Not everything has been going our way lately. Because of this, yesterday was a very good day.

Two things to complain about: the rain and the Mass. The rain has been plentiful this summer. Too plentiful. The only thing more plentiful than the rain has been the mosquitos. Meanwhile, the Mass has been frustrating. Mass? I Meant Massk. Or was that the holy sacrifice of the Mask? Call it what you will, but when a priest becomes afraid of COVID, it becomes a hellish nightmare for the parish. Or what's left of the parish.

God is good. Yesterday we ended up at a Mass in a nearby town. Our third in four months. The Mass there is usually a challenge, liturgically speaking. But what a difference four months makes. The Mass yesterday was just a normal Mass. No incessant talk on The Virus. No masks and gloves.  No hand pumping of sanitizer every 34 seconds. Just a small, practical, and very normal Mass (liturgical challenges and all). I cannot tell you enough how refreshed our souls were afterwards! Thanks be to God.

As for the rain... rain brings colder temperatures. We were leaving a house sitting session for my parents - out on their acreage - later that afternoon. As were preparing to leave my wife somehow locked our keys in our van. Haha. 

Wait... our ten month old boy was trapped inside in his car seat! I have never felt so helpless watching him sitting there through the tinted window. Absolutely gut-wrenching. But, as it's been very rainy, the day was cool. In the twenty or so stressful minutes it took for the tow-truck to arrive, the van did not heat up much at all. Our little ten-month-old Jude did quite well. His parents lost a few years off their lives, but otherwise are very grateful. To top it off, the tow truck guy refused to accept any payment for his service.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God" (Romans 8:28). Amen.

One last thing. Rain means crazy big potato plants! 

Deo Gratias!

The Pan-Amazonian Synod Proves that Truth is Stranger than Fiction

Many Catholics are just now awaking from what seemed like a surreal dream, or rather hellish nightmare. The Pan-Amazonian Synod mercifully stumbled past the finish line at the end of October, and now the revolutionary attack on the Church will continue in earnest, sans grating daily press conferences and Pachamama denials.

First, a caveat. If perchance a Vatican official read this and assume I am a well-funded right-wing Catholic elitist, I am not. Though I confess, the title does have a certain appeal to me. I am just a lowly but faithful (rigid) Catholic. So spare yourself a search for my Wikipedia page.

So what exactly happened in Rome last month?

October 4^th, the feast of St. Francis of Assisi, was a fitting commencement. It was a personal day of fasting for the Synod, which was prophetic because had I eaten, the food might have upchucked onto my computer screen. I speak, of course, about the notorious Vatican garden video, where an amalgam of woke spiritualists, evidently not professional dancers, prostrated themselves before those carved images of naked pregnant women. Like a plague of locusts, or enlightened liturgists, the Pachamamas had arrived.

“Isn’t that against one of the Commandments?” I pondered as I watched the ceremony with revulsion. “Possibly against the First Commandment?” I further reasoned. I surprise myself with my brilliance sometimes.

The First Commandment is simple: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any other gods besides me. It is not just an Old Testament sentiment. Ask any true exorcist how violating this Commandment can lead to demonic infestations, obsessions, and even possessions. So how could the Pachamama proceedings be so blatant?

It doesn’t matter what we might think, for we were told what to think. First, these carved images were, in fact, simply hideously naked statues of Our Lady and St. Elizabeth – which would, as a clear insult against what is spotless and holy to God, violate the First Commandment. Next, we were told these naked statues were just harmless representations of Mother Earth (but not Pachamama, which translates into English as Mother Earth). They were then placed prominently in a Catholic church - a scandalous depredation contrary to the First Commandment. Finally, we came full circle when Pope Francis clarified that the carved images were indeed Pachamama idols – that being a grave offense against the First Commandment.

Thus describes the muddled and confused human comedy of the Pan-Amazonian Synod, which will surely be remembered as one of the most embarrassing misfortunes in Church history.

Examples abound. One evening my wife and I were sitting in the living room. She was nursing our new baby, Jude. I was reading a report from the fearless reporter George Neumayr. Jude evidently was nursing as if he had been fasting all day in reparation, and needed to make up for lost time.

“Jude nurses like a pig, wouldn’t you say?” I commented to my wife.

Before she could reply, I showed her an image from the Church of Santa Maria of Traspontina in Rome, the one of a woman nursing an animal.

“Is this woman nursing a pig?” I wondered. “Or maybe a weasel?”

