reflections, updates and homilies from Deacon Mike Talbot inspired by the following words from my ordination: Receive the Gospel of Christ whose herald you have become. Believe what you read, teach what you believe and practice what you teach...
Showing posts with label Msgr. Charles Pope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Msgr. Charles Pope. Show all posts
Question: Do theologians hold that the only sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin that cannot be forgiven, is to refuse to repent and accept God’s forgiveness unto the point of their death? I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this lately and wonder about priests or groups of clergy who deceive even the elect and who, by this, may lead souls to hell. Are they not also guilty of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit? I have been seeing and hearing many disturbing teachings from clergy that are contrary to God and see this as so serious as to be unforgivable.
— Name, location withheld
Answer: You might be confusing the “unforgivable sin” with serious sin. Even serious sins like murder or heresy can be forgiven if repentance is evident. More on that in a moment. But let’s look at what is meant by a sin against the Holy Spirit (cf. Mk 3:29).
St. Thomas Aquinas delineates six sins against the Holy Spirit: despair, presumption, impugning the known truth, envy of another’s spiritual good, obstinacy in sin and final impenitence. All of them have in common a kind of stubborn resistance or persistence.
Six sins against the Holy Spirit
In despair we obstinately refuse to believe that God can save us or that grace can sustain us in holiness. Despair stubbornly persists in the notion that our case is hopeless. It does this for one of two reasons. First, it is a kind of excuse to persist in sin, or second, as a type of pride that sinfully concludes one’s sin is greater than God’s grace. There may also be a lack of faith in God’s promises.
In presumption we are sinfully and persistently overconfident of our ability to save ourselves, or that God will save us without any repentance or effort on our part. As such we resist the Holy Spirit’s admonitions to conform ourselves to God’s will.
By impugning the known truth, we refuse to be docile (teachable) and we cling to error(s) by rationalization or by accumulating teachers who say what our itching ears want to hear (cf. 2 Tim 4:3-4). As such we resist and impugn the fonts of truth inspired by the Holy Spirit such as Scripture and the sacred Tradition of the Church’s dogmas and doctrines. To impugn means to fight against, and by this we resist the voice of the Holy Spirit, who is the voice of revealed truth.
By envying the spiritual good of another, we seek to destroy the holy example of saints and many who seek to live spiritual lives because we take it to lessen our own standing before others. We might do this by ridicule, or by seeking to undermine the reputation of the saints of old or holy people who live now. To persistently do this without repentance and reparation sins against the Holy Spirit by undermining his work.
By obstinacy in sins, we persist in it and resist the promptings of the Holy Spirit to repent and trust God’s grace to be holy.
By final impenitence we resist until the end of our life the Holy Spirit’s promptings that we repent.
So, in these ways the sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either because we stubbornly refuse to repent and be conformed to the truth, or we refuse to admit we need to repent. This all amounts to a sin against the Holy Spirit and cannot be forgiven because we do not want forgiveness.
Sins of the clergy
As for the sins of clergy you mention above, they are egregious but are not per se sins against the Holy Spirit. But they could become such sin since these clergy are close to “impugning the known truth,” which heretics and schismatics often do by their lies and misrepresentation of the known truth. They do so to lure others into their error, often rationalizing their views as pastoral, enlightened or more “compassionate.” And yet, they are fundamentally impugning moral truth and opposing it to love and compassion. They might also be obstinately persisting in committing the sins they minimize, call good or even celebrate with pride. And they might do this unto death, resulting in a final impenitence. Further, they may be guilty of despair by holding that what God commands is too difficult for some to keep, even with grace. They may also engage in presumption by being dismissive of the consequences of sin that God himself warns of.
Question: I was speaking to a friend of mine and the subject of women deaconesses came up. He says we never had deaconesses in the Church. I disagree. He is a good friend, but I think he is misinformed.
