross close to his breast. In synthesis, the entire man is a symbol of his elevated mission. In the posture of his arms, one discerns a great calm and security. In the face, a profound honesty and seriousness before God and before himself, as well as a full vision of the evil that surrounds him and the Holy Church. His physiognomy expresses sadness for that evil and, at the same time, a full determination to dedicate his life to combat it. It is a kind face, but with none of the soft sentimentality of the weak. Once again, you are looking at Giuseppe Sarto, Bishop of Mantua, who makes a living example of his wise counsels on priestly dignity and propriety. * The Leaven, August 23, 2002 Let us return to the left column. The picture at left shows a man in a cassock making a humorous gesture to make people laugh – he is crossing his eyes, like a boy would do to divert and amuse his friends. He enjoys the laughter raised by his antic, by the surprise of onlookers at seeing the Vicar of Christ playing the clown. It is John Paul II at a moment of relaxation entertaining the photographers in 1979. It would be impossible to imagine such a clowning gesture from Pope Pius X at right below, even if he were not vested in the full majesty of papal pomp. Behind him one can see the pontifical throne. He wears the triple crown, and on his finger is the Fisherman’s Ring bearing a beautiful emerald. Over his shoulders, the solemn papal mantle is draped. All this radiates the splendor and dignity of the Papacy that existed in Holy Church before Vatican II began to relegate these symbols to the closets and museums. The Pope, in a position of blessing, gazes at us as if to say these few words: “My mission is accomplished. I have fought the good fight.” Everything that was in potential in the first two photos is realized here in its plenitude. He is acting before God and before man with his only concern to defend and glorify the Catholic Church. He had smashed the enemy, Modernism; he had taken all the measures possible in his short pontificate to favor the good and thwart the evil. Quietly, with unshaken calm he denounced and condemned evil wherever he saw it. In his face in this photo is the same courage, the same determination, the same seriousness as in the others, but there is also more sadness, more peace, and complete solitude, the solitude of a saint in a revolutionary epoch. One can catch a glimpse of the meaning of the words he spoke, “De gentibus non es vir mecum.” [Among all the peoples, there is not one man with me.] What was he seeing in that sad and profound gaze? Was he perhaps glimpsing something of the crisis that would rock the Catholic Church with the Council and its consequences? Who knows? Certainly his urgent words to priests take on special significance today, worth pondering and remembering: “Great is the priestly dignity, but great also is his ruin if he is not faithful to his duties, because unfortunately it is true that the corruption of the very good is a frightful thing. Optimorum corruption, teterrimum.”   Religious Main Page  |  Home Page  |  Contact Us ©2002 Tradition In Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[ThomasMore]

The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch should be required reading.

And BELIEF! ;^)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Anyone who is familiar with David Irving's thoughts and proclivities could have suspected this sort of thing might come out. Sobran continued to write in his defense after this was exposed. He was not defending him on that point, but again, why waste your breath on that proud and foolish man Irving?

From this later article: "Without a lawyer, he single-handedly took on a high-powered legal team, who employed several scholars in an all-out effort to scrutinize his life’s work (and even his private diaries) for evidence that could be used to discredit him." And "Some sort of congratulations must be due to the international Jewish thought-control apparatus."

Read down on the linked FR article for David Irving's views on Auschwitz, such as #6. - "Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS."

I've kept up with all this for a while (hey, I'm German!). David Irving's views are notorious and well-known to anyone who's read on the subject. He is a fascist (he openly admits it), a racist, and a Holocaust Revisionist. Sobran puffs for him.

[RaginCajunTrad]

ultima ratio: "...even secular society was far more chaste back then."

Hermann the Cherusker: "This is an extremely naive view of a society where 1 in 3-4 marriages ended in divorce, and where MANY people only got married because the girl had gotten pregnant."

Well, I believe the divorce stat today is about 1 in 2 and the last time I checked 1 in 2 is a great deal more than 1 in 3-4 even if the 1 in 3-4 is correct. Back in the 40's when people would get married because the girl was pregnant seems to be a great deal better than today's multiple pregancy unwed mothers and unwed mothers who INTENTIONALLY get pregnant to have a child though they don't want a husband.

Sociologists (a group of professionals I seldom trust) have determined that the rise in the ownership and use of the automobile (increased opportunity irrespective of morality)has greatly contributed to teen pregnancy. WWII? Soldiers always attract prostitutes, and though not all the women in GB bedding our boys were not pros, many were. War is generally a time of promiscuity for the soldiers, not necessarily the general population.