Apparently it was the wrong picture to show a sacrificial mother dutifully nursing her child. Mothers, especially those existing on negligible sleep, get irritated when their role of motherhood is derided. It’s all interconnected, you know.

Further Synodal incredulity came in the form of Austrian-born Bishop Erwin Krautler, one of the main spokesmen at the Synod. Krautler, when pressed by reporter Ed Pentin, admitted that a goal of the Synod was to work towards permitting female Catholic priestesses. Krautler is the same man who has bragged that, as a bishop in the Amazonian region, he never baptized a single person. Women priestesses apparently are needed in the Amazon, but to do what, we cannot say. Is it a pseudo-Amoris Laetitia situation, where woman priestess will distribute Holy Communion to the non-baptized? Or perhaps worse, are they needed in the Amazon to give Holy Communion to weasels?

Thankfully, not everything was ridiculous. The biggest splash at the Synod came from another Austrian man, Alexander Tschugguel, who helped swipe five Pachamama statues from Catholic churches and send them plummeting down into the Tiber River. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Traditional Catholics commended Tschugguel’s actions. The office of the Secretary of State at the Vatican, perhaps in spite, attacked one such Catholic by making unflattering changes to his (Dr. Taylor Marshall’s) Wikipedia webpage. Had a ten year reacted like this, he would deserve chiding. Such puerility coming from within the Vatican is beyond comprehension.

Predictably, the Synod ended on another sour note. Pope Francis triumphantly proclaimed that the Pachamamas had been recovered, and they would make an appearance at the final Mass for the Synod (which they never did). As visions of a massive Blues Brothers Pachamama search operation involving police helicopters, SWAT team members, firefighters, and army personnel flooded my mind, I looked at my wife with a smirk.

“No,” she admonished me, “don’t say what you’re thinking!”

“Well, do you want to bet that someone finds the real Pachamamas in a few weeks?”

What a tragedy we’ve come to, that one’s first reaction to words from the pope is to believe they are untrue.

It didn’t take a few weeks. All it took was a quick walk to the original sight of the Pachamama tossing to notice that one of the carved images never in fact made it into the Tiber River, nor to the Italian police office, but was still resting on the rocks. The Italian Carabinieri are not exactly the legendary Royal Canadian Mounted Police when it comes to finding their man, or Pachamama.

These are but a few of the surreal impressions we are left with following the 2019 Pan-Amazonian Synod. If Mark Twain popularized the aphorism that truth is stranger than fiction, the Synod proved it. If nothing else, the Synod was entertaining. You could even say that it was one big joke.

But a word of hope to conclude, as we are left to continue praying and fasting for the Church. Perhaps of equal importance, by the act of the tossing the Pachamamas into the Tiber River, we have been inspired to act in defense of the Church. We have our Faith, and now good works must follow.

To reinterpret Pope Francis’ words: This is good news. Thank you, Jesus.

Originally posted at www.bravestthing.com

The Long Road of Peace Goes Through Covington

"Peace, man."

The existential cry of the hippy lives on in the Catholic Church. While prolife, male, white, Catholic teenagers from Covington are subject to virulent unicorn-esque condemnations from the liberals of America, a large portion of Catholics are guilty of having joined in on the mob attack. Some Catholics have since retreated, perhaps grasping at some natural reality that black is not white, up not down, and receiving death threats because of one's prolife, male, white Catholicity is not actually criminal, at least not this time. Yet rather than take the next logical step of actually defending the Covington teens, many Catholics are simply content to offer a "peace, man", and let those prolifers fend for themselves.

For instance, at Bishop Barron's ingratiating website we encounter the typical hippy Catholic mantra. Writer Elizabeth Scalia opines that we must do better at being peaceful, and that we should just appreciate the anthem: "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me"? I am not making this up. In other words: "Peace, man", unless of course you are a prolife, male, white Catholic.

This is not what peace is. Peace is not simply an absence of war, all the while possessing inner serenity. Peace requires justice. Justice requires order. Order requires action. When seventeen year old pro-life, male, white Catholics are attacked by racist and hateful bigots, it is not peaceful to retreat in order to find one's inner strength and harmony. Life happens in real time. Virtue must be habitual and readily applicable. Evil must be immediately fought when presented. How long must people retreat before they decide they are personally peaceful enough to defend an innocent person? One day? One week? One year? Justice at times demands immediate action. Inner peace is not achievable while omitting one's Christian duty.

Consider Samwise Gamgee in The Lord of the Rings. He is presented with a glimpse into the future by the Marian-like Queen Galadriel. Sam observes that the Shire is not what it should be, and he even shouts out: "There's that Ted Sandyman a-cutting down trees as he shouldn't. […] I wish I could get at Ted, and I'd fell him!"