— Marie Spicuzza, via email
Answer: Some of it comes down to language. Were women in the early Church called “deaconesses?” It would seem so. However, there is no evidence that they were ever ordained, and it is inaccurate to simply equate these deaconesses with the office of deacon. So, linguistically, the term “deacon” can be used in a formal sense to mean an ordained man who is a deacon. But the term “diakonia” can also mean service, servant or ministry. Hence, today we often speak of “altar servers” or the ministry of lector, or of extraordinary ministers of holy Communion, but these are not ordained ministers, as we all know.
The term “deaconess” is found in the Eastern Churches but not generally in the West. Deaconesses existed in numerous roles, primarily to preserve the modesty of women at baptism, which were conducted by immersion and with little clothing. They may also have assisted women in the liturgy, especially in those areas where men and women sat separately (usually on different sides of the nave). It also seems they assisted women in the Church community in those matters that propriety suggested were better done by women (such as visitation of the sick). In the early Church, the term may also have been used to refer to the wife of a deacon, and there might have been some association of deaconesses with the early forms of religious life as “enrolled widows” (cf. 1 Tm 5:9, Ti 2:3). But again, there is no evidence that the term “deaconess,” used explicitly or implicitly in reference to these women, was understood as an ordained clerical function. On the other hand, the male deacons are spoken of as having an office and had hands laid on them, a sign of ordination (cf. Acts 6:6).
While there are ongoing calls to further study the possibility of women deacons, such studies have already and recently been done. In 2002, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission (ITC) studied the matter and issued a document, “From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles.” In it, the ITC held that the deaconesses of early Church history “were not purely or simply equivalent to the deacons.” In effect, there is no substantial evidence of ordained women deacons in the early Church.
Question:I read with interest recent articles on the Church reemphasizing its prohibition against membership in the Masonic Orders. I certainly understand the rationale for the prohibition. What is confusing is that there continues to be reports of high-ranking members of thecuriabeing Masons. How is this allowed?
— Richard Bucci, Binghamton, New York
Answer: It is not formally allowed. If clergy of any rank are clearly determined to be a Freemason, they can be suspended. What we are often dealing with in terms of “high-ranking” members of the curia being Masons is a matter of accusation or rumor, not clear facts. Hearsay is not usually an actionable basis for removal or other punitive measures. Since Freemasonry is a kind of secret society, such rumors are hard to verify. One is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Many Americans are puzzled at the restrictions on membership in the Masons. Most see it as a harmless men’s group. But historically the Freemasons are strong opponents of the Catholic Church and have a quasi-religious doctrine at odds with the Catholic faith. Purportedly, some of their internal documents speak to a plan to weaken the Catholic Church through infiltration and the proposal of an alternative “religion” that replaces doctrinal and moral principles with a kind of “brotherhood of man.” It is a kind of syncretistic blend of many religious outlooks with an emphasis on merely natural virtues. The Church also prohibits membership in Freemasonry because Masonic principles and rituals are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrines. These views undermine Catholic faith, the authority of the Church and the unique claims of Jesus Christ and the Church he founded.
Clearly no member of the Catholic hierarchy can be a member of the Freemasons. But as you state, “reports of high-ranking members of the curia” being members are often hard to prove. Hence, it is not “allowed” since proof is lacking. We can only hope such allegations are not true.
NEW YORK – The community at St. Mary Mother of God appealed to Cardinal Wilton Gregory during an archdiocesan synod listening session not to ban the Traditional Latin Mass at the parish, mainly because it would mean potentially losing about half of the parishioners.
That appeal failed. The listening sessions concluded in May, and Gregory announced July 22 that the Traditional Latin Mass would be restricted in the archdiocese to three non-parochial churches. The plan goes into effect on September 21.
