I caution anyone to consider carefully the claim that the active priesthood of the Novus Ordo is more important than the more targeted work of the SSPX.
Author Note: If it is objectively wrong for the priests of the SSPX to stay with an order whose bishops are in schism and who have been excommunicated, this essay is null—although I hope the discussion on what should be the primary focus of priests remains of value. For the purposes of the following piece, we need only allow that some priests may be subjectively non-culpable for remaining with the SSPX.
My good friend Kevin Wells recently implored a priest of the SSPX to consider leaving the order not so much because the bishops of the SSPX have been declared to be in schism and thus excommunicated but because Kevin believes the work of the priests of the SSPX to be a less effective form of caring for souls than serving those who attend the Novus Ordo. Kevin seems to think the salvation of souls attended to by the SSPX is comparatively secure, and thus the work of NO priests directed toward the spiritually starved is more urgent.
Kevin loves priests and is a great advocate for the priesthood. He has written beautifully about priests in The Priests We Need to Save the Church (where he tells the story of his uncle, Fr. Tommy), Priest and Beggar: The Heroic Life of Venerable Aloysius Schwartz,and Coached by the Curé: Lessons in Shepherding with St. John Vianney. These books tell the stories of priests whose work changed the lives of thousands. Kevin is, by temperament, an activist—a man driven by a flurry of wonderful ideas who is working zealously to reinvigorate the priesthood in a Church in crisis.
But I caution him and those advised by him to consider carefully the claim that the active priesthood of the NO is more important than the more targeted work of the SSPX or that serving the poor is more important than learning Latin to celebrate the liturgy—or to be dedicated to the intellectual life. In the end, both are directed toward the same goal and should not be pitted against each other.
Wells makes this plea:
Father—and any other SSPX priest who has made it to this point—rather than mocking me for what I propose, would you at least consider looking into the ringed eyes of millions of spiritually-starved postconciliar Mass-goers? Would you dare cross the Rubicon and face West—versus populum—to look more deeply into the harrowed faces of faithful parents and grandparents who realize they are losing the souls of their children and grandchildren to the world?
Although the care of souls is of foremost importance, saving as many souls as possible is not the goal of the Christian life; it is saving the souls that God has put under one’s care. Parents need to attend to the children entrusted to them and not abandon them to care for others more in need of attentive parental care. We must all do our best to discern what God wants us to do.
I also find Kevin’s plea curious: SSPX priests believe that the suppression of the TLM and the problems with Vatican II are key sources of the desperation in “the ringed eyes of millions of spiritually-starved postconciliar Mass-goers.” Were they to join the NO priesthood, they would be abandoning the strategy they believe best for feeding souls—the very souls entrusted to them. Who would advise a homeschooling parent to abandon homeschooling to become a teacher in the public school system since the children there are more needy. Moreover, few diocesan bishops will accept SSPX priests, and they would not last long in the dioceses of today. Let me remind my friend Kevin that all too many faithful, good, zealous NO priests have been cancelled because they have been caught teaching the true Faith.
Kevin seems to think the sacrifices of more activist priests are greater than those of more traditional priests. He states:
You see there lies a temptation within the SSPX—what I might call a “Pilate out-clause”—whereby the priests of your Society have found a way to wash their hands of the world’s moral pus and retreat into their palace of comfort—while Christ is left to die and the souls He came to save live in a world covered over by unseen, flapping black wings.
Undoubtedly, there are SSPX priests who have some less than admirable reasons for being SSPX priests; but so, too, of course, do NO priests and many bishops as well. Certainly, some vocations are more “comfortable” than others, but it is wrong to think we should “select” vocations that are less comfortable. Rather, we should discern what God wants of us—if He wants us to be prosperous parents of a large family, we should embrace that; if He wants us to be a hermit in the wilderness, we should embrace that. If the principle that Kevin seems to advance here is true, there would be no place for contemplative orders or even the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), for instance.
Kevin presents a bleak—and I suspect uncharitable—reading of most SSPX priests:
Father, where is the sacrifice in shepherding to heaven the soul of a woman who wears a chapel veil and prays the Rosary every day? Where is the immolation and hard work in leading to Heaven a serious-minded man who delights in discussing Thomistic philosophy with you? Does the well-ordered, homeschooled child require your pastoral care as much as the blank-faced, porn-addicted teenager shuttled between divorced parents?
Does Kevin know how many very wounded souls land on the doorstep of the SSPX or other TLM groups? I know a woman who used to be in a gang and engaged in prostitution who found the TLM and had her life reformed. SSPX priests are doing their best to help teenagers never become porn-addicted and helping spouses not divorce. Does he know that those women wearing chapel veils and praying the Rosary every day need to have their souls fed so they can more effectively serve members of their family and community who have gone astray? And would that more priests had parishioners who could discuss Thomism with them—the priesthood would become more and more powerful.
More: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-vocation-of-sspx-priests-a-response-to-kevin-wells
No comments:
Post a Comment