Sam demands to return to the Shire. His aiding Frodo in conquering the powers of evil is lost on him; he would rather save some pleasant trees near his home. Sam's demand is ultimately for personal wants, and not for true peace and order.

The Mirror of Galadriel by Alan Lee

Galadriel gently reminds Sam that he is pressed into service for a greater deed, and that if he chooses to reject his duty he will never encounter true peace in his own land of the Shire. In other words, peace in our own lives is fettered to fighting evil.

The story continues with Sam sitting on the ground in deep thought. Shaken by his vision, he becomes at war with himself. Finally, he offers: "I wish I had never come here, and I don't want to see no more magic,' […] and fell silent. After a moment he spoke again thickly, as if struggling with tears. 'No, I'll go home by the long road with Mr. Frodo, or not at all.'"

Inner peace is needed; however, inner peace requires we fight the injustice presented to us. Peace is not simply retreating to one's pseudo-harmonious life, but rather it is, as Sam discovers, a long and difficult road of fighting for what is right. Indeed, in some cases the long road of peace goes through Covington.

The Episcopal Leviathan

Originally Posted at Bravest Thing

Recently the ordinary in my diocese, Bishop Albert Thevenot, released a letter regarding funding for Development and Peace (D&P). In the letter Thevenot explained how D&P, the Canadian Catholic Bishop's charity responsible for social justice (is there a justice on earth which does not involve society?), was finally reprimanded during lent for funding anti-life agencies. The Canadian Bishops withheld their yearly lenten cash haul to D&P. The decision was several years too late, but welcome nonetheless. In the Catholic Church these days, Leviathan that it has become, you take what you can get. 

And so, Thevenot explained the position with Development and Peace. He stated D&P has given no assurance of refraining from funding agencies with policies contrary to Catholic moral teaching - "Dark clouds seem to hover over Development and Peace at this time." Well and good. Why should bishops provide money which supports evil agencies? It all seems so obvious and utterly not worth stating. Like calling rain wet, puppies cute, or bagpipes out of tune. Cue the next paragraph.

"After much discernment, however, I have decided to forward the 2018 Lenten Campaign collections to Development and Peace with a clear indication that the sum should only be used for projects approved by the CCCB."

Mic drop. Jaw drop on my part as well. “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” (Proverbs 26:11). Let's get the facts straight: D&P is guilty of grave misdoings. D&P is continuing in these grave misdoings. They are unrepentant and therefore untrustworthy. "Dark clouds hover over" the organization. Therefore D&P is being sent more money (because they are untrustworthy?). Bishop Thevenot then dedicated two and a half additional paragraphs gushing over the work that D&P has accomplished.

This work, one must ascertain, includes a very 'poor' charity rating (a mediocre C+), an appalling 21% of funds spent on administration with many salaries exceeding $100,000, as well as the fact that the Canadian government already funds over $20 million yearly to D&P's plump budget. All of this incompetence, however, is but minor when considering D&P's funding of immoral organizations. The saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas, define justice as giving what each person deserves or is owed (II-II, Q. 58). Development and Peace, an organization which has funded immoral agencies, and remains unrepentant, certainly is not owed more money! To do so is an act of injustice. But one must not plead for justice in 2018. Not when mercy provides license to sin.

I wrote a letter to Bishop Albert and pleaded for even a slight amount of logic, that great connector to the Logos, to be considered. I asked for him to ponder the possibility that, maybe just maybe, not all laity are stupid sheep who are rather fond of being treated like a punching bag, one that spits out money every time it is hit. Alas, punching bags should remain silent and I have certainly said too much.

No, I will say more. Much more. 

Why not utilize the illogical argument in our favour? Dear Bishop (you can use this for your own bishop some time): I have noticed that my hard earned money which I tithe to my parish has a portion taxed and entrusted to the diocesan coffers. I have decided, after much discernment (which, of course, is always infallible), to continue giving money to my parish with a clear indication that the sum must not be used to fund untrustworthy organizations, namely your diocese. Indeed, dark clouds seem to hover over it. Signed, Punching Bag.