For St. Mary’s, the change will be more than simply replacing a Mass in the Old Rite with a Mass in the New Rite. Parish vitality – in both the pews and community – is now a question mark, and closure isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
“The problem is that the cardinal’s decision hurts our parish life, and if we’re talking about encounter and the great work of our parishioners and volunteers, both in the extraordinary and ordinary form, it hurts everybody,” said Sylvester Giustino, who attends both Masses at the parish and serves on its finance council.
“It’s rather sad and unfortunate that decision was made, and it’s going to be a major blow to the work that we do in the community,” he told Crux.
The present St. Mary’s church was built in 1890 and has served downtown Washington, D.C. ever since. Currently, it serves three distinct communities. It has about 200 Traditional Latin Mass parishioners, 120 parishioners who attend Mass in the ordinary form in English, and about 100 Chinese parishioners who are ministered to autonomously.
Losing those 200 Traditional Latin Mass parishioners will put parish finances at least $130,000 in the red and “crush” its volunteer base, according to a letter written to Gregory from St. Mary’s pastor, Father Vincent De Rosa, and obtained by Crux. De Rosa declined a Crux request for comment on Gregory’s decision.
Patrick Lally, who’s been a Traditional Latin Mass parishioner at St. Mary’s since 1989 and also serves on the parish finance council, told Crux that $130,000 is a “conservative” estimate for how much the parish stands to lose.
“We’ve built a thriving parish, but it’s taken two or three decades to do that,” Lally said. “As downtown has grown and improved, as our parish has really evangelized and attracted a much younger set of worshippers, the interesting part is that these are all wonderful things, but the core of the parish that has really been devoted to it financially is the Latin Mass community.”
De Rosa spoke publicly about Gregory’s decision for the first time in a homily on July 24. He referred to “holes in the narrative that we’ve been given” which, he said, are “causing anxiety among our people.” He emphasized after each example there very well may be a good explanation, but added, if so, he hasn’t heard it.
De Rosa cited the synod process as one of those examples.
He called Pope Francis’s desire for synodality “a good thing,” but noted that even though the St. Mary’s community shared “constructive, honest input” with Gregory and others from the archdiocese, and that a synthesis report found value in the multiplicity of methods to worship – including the Traditional Latin Mass – the decision was still made.
“This is all true, the goodness of the Holy Father’s desire and the results of our synod here, and yet, despite all of that goodness, in that sharing, and so on, there’s going to be a pretty radical shift and it leaves the people of God to wonder why. What is the point of synodality if the fruits of a conversation don’t bend anything even in the slightest degree?” De Rosa asked.
“There might be a very good explanation for that,” De Rosa continued. “There very well might be, but we’ve not been given that, and that is a hole in the truth narrative, which must beg the question from the people of God, what did we do? Is synodality even worthwhile? I think it is, but I can understand how that question rises up.”
In the 25-minute homily, De Rosa also called it “unjust” that none of the people involved in this decision ever visited the St. Mary’s Traditional Latin Mass parishioners. De Rosa requested that Gregory visit the parish in the spring, and was told by Father Anthony Lickteig, the episcopal vicar for clergy, that “the Cardinal will not be able to visit St. Mary’s at this time due to his schedule,” according to a copy of the email obtained by Crux.
“There might be a very real reason for that,” De Rosa said of the exchange in his homily. “I know he’s a very busy man, but it begs questions in the minds of our people and leaves a hole in the truth narrative that puts the people in a very hard place.”
De Rosa further highlighted that the Traditional Latin Mass community at St. Mary has always been in union with the church “because only from that union comes the credibility that we need to be true prophets in the world.”
“Therefore, it begs the question what is going on.” he said. “And again, there may be good reasons, but I don’t know them and haven’t been given them.”
The archdiocese did not immediately respond to a Crux request for comment on the implications of the Traditional Latin Mass decision for St. Mary’s.
Monsignor Charles Pope, whom Gregory appointed as a delegate “in the pastoral care” of the newly designated Traditional Latin Mass communities, told Crux that he hopes “the diocese will do some things to help, but it’s going to be difficult and I certainly regret that.”