HtheC, I obviously support UR on these items. One must admit that we have been on a slippery slope for some time and it has become progressively worse.

[ultima ratio]

No the "schism" cannot be healed tomorrow. Campos proves this. Little by little it is being pressured to change, the way the Indult fraternities are being pressured. Here and there: Communion in the hands; lay ministers; changes in the missal. The intention to destroy Tradition on the part of Rome and the liberal bishops is still a cold reality. By a supreme irony which is probably a private joke of God's, the phony charges Rome has concocted against the SSPX have served to preserve it from the many evils that now plague most Catholic parishes.

[ThomasMore]

Any innovations in small "t" tradition should be done slowly and with careful attention to results and effects.

Yes, I agree, Hermann! And the unfortunate results of "too fast" will be with us for a while. But if intelligent people like UR worked "with" the church rather than "against" her, it would take much less time I think!

UR, I know you think you are always working for the good of the Church, but if this thread hasn't given you a clue as to the "negative" effects of your efforts, then nothing will.

It is notable that none of this is mandated by Vatican II or any documents coming down from it.

Yes, very notable.

Regardless, change should be slow and unfortunately, it was all too fast and hasty.

[RaginCajunTrad]

altar girls...

When in a polite mood, I like to say:

"The Holy Father must have had a bad day."

or

"The Holy Father must have had a weak moment."

[Thorondir]

Why are you guys so convinced that the Church was an evil abomination until VII came along to fix it? Jesus was not the failure He would have to be for your ugly slander attacks to be true. You sound like Catholic-hating protestants extolling the virtues of the reformation.

I hope this is all just an angry reaction to the outrageous claims that some in the scizmatic camp have made against the very nature of the NO and VII.

I hope so, anyway. But your ugly slander attacks against 2,000 years of the Church founded by Jesus Christ prior to the heavenly glory of VII are just inexplicably un-Catholic. Jesus did not arrive n 1965 to usher in the sexual revolution, the lavender mafia and clown masses.

[ThomasMore]

That is what Vatican II did.

Just HOW did Vatican II do this? To blame the Council for this is insane! You say you were in seminary in 1980(?). If the conditions are what you say they are, and I have no doubts, then the wreckovation had already taken place during the seventies. Those who did the wreckovating and those who allowed the wreckovating were ordained before the Council. (for the most part). Don't go blaming the Council for this happening. And don't be so naive about the seminaries prior to the council. I spent the summer of '62 at the Marist Seminary in MA. There were NO monastic rules in place. That utopia did not exist. At least there it didn't.

[Thorondir]

where 1 in 3-4 marriages ended in divorce, and where MANY people only got married because the girl had gotten pregnant.

Don't even buy into this ridiculous crap, my friend. It's an utterly false premise and a gratuitous assertion devoid of support because there is no possible support for it.

Up has become down, good is evil and filth is cleanliness in this sick and twisted world. It is the work of Satan, as foretold by Leo XIII, that caused our world and our holy Church to sink so fast and so far during the twentieth century. And the Church is the center of human growth and peace on this planet. That's why, when the Church sunk, society sank so far into war, depravity, illogic and pedestrian ugliness. But this should only spur us on to pursue holiness and truth to fight against the evil that infects everything around us. the vile 20th century is over and Satan's minions are seething in the face of their defeat. You can see it in their desperate measures and wild-eyed machinations, even going so far as to forbid the speaking of truth, as if they had the power to which they claim.

[ultima ratio]

I apologize for the personal nature of my seminary rundown. It started as a generalized comment, then slipped off the track and became personal. I should have proof-read it before posting. My point was that the new training is not conducive to spiritual depth. It is very deficient--and I went to one of the better seminaries supposedly.

[ninenot]

See the table posted by Maryz at 695. Lotsa abuse, but the Ordination dates, calculating backwards, are not ALL post-1965--not by a long shot.

[ThomasMore]

Why are you guys so convinced that the Church was an evil abomination until VII came along to fix it

Where did I ever say or imply that?

for your ugly slander attacks to be true

What slander attacks?

You sound like Catholic-hating protestants extolling the virtues of the reformation.

Please quote me!

I hope this is all just an angry reaction...

What are you talking about?

But your ugly slander attacks against 2,000 years of the Church founded by Jesus Christ prior to the heavenly glory of VII are just inexplicably un-Catholic

Please clarify by quoting me!