The Leviathan. Photo Credit: politicaexterior.com

What I have just explained is certainly not the most grievous and pressing issue amongst bishops and all Catholics at this time. We are in the times of, as Anthony Esolen calls, the irreal. Unreal is hardly believable. Irreal defies all conception of normalcy, order, and logic. Yet it is emblematic of what we are in the midst of. When 137 American bishops are incapable of agreeing to request that Pope Francis release files on sex abuser ex-Cardinal McCarrick, it is irreal. When these same bishops call on Cardinal Mahoney, Mr. $720 million-man in payouts for his episcopal misdeeds of covering up abusers, to address these same bishops on how to handle abuse, it is irreal. When in the same week the majority of U.S. bishops refuse to budge on addressing what is wrong while preparing to ask the American Catholic for money to fund themselves, it is irreal.

No, my little squabble with my bishop is insignificant, yet remains emblematic. Accordingly, responding to my bishop might be insignificant, but it also is emblematic.

It actually takes a lot of nerve and righteous anger to step up and write a bishop. I referenced the Leviathan earlier. The giant fish-like creature Leviathan appears in the bible several times. I actually refer to philosopher Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. For Hobbes, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." A mega structure of power, the Leviathan, is necessary to keep any semblance of order, otherwise those evil underlings will destroy and corrupt each other. We are all just back-stabbing murderers at heart. Thus, the subjects of the Leviathan are to quake in its presence, to fear and tremble while timidly obeying. One harkens Machiavelli's famous line, "It is better to be feared than loved." When bishops act with little or no regard for their subjects, the subject's money, the subject's received abuse, nor the logic in the subject's pleas, they wield a mighty sword indeed. A Leviathan rules. The Episcopal Leviathan demands obedience to the irreal because it believes the subjects are incapable of fighting back against the iron rule. I answer that this necessitates, all the more, faithful Catholics to speak out against such a rule.

When the faithful Catholic speaks out against irrealism from the episcopacy they must expect ridicule, difficulties, and a slow drawn out martyrdom for the faith. Nevertheless, bring justice. Bring truth. Bring charity. Bring what is real. Expect strife. Expect pain. Expect ridicule. And expect a gentle nudge of peace and warming love from the Holy Spirit. But for the love of souls: Speak out. These are not the times for apathy. A small voice is still a voice. Many small voices make a loud voice. Death comes for us all. We all answer to Jesus. The Church is not a Leviathan. Do not permit it to be run as one. Dear faithful Catholics: speak out. 

Editor's note: Bishop Albert Thevenot can be reached at bishop.assistant@padiocese.ca

The Church in a Nutshell

In a modern office tower, high above the enervated city, and far away from the complaints of disgruntled and annoying customers and local managers, sit the council of company executives.


"Sales are down. Profits are down. Bums in seats are down..."


"Easy there Denny. Why so negative? We're doing a great job!"


"Listen Toby, the data on our new menu is here as well. Since we switched from certified beef to artificially flavoured vegan patties, no one seems to be buying them. I mean, especially not our loyal customers. And I don't blame them. The patties are awful."


"Loyal customers can go to the soup kitchen where they belong! All they care about is the way it was. We need to be relevant. The loyal customers don't know what's good for them. The leader of our company said so! Are you accusing him?"


Denny slunk back into his executive leather chair. Better to remain silent. True, things will never change with silence, but standing up to Toby, Warren and Stoopie is career suicide. Those three always seem to be favoured. Like that time they got caught sending money as a payout for spitting in some burgers. Just a harmless spit they said. Instead of being disciplined they were promoted. Yes, best to stay silent.


Just then Chief Executive, Mr. Stoopie, arose and, with a hint of trembling in his voice, began to speak:


"So... about this issue of feeding customers poison, well, food laced with poison... more like maybe just a bit of harmful chemicals, probably not anyone's fault, uh that's all... um, people are mad. I had a manager at one of my stores burn the poison, sorry, chemicals publicly. I chased him out of town, that son of a..."


"It was all about careerism," jumped in the recently retired executive, Mr. Warren. Mr. Warren was one of those executives who retire but never really leave. Like an unwanted guest. One might even say the word 'cancer' would describe the position. "It was careerism that made so many of our employees lace the food with pois, er, chemicals."


By now Denny's head was hurting. Careerism? He wanted to speak out again. Remember Vinnie? What happened to him when he spoke out? Let's just say he never flipped another burger again. Not that he would mind. Flipping artificially flavoured vegan patties is something Vinnie would've rather avoided.


 "So where do we go from here?" stammered Mr. Stoopie. "We need a strategy. It's not like we can stop our employees, or managers, from lacing food with chemicals. I mean, we can be there for them. But they're people too, right? How does stopping someone build bridges for our company? Pardon my wit, but we are a company that accompanies"


"That's why we attack those attackers!" triumphed Toby. "We accuse them of accusing!"