“I’m heartbroken for [St. Mary’s] and I’m hoping they can pull through financially and be able to stay open,” Pope said, noting that he was a choir director and organist at the parish in the early 1980s, and to this day considers it his home parish.
De Rosa said in his homily, and Pope verified to Crux, that they plan to meet very soon to discuss the future. De Rosa also expressed a desire to work with Gregory’s office as well to try and keep as much of the parish alive through educational and cultural opportunities throughout the week.
To the parishioners in the pews on July 24, De Rosa dispelled a few premises some of them shared about why they cannot be fed at the ordinary form, or that the ordinary form cannot be reverent.
“I want to invite you to work with me so that we can max out all of the beauty we can squeeze out of the stones of this place, so that not only will your lives continue to be filled with grace and with the sacraments, but also so that we can speak to our brothers and sisters who have never had the opportunity to experience that in the ordinary form … and be an evangelical force for them,” De Rosa proclaimed. “This is one of the ways that we make lemonade out of a lemon.”
Lally, for one, said that even after he can no longer celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Mary’s – so long as they’re open – he wants to be a part of the parish, including through his position on the finance council, parish leadership, volunteering and community outings, and “inane little things” he does for the 132-year-old church like maintain its clock.
“I won’t cease doing any of that, but I won’t be going to Mass there, and, by the way, how bizarre is that?” Lally said.
Question: My daughter (divorced) lives with another divorced man part time, and thinks nothing of going to Communion. I am happy that she goes to Mass every Sunday and does daily prayers. A lovely person, I do not want to be the cause of her not going at all. I have spoken to her, not emphatically, that I was concerned with her going to Communion under these circumstances. Evidently, she does not think that it is a mortal sin, which I do. Should I inform the priest, and is it a sin for me not telling him? I don’t feel as if I should be the judge.
— Name withheld, via email
Answer: It is good that you have spoken to your daughter about your concerns, and it is understandable that you do not want to further alienate her from the Church. In matters such as these and in our current cultural malaise and poor catechesis, careful, persistent reminders seem to be a good approach.
There is, however, clear teaching to which we must point and ultimately insist upon — namely, that one should not receive holy Communion who is guilty of grave (mortal) sin. To live with a man outside of marriage involves not only a violation of the Sixth Commandment, but also gives rise to scandal by making light and “normalizing” such practices. Church law, in regard to receiving holy Communion says, “[those persons] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion” (Canon 915). Further it states, “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible” (Canon 916).
These teachings and laws of the Church are not a mean-spirited rejection; they flow from scriptural teaching, wherein St. Paul warns: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:27-29).
Hence, the Church teachings are rooted in a concern and care for souls. As Scripture teaches, those who receive the Eucharist unworthily do not receive a blessing, but rather, the judgment of condemnation. If a doctor were to prescribe penicillin to someone he knew was allergic to it, that would be malpractice. In the same way, the Church cannot prescribe or offer the Eucharist to someone not apt to receive it.
The bishops recently spoke to this matter in a document issued in their November meeting. In effect, they have acknowledged that teaching on this matter must be more vigorously done since many have not been adequately catechized.
As for you telling the priest about your daughter’s situation, that is a prudential matter. If you do, it must be on the record — namely, that you permit him to tell her that you are the source of the information. A priest cannot present hearsay from anonymous sources. He must be able to speak to her based on information whose source he can cite. And, before withholding Communion from her, he must make some attempts to discuss the matter with her. Part of your decision will be based on how you think the priest will likely handle the matter. Your primary duty is to speak to your daughter, which you have done. Continue to do so without nagging and use the opportunity of the bishops’ new document to further the discussion and her education.