Jesus did not arrive n 1965 to usher in the sexual revolution, the lavender mafia and clown masses.

Well, at least we agree on one thing here!

God bless!

Dominus Vobiscum!

[ninenot]

The Pope is the supreme legislator, acting on behalf of Christ in that capacity. He is also the supreme judge of matters pertinent to the Church.

Thus, he can, yes, call up Bishop Fudgepacker and transfer him to Tehran. How do you suppose Bugnini got there??

[ThomasMore]

My point was that the new training is not conducive to spiritual depth. It is very deficient--and I went to one of the better seminaries supposedly.

UR, I believe I agree with you, accept that it was not the Council that did this. It was those ***tards that rejected pre-Vatican II as well as Vatican II and then claimed themselves speaking in the "Spirit of Vatican II".

[RaginCajunTrad]

You'r right about up is down. It reminds me of "The Poseidon Adventure." Up to the bottom of the ship is the way to life. Down to the top of the ship is death.

It's ironic, but the Gene Hackman priest character seemed to be more of a VII priest, while the O'Connell priest character seemed to be more of a pre-VII priest.

I don't doubt that there were some bad things going on before VII, but the point is that they have greatly accelarated since VII, both in the church and in secular society and it appears not to be slowing any. We have to remember that many of the fruits of VII were from seeds planted prior to VII by George Tyrrell, Teilhard de Chardin, and their followers in the seminaries. It appears that the communist theory of taking over by taking over the institutions of learning has worked even better in the Church than in the US, although the US is pretty screwed up by its influence.

[tiki]

I don't think anyone has called the Church an evil abomination. They have just pointed out that there have always been evils in the Church. Unfortunately there are times when every man or woman ignores the Holy Spirit and does their own will. The Church is peopled with these same flawed people and will always show the effects of our sinfulness. It didn't just come on after VII it has always been there in one degree or another, read the Bible and you will see. We are, after all, not in heaven yet.

[Codie]

Why was'nt the "Spirit" of Vatican II spelled out more clearly.What happened?

[sydney smith]

I read your hyperlink. I never read this strange man Irving before but that is of no consequence. Joe Sobran is no anti-semite that's even clearer to the literate now. You've missed the point of his critique. You are so obssessed with anti-isms that you are blinded. In fact, to support Sobran, I now plan on subscribing to his newsletter which I hadn't done up 'til now. Thanks. He is brilliant. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

[ultima ratio]

Oh, but the monastic rules did exist. Ask any older ex-seminarian or priest. My father was a Jesuit back then--he left before vows. He was at Wernersville. I've visited the place which is now a retreat. It is full of ghosts of what had once been a world apart--a place full of cloister walks and surrounded by miles of groves and farmland. When I attended the seminary in '86, my experience was light years away from what his had been in the late 50's. I was bitterly disillusioned. The seminary seemed the least spiritual place in the world, a place where young men went to lose their faith.

The difference between then and now is that the claims of the world, which had been external to the Church and had been opposed by her--as in the Syllabus of Errors--were internalized by the Church with Vatican II and the old antagonism consequently abandoned. Clergy and religious were encouraged to engage with the world and interact with it. They did so, and became themselves far worldlier than was beneficial to their state. This was the great folly of Vatican II. Where before asceticism and monastic training was designed to arm the young cleric or religious against the world's attractions, the new training was designed to help him fit in and to allow its values and culture more free play. The result was a catastrophe, not only for seminarians, but for older priests as well.

To see this split in action, read the early Thomas Merton. The writing is full of mystical insights and ascetical wisdom. Then read his later stuff--the worldliness is obvious, his focus is no longer on God, but on the affairs of men, on banning the Bomb and learning more about eastern meditation practices. And, in fact, we know he had a girlfriend--something which would have been impossible for a Trappist before the Council--and yet he was still kept on as a monk at Gethsemane.

[tiki]

I'm not a scholar and have only been a Catholic for 3 years but my opinion is that the document was made and before it was interpreted by the Magisterium everyone read into it what they wanted it to say and did what they wanted to do and attributed it to VII. By the time it was interpreted it was too late, people were set in their ways and beliefs because they interpreted it that way to accomodate what they already wanted to believe it said.

It is just like the Bible without guidance. I can take a verse out of the Bible alone and out of context and make it say something completely different than what it says. In fact, if you want to get a little ridiculous look at what the Bible has done. It has caused thousands of denominations to form and accuse others of not understanding.