"Here Here!" - Chimed in Warren, Stoopie and several other executives.


"Now," continued Toby, "about those plummeting profits, lawsuits by customers, restaurant closures, negative media attention, and overall distrust amongst the public... I motion that we give ourselves a raise."


Here Here!" - Chimed in Warren, Stoopie and several other executives.



The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: Bishops by the Numbers

I was watching Dr. Taylor Marshall's chat with Fr. Dwight Longenecker recently. Something Marshall said made me stop to think. Apparently he once read from an Orthodox person that the general make up of bishops is as follows:

20% of bishops are bad.

(i.e. heretical, modernists, live double lives, deliberately wishy-washy, have hidden agendas, or even all of the above)

60% of bishops sit on the fence with issues. 

Most of these do not have the training or mental capacity to actually know or teach Church doctrine clearly. A quick fix for this, in my opinion, might involve upholding Canon 249, whereby all priests (and bishops) must know Latin. True reasons aside, if nothing else this would be an intelligence test for our ordained.

20% of bishops are good. 

They clearly respond to scandals and are quick to instill the faith in their dioceses.

When troubled times arise (e.g. Arianism). The two polar opposites (20%ers) battle it out until the Church convenes a special council (e.g. Nicea) and thus upholds what the 20% of good bishops are saying. Eventually the following happens:

The 20% of bad bishops are shamed and seen as evil.

The 60% of mediocre bishops claim they always were on the side of the good.

The 20% of good bishops are seen as saints.

And thus the life of the Church repeats itself.

Can this be seen today? I believe it is more of a 10/80/10 percent split. To add to the confusion, one would be naïve to expect a solid council to clarify matters of abuse, divorce, morality and Tradition. Instead we get youth synods (a good teacher knows not to follow whatever youth say), and special meetings of bishops which are led by the evil 10 or 20%. 

Suffice it to say, the good percentage of bishops will take it on the chin for a while. The majority of mediocre bishops might even turn on them. But the reward remains the same: the opportunity for sainthood. And, in this grand chess match of life, becoming a saint is really what it's all about.

Petition for an investigation.

I signed the petition. Have you?

Don't let this horrible scandal get swept under the rug. Pray, first and foremost. But also act. There needs to be, at the very least, a full independent investigation. Not creepy silence. Sign the petition HERE.

Taylor Marshall and the Devil Hates Latin

First off, here is a video posted by Dr. Taylor Marshall yesterday which I found to be extremely helpful in providing context with our current Church crisis. Not pleasant, mind you, but definitely helpful. You need to watch it.

Without losing one's head, some key points must be considered. If Pope Francis did indeed reinstate Cardinal McCarrick, then this couldn't have possibly been a simple: "Whoops, I thought he was a nice guy. I was just being merciful and full of accompaniment..." No, it would definitely signal the beginning of the end for Pope Francis. It would clearly mean that, well... I'm not really ready to get into talk like that yet. I have a thousand possible scenarios playing out in my mind about what is going on, and has been going on for some time, but they must remain unspoken.


One thought that returns to me frequently is the book which I read nearly one year ago: The Devil Hates Latin. The authour uses a pen name to avoid recognition. I remember the horrible details of abuse, power, and cover up (think professional hit teams, leaders targeting seminarians, drug money, and so forth) in this "fictional" story. It was apparent that the author knew things in the Vatican. But to see many such details in this book come to fruition in real life, right before our eyes? Chilling.

The book also provides a solution to these extreme events. The Church itself. The Mass, particularly the sacrificial cleansing offered in the Latin Mass, as well as the systematic expulsion of the demonic via the Church's Latin prayers,  works, and exorcisms. In other words, if the problem is rooted in demonic activity, it must be uprooted seriously, in the proper form.

We will continue to pray for all those directly involved in this mess. Also, I hope Archbishop Vigano is living somewhere safe and hidden right now...

Uncle Teddy and Preying on Hirelings

The disgusting story of Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick has left many Catholics baffled, confused, outraged, and yet not surprised. That a man, ordained thrice, could be so scandalously repulsive for so long, and even be promoted through the ranks of Church hierarchy, is a reality that should have died in the winter of 2002. It lives on of course. Just look at the mess in Chile. I'll give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt in Chile and state that he was lied to by people close to him. Either way, we are not over this train wreck. Not by a long shot.