A Cry From the Heart About ‘Traditionis Custodes’ and the Latin Mass
Traditional Catholics are among the sheep of Christ’s flock, and they need a shepherd’s care.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco celebrates the ‘Mass of the Americas’ using the extraordinary form of the Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., Nov. 16, 2019. (photo: EWTN/YouTube Screen Capture)
Many have already written well of the concerns and heartache elicited by the Pope’s motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, which sets strict norms limiting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. I have celebrated in this “extraordinary form” (as well as the ordinary form) for more than 32 years and written often of it. Hence, I seek to add my voice.
I must say that I am grieved and stunned by this document and the letter to the bishops that accompanied it. I think not so much of my own potential loss but of the many Catholics I have served who love the extraordinary form. For so long and in so many places they have often been treated harshly and have been marginalized for their love for the form of the liturgy that most of the saints knew.
Pope Benedict and Pope St. John Paul II sought to heal the rift by gradually normalizing the celebration of the older form of the Roman Rite in the life of the Church. In effect they said to such Catholics, “You are important to us. You are our sons and daughters. Your love for the tradition is legitimate and understandable and we have obligations to care for your spiritual needs and well-being.”
Here in Washington, D.C., the extraordinary form has existed peacefully alongside the ordinary form in approximately 10 of our parishes. We have no parishes exclusively devoted to the celebration of the Latin Mass.
While people on both “sides” may have preferences, even strong preferences, there has been mutual respect and a willingness to make room for one another. Whatever tensions do exist, they are minor and not so different than the tensions that emerge from the diverse mosaic of ethnic communities.
In this diocese Mass is celebrated in dozens of languages. Some of our Eastern Rite liturgies are also celebrated in our Roman Rite parish churches. We also have one parish that hosts the Anglican liturgical tradition and nearly a dozen who host the Neocatechumenal Way liturgy with all its adaptations. Somehow, we all make room for one another and deal with the logistical challenges well enough.
Apparently, Pope Francis does not see this rich and peaceful diversity when it comes to the Traditional Latin Mass. Instead, he writes to the world’s bishops in his cover letter that he sees something very different:
“An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”
Even if other expressions of diversity may be tolerable or agreeable to him, the Latin Mass seems to be the fly in the ointment. With a special focus that seems overly harsh he attributes blame for divisions to traditional Catholics who attend the Latin Mass.
To be sure, there are some well-known personalities in traditionalist circles who stir up passions about liturgical and other matters, including the authority of the Second Vatican Council. But it is not reasonable to attribute the sins of a vocal minority to an entire movement.
Yes, some people advance the superiority and glory of the extraordinary form. But I know many Catholics from Eastern Rites who think their liturgies are vastly preferable and even superior to the Roman Rite. Many Catholics in the Neocatechumenal Way assert that the Church will not experience reform until their liturgy and their “way” is embraced by all. In African American Parishes where I serve there is a great pride in the joy of their worship and a wonderment at why so many other parishes seem to have “dead” and short liturgies.
People are passionate about what they love, sometimes to a fault, but for the majority, this is human and generally kept within a tolerable range of sparring and bluster rather than disgust and deep division. I fear the Pope is using a cannon to kill a fly.
I also fear that aspects of the motu proprio have caused great hurt and discouragement to many of the faithful and will intensify the very divisions the Pope laments.
Consider the following aspects:
First, it carries a harsh and heavy-handed tone. Is it really necessary for the Holy Father to write in such a blunt and authoritarian manner? Consider two quotes, one from the letter, the other from the motu proprio:
“I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
“Everything that I have declared in this apostolic letter in the form of motu proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano,” entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
This is not the language of mercy. It “abrogates” all prior permissions and “declares” that there is only one form of the liturgy that qualifies for the lex orandi (in opposition to the magisterium of Benedict). It is “ordered” to be observed in all of its parts and nothing is to withstand it. Even worthy arguments must give way. In effect this matter is settled and brooks no delay. It took effect immediately and is now in force.
Pope Francis has seldom addressed any other group this harshly. To others such as unbelievers, dissenters and wayward politicians there is to be mercy, understanding and tolerance. He speaks of “going to the margins” and of compassion for the poor and morally lost. But to those attached to the Latin Mass comes this strong rebuke, with almost no room to maneuver in the Church they love. It is very shocking and saddening to me as a pastor of souls that such vitriol be directed at the flock I have long cared for.
Second, it imposes impossible requirements. On the one hand the Pope delegates to bishops any decision about locations, but then he ties their hands. He writes:
“[The diocesan bishop] is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes).”
But if not in parish churches, then where? What is a bishop to do in understanding, let alone applying, this statute? It is hard to interpret the Pope’s instruction in any benign way. He seems to be saying to Latin Mass Catholics, “You are not welcome in our churches.” If so, this is a stunning lack of pastoral solicitude and love and it is very dismaying.
Third, it displays a strange treatment of bishops. While referring the implementation to the local ordinary, he also restricts their pastoral judgment in numerous ways.
Not only are they to forbid the Mass in parish churches, but they also cannot confer faculties on new priests to celebrate the Latin Mass without permission from Rome (Article 4).
Furthermore, they cannot establish new communities (Article 3). Does this refer to locations, oratories, guilds or something else? It’s difficult to determine what this means at all.
So, the bishops are given authority, but with their hands tied, with confusing language and with nearly impossible guidelines to follow.
Now we must look to our bishops and beseech them to exhibit the pastoral solicitude this document seems to lack. They have been given a hard and awkward task. Be careful to pray for them, and try not to embitter them with predictions or presumptions of bad treatment. Many of them have already shown the pastoral sense to avoid the rash and “immediate” implementation of this motu proprio.
Dear bishops, as a pastor of souls, I ask you for a gentle and kind interpretation of it. Traditional Catholics are among the sheep of your flock, and they need a shepherd’s care. Even if the document suggests that they be shuffled off to the margins, I beg you not to do it. This is a vibrant and growing section of the flock. Many young families and young adults, as well as young priests and older folks are depending on you to do what is truly pastoral.
If greater unity is needed, teach us what this means, but please, do not drive us to the margins to live in rejection. Some of us are ornery but most of us are just trying to be good, decent Catholics and stay close to the heart of the Church. Keep us close to you and find room for us in your hearts.
Dear Holy Father, I beg you to reconsider what you have written and to hear the unnecessary pain you have caused. You rightly desire unity in the Church, but I fear that, by this action, you may end up causing far more serious division.
Since my opinion means nothing, I ask you to consider the words of the great rabbi Gamaliel, who said in the Acts of the Apostles (5:38-39):
“So in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.”
Kevin and Tiffany Dickinson of Fayetteville, Ark., watch a livestream Mass with their children celebrated by Father John Connell from St. Raphael Church in nearby Springdale March 29, 2020. (CNS photo/Travis McAfee, Arkansas Catholic)
Question: Given the dispensation we are under, do we commit sin if we do not participate in the livestreamed Mass on Sunday?
— Paul VanHoudt, Erie, Colorado
Answer: No, unless the local bishop has made watching a televised or recorded Mass a requirement, one does not commit a sin by failing to do so. Most bishops simply suspended the obligation to go to Mass as permitted in canon law. Most bishops certainly encouraged the faithful to keep Sunday as a day of special prayer. They could do this in ways deemed appropriate and possible for them. Hence, watching a televised Mass, or reading the Sunday readings reflectively, saying special prayers, novenas or devotions, and making a spiritual communion with the Lord, were ways to do this encouraged by bishops.
But to encourage is not the same as to require. Hence it is not sin if some or all of these things are omitted. To be avoided, however, is an attitude that casts aside all prayer or devotion on Sundays where Mass is not possible. If one can watch a televised or recorded Mass, why not do so? That it is not precisely required makes doing so an even greater act of faith. For a few, watching a televised Mass may not be advantageous, but surely some special time of prayer seems important and something that should be done even if not under pain of sin.