Nevertheless, it still merits asking how McCarrick, creepily self-referenced as "Uncle Ted", was able to carry on for so long. Many have suggested that liberals didn't want to make an issue of McCarrick's homosexual escapades for fear of damage to the LGBT followers, whereas conservative Catholics feared damaging the reputation of the Church by "outing" (no pun intended) this Cardinal. And so he carried on. Don't ask. Don't tell. How American. Uncle Sam meet Uncle Ted.

I don't really believe in the oversimplification of the McCarrick explanation. That being both liberals and conservatives on the same page, seeking the supression of truth and justice, yet for different reasons. And let me be clear that though McCarrick is a liberal Cardinal, I could just as easily believe that this case could happen to a more tradition-minded churchman. No, the issue is deeper. And by that I mean worse than any simple explanation. McCarrick escaped reprimand and fraternal confrontation because our Church has become mercenary and deficient of real leaders.

Ours is a mercenary Church structure. Clergy are hirelings, meted out their due pay for services provided. It has to be. With the scarcity of true shepherds comes the necessity for hirelings. There are rules for governance, beyond Canon Law, which bishops must introduce within their diocese. Priests are paid a salary. They must work a certain amount of days, take such and such vacation time, receive set mileage rates, dutifully report their stipends on tax returns, and so on. In our diocese the rumour is the bishop is looking into mandatory hours at the church for priests. He has to. A nearby parish has a priest show up in the morning, then goes who knows where once the noon bell rings.

In some ways the mercenary/hireling structure does not go far enough. What about mandatory dress code for priests? Whereby priests dress like, well, priests? Perhaps the Canon law which strongly suggests Mass should be said everyday should just say, in a word, that Mass must be said everyday. Yet the fact that priests need to be told to say Mass daily is completely the point. We've come this far. There are faithful shepherds who would do anything for their, often ungrateful, parish. There are too many pastors who need to be told how to be a priest. Acedia? Comfort? To be commanded to say Mass everyday is like commanding a mother to cuddle her newborn child. "Do I have to?" said no mother ever.

When a Catholic hears of an important Churchmen failing scandalously in his call to holiness, the mercenary attitude is to hold rank, don't cause a fuss, and to do one's duty of position. "I will leave this Cardinal alone for he is powerful and, really, who would even listen to me? I would surely be reprimanded at some point, or removed all together." Is this true? I think, in many cases, it absolutely would be true. Why? Because our hierarchy is based on power, positioning, and employment of services. It is difficult to defy the setup because the setup is in defiance of love, with love including fraternal correction. The Church too often beats as a machine, and not a heart.

We fear a system. We fear backlash, politics, lawsuits, repercussions, and just about everything else more than the one thing we should fear: hell. It is mercenary. It is leadership of authority, which is good, but only when the authority has merited this leadership role to begin with. For instance, why is Cardinal Cupich still a high ranking Archbishop in Chicago? What on God's green earth has he done to merit such a powerful position? It baffles the mind how the system works. And because it works as such, I am not supposed to question why he is where he is. God's will. So I'll just shut up and understand my place. Just as one was not supposed to publicly ask why Uncle Teddy took seminarians to the beach house on Friday nights. Did these seminarians fear the man himself? Would not one, with complete moral justice, fight back on one of those Friday nights? "Your Eminence! Where did you get that black eye?" They feared the position of the man. Not with fear-and-trembling of the man’s consecration to God, but that the man wielded power and influence.

Rather than prolong these words, it is best to examine a solution. Clearly we cannot be rid of our current Church administrative-reliant structure. And sadly the hirelings will continue as such. But is there not a hope for real change?

So many Catholic quandaries can be alleviated if we but look to, and imitate, the lives of the saints. How does a bishop not treat his priests as employees? Has anyone ever actually read the life of St. Alphonsus Ligouri? He was not afraid to clean house. To choose between the hireling and the shepherd. Yet with the greatest of charity. There's a reason why Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange states a bishop must be in the unitive way in the spiritual life. Or the bishop St. Anthony Mary Claret? See zeal in action. He was a great administrator because he was first a great saint. An overseas trip on a boat was not a cruise, but rather an opportunity to lead his priests on a retreat. That's how you first treat, and love, your priests. They become not hirelings, but rather themselves good shepherds.

Uncle Teddy benefited from a Church structure which requires administrative savvy and not sanctity. The Church cries for saints. The Church requires saints in leadership. Not for those in the Church to be required to do what is right. But for those in the Church to be required to love doing what is right. Even to correct what is wrong. Holiness is a demand for all. But we learn from our shepherds.

"And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep" (John 10:13).