It was July 27, a fairly normal Monday at the parish. I was up early for the radio show followed by a private Mass. Strangely, my nerves were shot, and I had no appetite. By early afternoon I had a fever of 102.5 and felt horrible. A parishioner friend offered to drive me to the nearby urgent care center. Both of us masked up, and we made the short drive.
I could barely fill out the multiple forms required but was seen rather quickly. Given my symptoms I was given the rapid test for COVID-19. A grim-faced nurse practitioner reported the results to me: “You are positive for COVID-19.” My mind raced as I envisioned all the possible repercussions, and sure enough, all of them would later come to pass. Priests do not live an isolated life — we interact with so many people! Consequently, by midweek nearly 300 people with whom I had been in recent contact were informed that they should self-quarantine for 14 days and be tested themselves. I was more concerned for them than for myself. The rectory and church were then shuttered for nearly two weeks, which was particularly painful given that we had just begun to get up and running after nearly four months of closure.
The urgent care center referred me to the emergency room at Georgetown University Hospital because my blood oxygen level was rather low. My condition stabilized in the emergency room, however, and I was sent home and instructed to self-quarantine. I had been told to get a pulse oximeter to monitor the oxygen level in my blood. So, I dutifully stuck my finger into the device several times each day to gauge my oxygen saturation. I learned that numbers in the mid-90s are good, but I was told that if the oxygen level dropped into the 80s, I was to return to the hospital at once. At first it seemed that my response to COVID-19 would be similar to a flu. I had a light cough and mild fever and improved steadily over the next several days. Another member of the rectory household, who had tested positive just a day before I did, had only minor symptoms for a few days and then recovered. I expected my trajectory to be similar.
It was not to be. Just as the flu-like symptoms were abating I became short of breath and my oxygen levels dropped into the mid-80s. I was taken immediately back to Georgetown University Hospital and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, where they gave me 100% high-flow oxygen and various treatments and medications to help fight my respiratory failure. Remdesivir, an antiviral, and a number of steroids were used. Thanks be to God, I began to improve. I spent 11 days in the ICU, however, and once I was weaned off the oxygen and my lungs were clear I was sent home with orders to rest. I was indeed quite feeble after 11 days spent in bed or in a hospital chair. Slowly I have recovered my strength. COVID had finally left the building! I cannot deny that it was an ordeal, and it did not help that the Washington Post published a piece about me that was filled with distortions and lies. Despite the claims they printed, I have never told people not to wear masks or not to socially distance, nor have I suggested that anyone violate civil laws or norms. In addition, I certainly never said that those who have not returned to Mass by now are lukewarm Catholics. There are many people who should not be attending Mass just yet due to vulnerabilities.
Thanks be to God for my staff, who protected me from the hate mail that arrived, electronically and via “snail mail.” They told me that the mail was more awful than they could ever have imagined. Thanks be to God, too, for all of God’s faithful who did not believe the things written about me in the article and repeated on local television news stations. I am sincerely grateful to prominent journalists Claire Chretien and Chris Bedford, each of whom wrote an article to set the record straight.
Lying flat on my back in the ICU I sighed to the Lord. But he reminded me, “I’ve got you close to me right now at the cross. Remember, Carlito, they distorted my words, too. They gave false and conflicting testimony, and I too suffered respiratory failure on the Cross.” An old gospel song says, “God says, ‘I got this, so you let go.’” Okay, Lord, it’s yours. When my sorrow and anger would occasionally return, I sought refuge in the immense gratitude I had for all who were praying for me. A friend and colleague of mine in the EWTN world told me something astonishing and true. He said, “It’s quite likely that right now a million people have prayed for you.” Wow! And I cannot speak highly enough of the skilled nurses, doctors and medical staff who were both professional and compassionate. Because I was in isolation, they were my sole visitors. Even if they came only to draw blood, I was grateful for their company and for the simple fact that, with proper protective gear, they were willing to take my hand to reassure me in moments of sorrow and uncertainty.
At the time, I could only return the millions of prayers and beautiful care by praying Rosaries and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Now, I have offered Masses as well. I can never thank them enough! In a dark moment I complained to the Lord that I could not see his face or feel his presence. He said, “Look again and see me in the faces of the doctors and nurses, hear me in the prayers of the million who are praying for you now.” Okay, Lord, I know. I have preached that; now I must live it. Ongoing concerns: With the death toll in the United States approaching 200,000, COVID-19 is not something to dismiss with a wave of the hand. I have always said that we need to take the virus seriously. However, I have also been among those who believe the effects of the shutdowns should be taken seriously as well. We need to find a proper balance between the effects of the disease and the effects (economically, socially and personally) of the restrictions. Regarding the Church, I think we are only beginning to discover the toll that the suspension of sacraments and liturgical functions has had. Most parishes report that only 20-40% of communicants have returned. Certainly there are some who should not return yet, but it is beginning to dawn on us that our parishes are going to be a lot smaller and less viable in the near future, even if a vaccine is found or the danger of COVID-19 diminishes.
Some are predicting renewed shutdowns (to include churches) in the fall when seasonal flu is added into the mix. Will we as a Church simply comply the same way we did before? Will we be more creative in getting the sacraments to people outside of large indoor gatherings (e.g., Communion outside of Mass or as part of an outdoor liturgy)? Will we lock our church buildings entirely? Will we keep them open for personal prayer? Will our bishops vigorously advocate for the essential nature of church attendance with public officials, or will liquor stores and protest marches continue be deemed more essential? Will they quietly comply with another call for total shutdown? All this remains to be seen. And this leads to my final point. Some have asked me, “Have you changed your views on COVID-19 now that you have been so sick with it?” No. I am a survivor. COVID-19 brought me to the precipice. Respiratory failure is extremely serious — even deadly. Thanks be to God, the medical staff went right to work and, thanks to recent advances made in treating the most serious forms of the disease, they knew exactly what to do so that my immune system would be able to fight back. COVID-19 is not an automatic death sentence. I survived, and so do most people who get it. So, my call to all of us continues to be that we place our fears in perspective. Despite my own struggle with COVID-19, I was in the rarefied category of the 5% who require the ICU. Hence, my concern remains that our fears are out of proportion to the actual risks. Prudence directs that we should take reasonable measures to hold down its spread. Wearing a mask, social distancing and washing our hands frequently are part of what we have been asked to do, and observing these reasonable requirements is both just and prudent. But in a secular world where suffering and death have lost all meaning, we must not succumb to meaninglessness. Each of us is called to be a beacon of hope who reassures others that even when the worst comes, God is still at work and can draw great goodness from suffering; He can instill humility in us and produce a future glory that far outweighs the suffering (see 2 Corinthians 4:17). We have been too silent about this, fearing that people will say we “do not care” that people are suffering and dying. We do care, and we do not want their suffering and even possible death to be meaningless!
A life courageously lived accepts the risks of this world and prudently avoids unnecessary ones, trusting that God has a plan that is meant to perfect us and prepare us for the glory that awaits. Jesus says, “In this world you shall have tribulation. But have confidence, for I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Lord, help us to know the way. We are summoned to find that delicate balance between cowering fear and reckless foolishness. Help us also to find the proper balance between necessary protections and heavier measures that may deprive people of their livelihoods and the precious human interactions that make for life. We are seized by many fears today. Some of them are appropriate; others are excessive. Help us to distinguish and to find our way to that balanced place we call prudence. Help us also to be patient with one another. Some have more reason to remain secluded. Others have an urgency to get back to work, to provide for their families, to interact with others. Each of us has decisions to make, and all of us need your grace to decide well and to trust you. Help us, Lord. Save us, have mercy on us, and keep us by your grace. Amen!
Question:
Question: