Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: AQ Exclusive: Story behind the story of Fr. Fessio & AMU
AQ Investigative Report
The story behind the story of Father Fessio's firing from Ave Maria University
A good priest in a bad environment
By John Grasmeier
Angelqueen.org
April, 2007
Outta' town by sundown
On Wednesday March 21, 2007, Father Joseph Fessio was summoned to the office of Chancellor Tom Monaghan and fired from his non-paying job as Provost of Ave Maria University. Monaghan offered no explanation whatsoever for the sudden dismissal. He simply told Father Fessio to pack his things and be off of campus by day’s end. It was the start of what was about to become a most interesting day.
Around 2 P.M., Father Fessio sent the following short note to his email list:
To the Ave Maria University community: I have been asked to resign my position as provost and leave the campus immediately. I will miss Ave Maria and the many of you whom I hold dear. - Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
Around mid afternoon, Ave Maria’s public relations firm issued a carefully worded yet un-illuminating statement which stated that Father Fessio “…was asked to step down as Provost of the University as a result of irreconcilable differences over administrative policies and practices.” AMU staff was told not to speak to the media about the controversy.
Once word got out on campus, perturbed and bewildered students immediately began to organize an impromptu protest in support of the much beloved Jesuit. The protest started out in front of President Nick Healy’s office, then moved to Father Fessio’s on-campus residence, where it had grown to approximately 100 well behaved but upset students who at various times began in-concert recitations of the Rosary. An emotional Father Fessio emerged from his quarters to give a brief statement, and then left the area.
Nearly as fast as word hit the street at AMU, it hit the streets of the Catholic blogosphere and the local media. Fr. Fessio is generally well liked and respected among Catholics of all stripes and backgrounds, an accomplishment rarely realized in a Church known for its diverse and, at times, contentious factions. He’s seen by most, even those who often sharply disagree with him, as a good-natured, intelligent and well formed priest. News that he had been fired went over like a lead Hindenburg. Even with the sparse information available at the time, only the most obtuse internet surfer could have missed the collective cyber-frown that was immediately directed towards the powers-that-be at AMU. After all, Father Fessio was rather famous for his long list of accomplishments, while those running the show at AMU were rather infamous for their long list of mishaps.
The timing of Father Fessio’s dismissal couldn’t have been worse. Admissions activities for the next school year were in high-gear. Ironically, news of the firing came on the very day that thousands of AMU donors would open their mail to find a three page, poorly written plea for donations penned by Monaghan himself. Even more ironic was the fact that in less than two days, Fr. Fessio was scheduled to appear in Washington D.C. to accept induction into the Catholic Educator's Hall of Fame. One would think that those behind Fr. Fessio’s firing had surely taken these and other factors into consideration beforehand, but that seems not to have been the case. A senior staff member told AQ that foresight and wisdom on such matters shouldn’t be assumed from “this crew.” Another highly placed source lamented that “they jumped off a cliff, but forgot to look before they jumped.” The latter source wondered outloud how those with such myopic tendencies came to run a Catholic higher learning institution.
At around the time the area in front of President Healy’s office was becoming populated with angry students, AMU management’s voicemail and email inboxes were becoming populated with angry messages. Donors were calling to express their outrage and parents where inquiring about what steps needed to be taken to remove their children from the school.
A 4:30 P.M. staff meeting was called by university officials in order to contain the brush fire they had started, which was now threatening to burn out of control. Initially, the meeting was to be for staff and faculty only, but it was thought best to open it up to the students as well given their state of mind. One student who was present at the earlier protest said that according to the buzz amongst his colleagues many were already contemplating “voting with their feet” by next semester over Father Fessio’s firing. Tuition at Ave Maria is around $22,500 per year, which works out to $11,250 per voting student foot.
Students swarmed to the meeting by the hundreds. Nearly every single man, woman and child on campus – staff and student alike - showed up for the event which, as the protest earlier in the day, had not been on anyone’s Wednesday agenda. It became a packed house. There were no rafters to hang from, but there were 300-400 students present, many having to stand and sit in the aisles. Before the meeting began, visibly nervous staff members milled about in a corner speaking in hushed tones. Among them was founder Tom Monaghan, President Nick Healy, Chaplain Robert Garrity, Dean of Students Dan Dentino and other “who’s who” of AMU faculty and staff. Campus security personnel wearing black suits were also in attendance.
Once underway, the meeting quickly turned into a rather raucous affair. The mob demanded to know who killed their Caesar. Many young women could be heard sobbing as students wondered out loud how it could be that their favorite priest had been so suddenly and so unceremoniously frog-marched off campus. There were standing ovations when Father Fessio was mentioned along with emotional appeals for his immediate reinstatement. If those in attendance sought answers, they were not forthcoming from the besieged speaker bunker. In describing the scene, one student said “It was a Greater North dog and pony show that showed the disconcerting lack of confidence in the administration… they gave a statement that said nothing and skipped around the questions, refusing to answer them. It really turned the students off.” Another student described the meeting as “meaningless.” What was intended as an ad hoc damage control venue was creating more damage than it was controlling. Those attempting to explain things without explaining anything were only making matters worse. By nightfall, it was abundantly clear that Wednesday had not been a very good day for higher ups at AMU.
Oops!
The situation hadn’t improved by next day. In fact, it got worse.
The deafening silence emanating from university officials, who refused to shed any light on the previous day’s events, was causing speculation in the local media and on the internet to run rampant. In an effort to fill the informational vacuum, websites that had been following the goings-on at AMU were already tracking the canary feathers back to the cats responsible for them. Although he couldn’t provide any details of his dismissal (because none had been given to him), Father Fessio was characteristically open and accessible. He gave several interviews to the local press where he came across as unfazed and nonchalant, appearing almost as if he was wondering what all the fuss was about. He seemed fine with it all, expressing happiness that a “burden” had been lifted off his shoulders and saying that he was looking forward to his future “work for the Lord’s vineyards.” Father had nary a bad word directed toward anyone, only observing in the most detached and objective fashion imaginable, that in his most humble opinion, the firing had been a “mistake.” Indeed. If this was to be described as a “mistake” then it should be assumed that Father would have charitably informed the captain of the sinking Titanic that his dire circumstances were the result of a mere “boating mishap.”
Fr. Fessio’s graceful and commendable handling of the controversy contrasted sharply with the university’s ham handedness. The Fessio affair was becoming to AMU’s already suffering public image what Godzilla was to Tokyo. Only Tokyo’s Godzilla had emerged terribly from the sea through no fault of the Japanese. AMU’s PR Godzilla had emerged – smelling like a rose - from Tom Monaghan’s own office, and he had nobody to blame but himself and those advising him. AMU was now in the second day of its self inflicted PR disaster. In an interview with the Washington Post, Phil Lawler of Catholic World News referred to the debacle as “institutional suicide.”
At around 6 P.M., in an obvious attempt to stop the bleeding, President Nick Healy issued the second bewildering statement to come from AMU in as many days. It seemed now that all of the "irreconcilable differences" had been reconciled in less than a day. The statement told that Father Fessio had been asked by those who fired him the day before, to remain at AMU; Father Fessio accepted. Healy’s statement claimed that the sudden 180 was “a sign of our esteem for his great gifts and abilities.” Which begged the question; if Father was so “esteemed” and had such "great gifts and abilities" then why was he so shabbily treated when he was summarily canned the day before? The statement went on “He will be designated a theologian in residence and maintain a room on campus.” In other words, Fr. Fessio had been demoted… again. Father started out with AMU as Chancellor, Professor of Theology and head of the chaplaincy, and wielded a great deal of influence over the curricula and spiritual direction of the university. Now, only a few years later, he was to be somewhat of a figurehead, a “theologian” with no official power or authority. Officially, he was to be seen by the students but not heard by the administration. If this is the manner in which AMU management treats those they “esteem,” how would they treat those whom they don’t esteem?
While the effectiveness of the move to bring Father back - in whatever stricken capacity - remains to be seen, there were many questions as to how this all came about. The particulars of the firing are still being kept under wraps with explicit permission needed from the top before any staff or faculty can speak to the press. As of the time of this writing, Father Fessio still tells others that he has absolutely no idea what, in particular, lead to his firing that day.
Through no fault of those in the media reporting on the incident, there was was a great deal of guesswork due to a vacuum of information about the circumstances under which the firing occurred. Some articles and blogs speculated that it came about as the result of a recent interview where Fr. Fessio offered his thoughts about homosexuality being inherent at birth. The erroneous speculation was that his comments were seen as unorthodox, thus AMU decided to hand him his walking papers. As anyone close to university politics will attest to, it will be a long time before AMU management will ever "out-Catholic" Father Fessio.
People on the inside of AMU knew immediately that there was much more behind Fr. Fessio's firing than him simply "stepping in it" once or not giving a good interview. Those familiar with the situation are nearly unanimous in concluding that the ultimate reason behind the unfortunate turn of events, was a long running power struggle between Nick Healy and Father Fessio that finally had come to a head. At the heart of that struggle is the spiritual and liturgical direction of the fledgling university. Many who spoke with Angelqueen.org (AQ) referred to the struggle in terms “war” or “warfare.” As one source put it “the administration has been extremely hostile towards Father Fessio and tradition.” The source said that there exists an atmosphere where traditional and orthodox elements, particularly in regard to the liturgy, are “shunned,” while more liberal “glory and praise” and charismatic influences are given precedence.
The Eagle and the Legal Beagle
If the intended goal is getting a Catholic university off the ground, one would be hard pressed to find anyone better qualified than Fr. Fessio to help realize that goal. Father holds a Masters Degree in Philosophy from Gonzaga University and a Doctorate in Theology from the University of Regensburg. His thesis director was none other than Father Joseph Ratzinger - who now happens to sit in the chair of St. Peter as the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Not only did they share a student-teacher relationship, but the Holy Father and Fr. Fessio have become personal friends over the years, often attending the same seminars and retreats as well as meeting privately on many other matters. The Pope frequently asks Fr. Fessio – who was once his favorite student at Regensburg - how things are going AMU. After all, it was the Holy Father himself who intervened on Fr. Fessio’s behalf to get him released from his exile as a hospital chaplain (imposed on him retributively by his liberal Jesuit superiors) in order to take the position at Ave Maria.
In addition to his impeccable credentials and connections (and a mailing-list of tens of thousands of potential donors), Fr. Fessio also brought with him to AMU experience and gravitas. As founder of both Saint Ignatius USF and Campion College, he possessed an invaluable real-world “school of hard knocks” background in jumpstarting Catholic higher learning institutions. He also possessed a good deal of business experience after founding and running the multi-million dollar Catholic publishing giant “Ignatius Press”. Fr. Fessio is prominent and well known, not only in Catholic circles, but in the national - even international – media where he has often been sought after to speak on every subject from the goings on at the Vatican to his thoughts on Islam.
In the early days of AMU’s founding, Father Fessio’s “star power” was not lost on Tom Monaghan. Monaghan realized that if he had Fr. Fessio do nothing more than smile and strike poses in a display case somewhere on campus, he would attract far more than his fair share of seed money, needed faculty, new student applications and all of the other happy-stuff that was essential to getting AMU off on the right foot. Initially, Father Fessio’s experience and talents were put to good use. He was made Chancellor, Professor of Theology and head of the chaplaincy. He had a great deal of influence, not only over the curricula and educational direction of the university, but the liturgical and spiritual direction as well.
In regard to the liturgy, Father Fessio is a reformer who holds that many of the problems with the modern Catholic condition stem from many of the problems with the modern Catholic Mass. He’s spoken at length about his ideas on liturgical reform publicly as well as with the Holy Father, who for the most part shares his sympathies. At times Fr. Fessio has been quite vocal about the issue, more than once stating publicly that he viewed changing the orientation of the priest toward the people (versus populum) as a “mistake.” Father Fessio presides over reverent ad orientum (facing the altar) Novus Ordo Masses. Most of his Masses are spoken or sung in Latin and accompanied by sacred Gregorian chant. Ironically, at a university being billed as the new bastion of orthodoxy and reverence in Catholic academia, Father Fessio’s orthodoxy and reverence would become his undoing.
Enter one Nicholas J. Healy Jr., President of Ave Maria University.
Unlike Father Fessio, former New York lawyer Nick Healy’s qualifications as a Catholic leader and educator are nearly non-existent. He has no credentials, education or formal training in any ecclesiastical discipline. The extent of his expertise on the sacred liturgy is limited to that of a layman occupying a pew at Mass. Before being picked up by Monaghan, his only experience as a Catholic educator had been when he held the position of “Vice President of University Relations,” a communications/PR position, at Franciscan University, Steubenville. His educational and professional background is mostly in New York Maritime law and insurance. By any reading of his résumé, Healy is very qualified to act as a fiduciary for East River tugboat captains who get bumped by barges, but is he qualified as a Catholic educator? His position at AMU, however is less a result of his background than him acting as Monaghan’s right hand or “push” man.
The differences between Father Fessio and Nick Healy are not limited to their prerequisites. Father Fessio is seen frequently out and about campus mingling and visiting with students, while Healy spends his days in his office. Father Fessio is extremely popular with the students; Healy is not. Fr. Fessio is reform minded and orthodox; Healy is a committed praise and worship type of charismatic.
Charismatic Charisma
If the mantra of the 60s was “if it feels good do it”, then the mantra of the Charismatic movement that has its roots in that turbulent era would be, “if it feels good, it must be the Holy Spirit.” The Charismatic “renewal” sprang out of nowhere after it was literally fabricated on American college campuses in the 1960s. It more closely resembles “happy-clappy” Pentecostal Protestantism than anything traditionally Catholic. Compared to their traditional or orthodox counterparts, charismatics tend to be far more accepting of novelty in matters such liturgy and music. They are more inclined toward innovation and less inclined toward tradition and established dogma. Their spiritual orientation would tend to be more horizontal and less vertical in nature and their faith more emotional than cerebral. A higher degree of emphasis is placed on what is perceived as personal spiritual gratification, rather than liturgical reverence and catechetical development. Charismatic liturgies have been notorious breeding grounds for some of the worst liturgical abuses on record. While charismatics can range anywhere on the ideological spectrum from heretically liberal to politically conservative, there is no denying that the movement itself is wholly modernistic and newfangled. They would likely protest the labels, but in light of 2,000 years of tradition, the charismatic movement is entirely new to Catholicism or “neo-Catholic,” it’s adherents by extension “neo-Catholics.” There is no such animal as a traditional charismatic.
Before going to work for Monaghan, Nick Healy had a public relations position at the heavily charismatic Franciscan University, in Steubenville, Ohio. His leanings and many of his designs for AMU come as a result of his experiences there. Healy’s charismatic formation wouldn’t be an issue in and of itself if he was simply a “work-a-day” president of a university, but that's not the case. He has his intentions on the liturgy and spiritual direction of AMU and he has increasingly sought for himself more control over both. For a time, Fr. Fessio was able to counteract Healy’s influence, but only for so long. Because of his pull with Monaghan (who hails from a charismatic background himself), Healy was uniquely positioned to get his way on matters important to him, thus it was inevitable that Fr. Fessio’s orthodox vision would be progressively pushed aside, commensurately yielding to Healy’s charismatic agenda. Along the way, the frictional relationship between the two would boil over.
There was an incident in 2005, when Healy’s son-in-law and AMU faculty member, Dr. Jules van Schaiejk, suggested to Healy that they bring in a speaker by the name of Paul Griffith to give an on-campus talk. Healy agreed. When Fr. Fessio was made aware of Griffith’s highly unorthodox views - one being that Catholics should support homosexual “civil unions” - he as Provost put the kibosh on the talk and had Griffith’s invitation withdrawn. One thing led to another and the issue eventually grew to become so contentious, that van Schaiejk resigned over it. van Schaiejk and Healy no longer speak to each other.
Shortly after the Griffith dust-up, Healy made it known that he wanted to bring in a new charismatic “healing” priest by the name of Father Richard McAlear. Fr. McAlear had been involved with the charismatic renewal since the early days back in 1972, and according to his bio, part of the “healing ministry” since 1976. Healing Masses are services where after Mass or sometimes even during Mass, the priest or lay people touch or anoint with oil the body parts of those who wish to be “healed” of real or perceived spiritual and physical ailments. These dramatic rituals are marked by lots of hand waving, emotional outbursts and scenes of attendees channeling “the spirit.” Congregants often have to step over those who are laid-out in the aisles or rolling around on the floor after having been “slain in the spirit.” What starts out as what was supposed to be a Catholic Mass, usually devolves into a rather helter-skelter affair by the time it’s all over.
Healy intended to make regular “healing Masses” available at AMU. Of course Father Fessio, who considers healing Masses to be an “abomination,” wanted none of it. Father attempted, to no avail, to stop the healing Masses from coming to campus. His unsuccessful efforts only further deepened the rift between him and Healy.
Not long after these two incidents, Healy approached Tom Monaghan and attempted to convince him to remove Fr. Fessio from AMU altogether. Although Father Fessio wasn’t fired outright, he was removed from the chaplaincy. Monaghan never gave Father Fessio the courtesy of speaking with him about the demotion before rendering the decision. Monaghan, a college dropout, would soon replace Father Fessio as University Chancellor, and University Chaplain - Father Robert Garrity - would report to Nick Healy instead of Fr. Fessio.
One source, who had spoken to AQ about the liturgical situation at AMU prior to the most recent Fr. Fessio controversy, is from a family that has been involved with AMU since the very beginning. His father sits on an AMU board and one of his brothers plans to open a business in the town of Ave Maria. The source and another brother had in the past been enthusiastic involved with the new university, once going so far as to fully finance a retreat to Atlanta for ten AMU students. Because of the disappointments they’ve encountered along the way, the brothers have no further plans of aiding AMU, financially or otherwise for the foreseeable future. He said:
“As far as Ave Maria, it appears to be degrading. The morning Mass was always a Fessio type Mass with the priest facing the altar. The noon Mass was more of a typical Novus Ordo Mass with the priest facing the people. Slowly things started to degrade, and the priest at the noon Mass would leave the sanctuary to distribute communion so that the parishioners could not utilize the communion rail. Also, extraordinary ministers were introduced and women lectors.” He continued “I predicted that within 5 years, Ave Maria will be a fully charismatic college.”
He made that prediction 3 years ago.
Offers that can’t be refused
Many of those in Healy’s orbit have either spent time at Steubenville or at least adhere – often to the point of stridency - to the charismatic mentality. There also exists a certain contingent of students and staff who, to varying degrees, actively or passively adopt this mindset. The behavior and tactics employed by some of them, has caused traditional and orthodox circles at AMU to refer to those from Steubenville, their sympathetic partisans and the more zealous charismatics as “Steubenites” or the “Franciscan Mafia.” While this mafia might not fit you for a pair of cement shoes, there have been many examples of those who’ve crossed its path suffering draconian real-world consequences. Several sources without prompting have referred to a “climate of fear” created by management resulting from the manner in which they deal - at times wrathfully - with faculty and staff who are seen as going against the charismatic grain. According to some of the first hand accounts given to AQ, the sources aren't exaggerating.
In September of 2005, Father Chad Ripperger, was invited by Una Voce – a private traditional Catholic organization not affiliated with the university - to give a talk and offer an off-campus private Mass. Father Ripperger is a traditional priest with the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter (FSSP), a fully legitimate priestly society authorized by the Holy See by John Paul II. Father Ripperger, who happens to be a former student of Father Fessio’s from their days at the Ignatius institute, is described by Father Fessio as “someone whose zeal and fidelity I have the highest regard for.” The students had asked for and received permission from Father Fessio to have Father Ripperger visit. Everything seemed to be a go. Things began to go south however when news of Father Ripperger’s visit reached the desk of AMU Chaplain, Father Robert Garrity. Father Garrity telephoned Father Ripperger and informed him that if he intended to visit, Father Ripperger must concelebrate a Novus Ordo Mass. The clear implication was that if Father Ripperger refused to comply with the unusual request, the already planned and approved event would not be allowed to take place. Being that Father Ripperger (like the vast majority of his FSSP brethren) does not offer or concelebrate Novus Ordo Masses, it was impossible for him to agree to Fr. Garrity’s odd, late-breaking precondition. Father had no choice but to inform Una Voce and the students that he, regretfully, had to cancel.
Later that same month, Father Garrity would take further measures against the traditional students at AMU, whom he viewed as “divisive.” A newly formed traditional student group named “The Saint Gregory Sodality” (after Pope Saint Gregory the Great) had submitted a draft of its constitution in order to become officially recognized by the university. After reviewing the proposed constitution, in an email copied to Nick Healy and other officials, Garrity demanded a long list of unusual amendments to the constitution. In a section of the document entitled “Long Term Goals,” was a sentence which read “Assist in making the traditional Roman liturgy available on or near campus.” Garrity instructed the Sodality students to omit the sentence altogether because, he explained “the traditional Roman liturgy is celebrated here at AMU abundantly… the Mass of the Second Vatican and of its postconcilliar legislation is the traditional liturgy… therefore, this ‘Long Term Goal’ of the Sodality is currently unattainable.” In other words, the group was to abandon any and all efforts to have the traditional Mass offered anywhere near AMU because, according to Garrity, it already was being offered. Either the students were woefully ignorant of their surroundings, or Garrity had just declared the Novus Ordo (which translates literally to “New Order”) as “the traditional Roman liturgy.” Garrity would further impress the students by demanding that his appointment as Speech Tsar be constitutionally mandated. He instructed them to add to their constitution “It is for the Ave Maria University Chaplain to interpret and apply the meaning of the term ‘traditional’...” Garrity was making it clear that he and he alone was to determine the very meaning of the very word “traditional.” Further on in the email, Garrity would complete the clampdown by stating “this issue of pressing for the Tridentine Mass at AMU need not be, and is not to be, brought up again to the Chaplain or to University officials, lest divisiveness and frustration be the result. Furthermore, the Sodality is directed to refrain from any activity or speech which is deemed by the Chaplain to be divisive or misleading to other students.” With this one sentence, Garrity was telling the students that there was to be no mention of the Tridentine Mass and was appointing himself overseer of all activity and speech in regard to the singled out Sodality students. Father Garrity's intervention had effectively neutralized The Saint Gregory Sodality.
In March of 2006, two traditional students from Sodality were participating in a private, off campus event that was being sponsored by Una Voce. It was to be a series of three talks along with three Tridentine Masses. The talks and Masses were to be given by Father Demets, a traditional priest from the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter (FSSP), and were to be held on private property not belonging to AMU. The event in no way was affiliated with the university and no university priest or staff member had any authority over it. When word of the event got back to university administrators, they made every effort to nip it in the bud. One thing lead to another until the environment became so hostile that the Mass intended for the third night was called off. The beleaguered FSSP priest could have given the third and final Mass, but fearing reprisals would be taken against the students, he thought it best not to. Although Fr. Garrity had no jurisdiction over the private facility, he showed up at the location on the last night to see to it that the third Mass did not take place. For two of the students involved, there was talk of expulsion. The reason given was that they used university property (email) to spread the word of the event. Father Fessio stepped in on behalf of the students and the expulsion was averted.
One particularly disturbing incident took place in April of 2006. AMU was sponsoring a talk entitled “The Holy Father in the Holy Land.” The speakers were a combination of Christians and Jews and the topic was the visit to Israel by John Paul II. One of the students, who had been threatened the previous month with expulsion for attending the Una Voce event, attracted the attention of management when he failed to attend the talk. An investigation was launched in which acquaintances of the student were privately interviewed regarding their interactions with him in an effort to discover why he didn’t attend the talk. After the inquiry, the student and the same friend who was nearly expelled with him in March were summoned to the Father Garrity’s office, where previously prepared documents awaited their signatures. Part of the text read “I assent to these teachings of Nostra Aetate, and thereby affirm that The Jews, as a people, have not been rejected or accursed by God.” The statement was highly problematic on a number of levels, one being that anyone familiar with the text of Nostra Aetate would realize that the statement the students were to sign thoroughly distorts and embellishes what Nostra Aetate actually teaches.
The bewildered students weren’t given any reason why they were called into the chaplain’s office that day and made to sign a document (that was to become part of their permanent record) which contradicted Church teaching. They were baffled at why, at a college in America, they were being made to sign an odd, theologically flawed statement created by someone else, regarding their beliefs on the salvation of Jews. Although they reluctantly signed the statements, they to this day, regret doing so. One higher up source who was close to the situation expressed remorse over the theological inaccuracy of the document and the treatment of the students. He explained that someone at the very top of the AMU pyramid wrongly suspected the students of “anti-Semitism” and threatened not to allow them to graduate. The source went on to point out that nobody at the Orwellian document signing “ceremony” believed that the students were in any way anti-Semitic and that no evidence whatsoever of anti-Semitism had been brought against them. The source referred to the student who was at the center of the controversy as a “good kid,” and said that he was made to sign the document partly for his own protection from the top official, on whose anti-Semitic radar screen the student had happened to erroneously show up.
During the fall semester of 2006, two concerned students attended one of Fr. McAlear’s “healing” Masses and documented over 70 liturgical and rubrical omissions, abuses and inconsistencies – all before the healing portion had begun. The students describe what they witnessed as “liturgical chaos,” saying that the Mass turned into a clamorous carnival-like atmosphere with blatant disregard to the Eucharist. A band was “rocking out” to praise and worship music in the background. The two students found the experience so disturbing that they felt the need to vacate the premises. What follows is an account of what happened when they attempted to leave:
“I physically could not stand it anymore and was on the verge of tears. My friend and I left but we did not make it out the door. A student, a disciple of Fr. McAlear cornered me against a bike rack and verbally assaulted me for being on the ‘devil's side’ saying that I was an ‘enemy of the Spirit’ and that ‘Fr. McAlear was doing the direct Will of God!’ and that ‘you can write as many reports as you want, but Fr. McAlear will never falter- only your Latin will!’ He stormed off leaving me pressed up against the metal bike rack shaking.” The students sent the abuses they documented to the bishop of the Diocese of Venice, who at the time was Bishop Nevins. They never received a reply.
Just this past March, 2007, the university sponsored a retreat for 15 students to travel to a mission ranch in New Mexico. Once there, students attended a Mass where they witnessed many blatant abuses. Among other absurdities, they were made to run around in circles shouting Native American chants near the start of the Mass, then as a group they were made to sing the day’s Holy Gospel, the words of which were scrolling in “bouncy ball” fashion across Teleprompters that had been rolled in for the occasion. When two of the scandalized students brought their concerns to those who were overseeing the event, not only were they harshly rebuffed, but their retreat was cut short and the two were put on the next plane back to Florida. When Healy and others in the administration got wind of the incident, the students were severely censured and an effort was made to have them expelled. The move to expel the students ended only after Fr. Fessio stepped in on their behalf, once again saving students on the wrong side of the administration from expulsion.
Musical Chairs
Diana Silva and her husband Michael first met Father Fessio in November of 2003 at an Ignatius Press retreat house in California, when AMU was in its very first semester of classes. Father Fessio picked up on Diana’s love for sacred music and saw also that she was immensely qualified in her field, accomplishing much during her two decades of liturgical music experience. Diana holds a Master’s degree in Church Music from Westminster Choir College in Princeton New Jersey. She was on the music faculty at the University of California Davis and has sung with the New York Philharmonic and the San Francisco Symphony. The Silvas moved from California to Florida after Diana accepted an offer from Father to become the music director at AMU. Her mission would be threefold: To build a professional choir-in-residence, implement a BA program in sacred music and oversee liturgical music at the university.
Though Diana initially had high hopes of fostering the music she loved at AMU, her enthusiasm would eventually turn to discouragement. After approximately a year on the job, increasing pressure was placed on her to become more involved with “Praise and Worship” (which she considers a misnomer) music that the charismatic factions of the staff were vying for. Diana at one time had been active in the modern/folk/pop trends of liturgical music, but she had long ago left it behind. As she developed spiritually and professionally, she gravitated towards traditional chant, polyphony, classical and the like. The sacred liturgical music of the Church, unambiguously held in high regard by the deposit of faith, had become her music. Realizing that it had been all but lost, she dedicated her professional life to its restoration.
Despite there being no measurable demand for it coming from the student body, the goal of management was to have a Praise and Worship program at all costs. So at Healy's insistence, during the Spring '05 semester P&W groups were formed under Diana's supervision. The absence of enthusiasm on the part of the students became evident when they would frequently miss rehearsals and Masses, making it difficult or impossible to keep the P&W groups viable. Ignoring the near total lack of interest, Healy stubbornly pushed for even more P&W music as well as Masses.
A major setback for the music program and deep disappointment for Diana came when Father Fessio was removed from the chaplaincy. Not long after, without Diana's knowledge, Healy brought in a new P&W director specifically to oversee the music he was trying to implement. The new director and a history professor held auditions for the Praise and Worship groups, which after being formed, were given little or no supervision. No-shows and liturgical abuses/irregularities followed, as did quality assurance issues. For example, “Alleluia” numbers were put in song lists for Lent, despite the fact that the Alleluia is never part of any Catholic liturgy during the penitential season.
In Spring of 2006, Father Fessio gave a homily on the Church’s teaching regarding sacred music. Using quotes from popes from Saint Pius X up through John Paul II to gently but persuasively make his case, Father taught that the music used in liturgy should appeal to the higher nature and befit the solemnity of he sacred event at hand - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was a non-polemical and rather innocuous (not to mention 100%correct) teaching homily which Father, in his role as priest, had properly given. For whatever reason, it brought scorn from AMU higher-ups causing Father Fessio to get into hot water with them.
Then in Fall of '06, it was decided by management that P&W will be "student led," with no supervision whatsoever from the Department of Sacred Music. Eventually the student leader was unable to handle the workload and the position was given to the wife of a staff member. At this point, despite the fact that as Director of Music and Liturgy she was contractually obligated to be responsible for all liturgical music, Diana was to have absolutely no say over the P&W groups.
When Diana began at AMU under Father Fessio, the music program was developing in a way that properly dignified a Catholic higher learning institution billing itself as as bastion of Catholic orthodoxy. Since, the music program has become yet another battleground of liturgical “war” raging at AMU. After a while, Diana was made to feel like persona non grata by the administration as her career at AMU became a daily struggle with disruption and interference.
Diana submitted her resignation from AMU in November of 2006, to become effective as of June 2007. As it stands now, all musicians report to Father Garrity, who reports directly to Nick Healy.
A solid foundation or Dominos?
One of the earliest eyebrow-raising moments for AMU observers came at the unveiling of the artists’ drawings and scale model of what was to be the future main oratory at the very center of Ave Maria University and town. What was shown at unveiling ceremony - arranged in conjunction with a performance by the Vatican Choir at the Naples Philharmonic - was an imposing glass-encased structure that seemed more suited for lunar botany than Catholic worship. It was abstract and unsightly. The Ave Maria “hothouse” as it was called, was universally panned by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and provided a wealth of joke material for bloggers and print journalists.
Donors and supporters who were waiting with bated breath were, to say the very least, under whelmed. Instead of asking where to send their checks, they were asking how bird droppings, water stains and the infamous Florida mold were going to be cleaned off the hulking glass behemoth. Instead of exclaiming “how lovely!” they opted for “how expensive it will be to keep cool!”
The now scuttled oratory design was the brain-child of Tom Monaghan, founder and former CEO of Domino’s Pizza and primary benefactor of AMU.
The main reason why the novel, avant-garde proposed oratory didn’t seem at all a fitting tribute to a Catholic university is because, simply put, it wasn’t Catholic. The inspiration for its design was drawn in large part from the Mildred B. Cooper Chapel, and the Thorncrown Chapel, both in Arkansas, both Protestant and both designed by Euine Fay Jones - an apprentice of Frank Lloyd Wright. Labeling Wright’s style as “modernist” would be considered a compliment by him and his admirers, as he is affectionately referred to as “the father of modern architecture.” It is well known that he despised classical Catholic architecture. Monaghan is a long time admirer of Frank Lloyd Wright, at one point even living in a home designed by Wright. According to an August 5, 2006 article in the Naples Daily News “Each of the university buildings will be constructed in styles inspired by architect Frank Lloyd Wright.”
Although Mr. Monaghan is often referred to in the mainstream media and by those who don’t know any better as an orthodox or even a “traditional” Catholic, he has been much more aligned with charismatic movement than any elements of solid orthodoxy or tradition. In fact Monaghan’s ties to the charismatic movement go back decades. He was very involved with the Ann Arbor based "Word of God" community, an ecumenical mixed-religion charismatic group whose questionable activities have drawn investigations by both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The Church built on the Domino Farms property is fully modernist charismatic "community." Of course none of this calls into question Mr. Monaghan's love of the Lord or his politically conservative credentials, but a political conservative and a traditional Catholic are not one in the same.
Mr. Monaghan’s interior disposition becomes important when considering that his influence over the development of the university is virtually without restriction. In addition to being the main benefactor, he is school chancellor as well as CEO. He is not merely providing funding for the project and seeing to it that his investment is well spent, he is inserting himself into nearly every aspect of development, from the architecture of the buildings, to the hiring and firing of staff, to the liturgy. While Monaghan may well be a good businessman and a well meaning Catholic, many feel that he is too much the neophyte to be exerting the degree of macro-influence and micro-management over everybody and everything associated with the project. They fear that for someone who is wielding such complete control, he lacks sufficient grasp over such matters as Catholic theology, philosophy, history, liturgy and tradition. His autonomy is so screwed down and without question, that Monaghan has even taken it upon himself to design the very altar table for the oratory, an avant-garde, nouveau looking creation with three offset stones. At the time of this writing, some around him are trying to get the self-made liturgical designer to go with something more Catholic, before it’s too late. It should be noted that Mr. Monaghan, chancellor of a Catholic university, is a college dropout.
To be sure, becoming a saint doesn’t require a degree in theology or even a great deal of intelligence. In fact, a good argument could be made that worldly education and intellectual sophistication can actually become obstacles to sainthood. At issue however isn’t whether Monaghan possesses the qualities for sainthood, at issue is whether he possesses sufficient faculties to so completely lord over the founding of a Catholic academic institution. Some say that because he is using his own money to jumpstart Ave Maria University, he should do with it as he well pleases and that his autocracy has been paid for in full. This argument may hold true when establishing privately owned franchises charged with serving consumers, but does it hold true when establishing a tangible representation of the earthly Body of Christ responsible for educating young Christian minds? Unlike a private corporation in a capitalist free market, which is for the most part only the business of the board members and stakeholders, the moment Tom Monaghan announced to his Catholic brethren that he was embarking on this endeavor, it became every Catholic's business as much or more as it was his business. From the Holy Father, down to the student paying tuition and out to all of the faithful, AMU’s failures and successes belong to all Catholics. Nobody will argue that the philanthropic manner in which Monaghan is spending a huge portion of his wealth is anything but highly commendable. The concern is that his wealth has purchased for him the ability to turn a very high profile Catholic enterprise into a personal sandbox, and that he’s making crucial mistakes along the way.
As far as business acumen is concerned, a case could be made that Monaghan may be losing his touch. If donors, parents, students and faculty can be viewed as "customers," then large segments of the customer base have now been alienated or driven away. Of course, as expected secular liberals and the usual garden variety of Catholic detractors came out against the planned university while it was still only a notion. Now however, the penchant for repeated public gaffs, bloopers and at times downright bad behavior of the AMU powers-that-be have infuriated the many of the traditional and orthodox circles AMU had intended to woo. From a business model standpoint, what customers will be left to provide the student body, donation money and brain-trust? AMU can get by just fine without the approval of secular liberals, but can it get by without, orthodox, traditional and other "deep" Catholics?
Cloudy Florida Forecast
As it stands now, the new AMU campus is set to open for the Fall, 2007 semester. Although the original plan called for 600 students to be aboard for the maiden school year, only around 390 are expected. That translates to several million less in operating capital than had been anticipated. After nearly 5 years, the university still has yet to be fully accredited. In some ways this has been a blessing in disguise, as many students who had considered transferring to another school feared that some or all of their credits from AMU would be useless elsewhere. This unintended consequence however, cannot be seen as a good problem to have. It is not known if the university will operate under the local Diocese of Venice any time soon, but until that time, weddings and baptisms can't be performed.
Construction costs are far higher than initial projections, causing the project to be significantly scaled back from the original plans. Due in part to the series of hurricanes, outlays for expenses such as materials, labor and insurance have skyrocketed. Additionally, the real estate market in Southwest Florida, which was seeing a boom of historic proportions when the project began, has since taken a downturn. Where once local listings were sold before they could be entered into the MLS system, there is now a stagnant inventory of thousands of new and pre-existing area properties available to potential buyers which drop in price literally by the day. Not exactly an ideal market for agents selling the pricey Ave Maria Town properties to compete in.
The redesigned oratory, which is about 1/3 the size of the scuttled crystalline giant that birthed it, is near completion. The result is a recipe of ingredients taken from the Wright-inspired Protestant chapels fancied by chef Monaghan, combined with a handful of ideas from several sous-chef architects, mixed with various composite and natural materials which were all then blended together during several reluctant trips back to the drawing board. The final recipe now cooking in the hot Florida sun, is somewhat bluish colored and resembles a giant designer handbag. If the blogs are any indication, it doesn't seem that the AMU oratory will soon outlive its ability to elicit the colorful descriptions that began coming the moment it was fatefully unveiled. Two adjectives, however, that you won't often hear ascribed to it are "beautiful" and "Catholic."
The turnover rate for faculty and staff is extremely high. The development department is so much seen as a "revolving door" that new hires are likened to temps. In addition to the the Director of Music, other key faculty and staff have left. Father Beers, a traditionally minded staff member who has been very successful at building the pre-theologate program, has decided to put himself out to pasture by this summer. Coincidentally or not, he decided to make the decision public just a few days after the Fr. Fessio debacle. Over the past few months, some key personnel losses include its Provost, Dean of Pre-Theologate, Director of Liturgical Music, Human Resources Manager, it's magazine editor, events coordinator and others. As this story is being written, "panicked board meetings" are being called because the admissions department is in an uproar over three simultaneous high-level resignations over the past week.
Another former AMU VIP is Roger McCaffrey, the respected publisher of Roman Catholic Books and former publisher of Latin Mass Magazine. Roger relocated to Naples after Father Fessio enlisted him to assist in fundraising and publishing at AMU. In an interview with Brian Mershon of Renew America, McCaffrey, who resigned last September to pursue "attractive options elsewhere," paints a bleak picture for the university's near future. He said "Once the new semester begins, they'll move to get people off their knees for Communion, mess around more and more with the liturgy, and the self-proclaimed 'healer' priest, with his national organization, will inevitably have a widened role." Roger calls Father Fessio's firing "manifestly unjust and brutal in its execution" and asks "Is there anyone who can picture God on Nick's side in this?" He goes on to say "...the very modestly traditional liturgical life is under dire threat now, there is no chance I'd recommend Ave Maria to family or friends." Roger believes that the Fr. Fessio controversy will cost AMU not only students, but faculty as well. Phil Lawler, editor of Catholic World News, tends to agree. He told the Washington Post, "if you're a tenured professor at another Catholic university and you see this happening, you say to yourself, 'If it could happen to Father Fessio, it could happen to anyone -- so what's my incentive for going to work at Ave Maria?' " Monaghan refuses to offer faculty at AMU tenure, their positions are largely "at will." Monaghan's will to be precise.
Despite the "gag order" that has been issued campus wide since Fr. Fessio's firing, Mr. McCaffrey isn't the only disenchanted AMU player, former or current, who is singing bluesy songs that aren't music to the ears of management. Although they're under strict orders to say nothing and to refer all inquiries to Monaghan's PR guy Robert Falls (who then has no comment) students, staff and faculty realize that they live in a free country and that AMU management's control over their very will has its limits. In fact, although they choose not to be identified for obvious reasons, few are those who are not willing to discuss the goings on at the university if the intended ear is discerning. It must be noted that the faculty and staff members who have broken the imposed "code of silence" are, to a person, educated professionals who understand the concepts of employee loyalty, confidentiality and discretion. They also understand that those concepts eventually reap diminishing returns and that there is also a time to speak out.
As one source close to the faculty puts it, "the stories you're hearing about the climate of fear are true." He says that "if there has been any movement at AMU from its inception until now, that movement has been from competence to incompetence."
What now?
Despite the litany of disappointments, the general consensus among good Catholics is that they wish to see AMU succeed in a providential manner. Even the most miffed of those in the AMU realm agree that with the proper reformatory and restorative measures, AMU could possibly right itself.
As it stands now, Nick Healy and Tom Monaghan run the entire AMU show from top to bottom. Yet if their resumes were combined, no ecclesiastical credentials exist and the only educational asset that could be drawn from both would be a single graduate degree in law. Not exactly an overqualified duo when the monumental task ahead is to establish a world class Catholic higher education institution. The current condition of the Tom Monaghan/Nick Healy system could go to show that the AMU project would be better served with more diverse and capable decision making apparatus in place. Since Father Fessio's firing, there has been suggestions of Intervention by board members, donors, stakeholders, ecclesiastical authorities or any combination of adults.
The traditionally geared can only be dismayed at reports of traditional students and activities being stigmatized or cast aside. A surefire way to begin winning them back would be for AMU to offer the Tridentine Mass, but that doesn't seem likely any time soon. The head of the theology department, Father Matthew Lamb or any number of FSSP priests could offer a Tridentine Mass at any given time, but thus far, all efforts to have the Mass anywhere near AMU have been hostilely opposed by some in the administration. Even if AMU was to get the permission of the local ordinary (or potentially rely on the much anticipated Moto Proprio), university officials - namely Monaghan, Healy and Fr. Garrity - seem as though they will not allow the Tridentine right under any circumstances. Traditionalists can only wonder at the irony of Father McAlear's healing Masses being available on campus while the Mass of nearly all of our saints and popes is not. Until that prevailing wisdom changes, AMU will continue to be scratched off of traditional Catholic Christmas lists.
One thing that would greatly help to bridge the divide AMU has created between itself and many Catholic circles, would be a bit of heartfelt contrition. Catholics are a forgiving bunch, so acknowledgement of past mistakes and a sincere commitment not to keep making them would go a long way. Thus far however, the tact mostly has been to strike out or adopt a sort of bunker mentality, which only turns any rebuke - even those from potential allies - into a tar baby.
Another area that needs to be looked at is the AMU policy of attempting to force the square charismatic agenda through the round orthodox hole, particularly in regard to music and liturgy. The buzz put out was that traditional and orthodox minded types should think of AMU as top of the line for Catholic secondary education, hence, these are the types that showed up for the party. Many now feel that the red carpet rolled out has become the rug being pulled out from under them. Students recently put together a petition with the signatures of 1/3 of the student body requesting the more reverent, Fessio type Masses. The faculty (which gets nothing but high marks from all quarters) has always been seen as far more conservative and reform leaning than the staff. The current crop of students and faculty are simply disinclined towards the charismatic atmosphere that management is attempting to manufacture around them.
What also absolutely must be addressed if AMU is to be successful, is the retention of quality human assets. The university must be able to attract and retain highly educated, well formed Catholic laity and clergy as faculty and staff, so it follows that AMU would need more, not fewer, qualified experienced and orthodox priests like Father Fessio. One reason why the reaction to his firing was so strong is because he is so widely seen as what’s right with AMU. That his name was added to the growing casualty list of key players who have been run off seemed a bridge too far.
It seems that Tom Monaghan just may have fired the wrong man on that Wednesday morning.
Last edited by servitium on Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
2. In a honest environment EVERYTHING is out in the open freely and openly discussed. I understand non disclosure agreements are standard operating procedure in business these days however I have in my experience found that such agreements are meant to obfuscate and conceal nefarious behavior which is what Mr Healy appears to be engaging in to the ultimate detriment of AMU.
3. Were trads ever really welcome at AMU? Those who are orthodox and faithful have as many children as God permits therefore they would seem to be the target market for a new ostensibly orthodox college that would spring up because that's where the target market would exist. Mr Monaghan's decades long (per the article) in the charismatic movement would seem to suggest that trads were not welcome. However Fr Fessio's involvment would suggest otherwise.
Agree with JoeWebb: yes, this is important. Thank you servitium.
Based on a first reading, why does it seem to me that Monaghan is modelling his university more on Oral Roberts than on any traditional Catholic school? The stories about "Praise and Worship" sessions and the growing number of liturgical abuses are quite frightening really.
The stories about "Praise and Worship" sessions and the growing number of liturgical abuses are quite frightening really.
Amen! Praise the Lord! They sure are scary Brother VL. Don't you feel the power?
It makes me want to don a prayer shawl, blow through a shofar and get slain in the spirit, I tell ya!
I'm kidding! Couldn't resist.
But this raises an interesting question that I hadn't thought about: what kind of spirit is it that wants to "slay" people?!? Hmm. Your channelling question was right on the mark, sgnofcross.
Joined: 25 Aug 2005 Posts: 207 Location: Colorado, USA
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject:
Serv, a very good story. I pray it will be taken to heart by the AMU hierarchy.
I have a question concerning Fr. Lamb. As I recall, he was involved in an incident with an FSSP Priest, nearly coming unglued and yelling that the FSSP priest did could not offer the Traditional Mass at AMU, or words to that effect. I believe the FSSP priest was Fr. Demets, but correct me if I'm wrong.
The article stated that Fr. Lamb is willing to offer the Traditional Mass, which came as a big surprise to me, considering his very poor treatment of Fr. Demets earlier.
Has Fr. Lamb had a change of heart, or do I not have my facts straight?
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 10321 Location: Central Massachusetts
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject:
Matt C. Abbott wrote:
[I]s AMU accredited?
Not yet. It is a candidate for accreditation by the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE). A team from the AALE will make a "site visit" to AMU as the basis for the decision of whether or not to accredit the University this summer or fall when its candidacy status expires.
When it first opened, AMU started an application for accreditation for the regional Southern Association but withdrew it and has made no other progress toward it.
Thus, AMU graduates receive "unaccredited" degrees (although the State of Florida has authorized AMU to grant degrees), and they may not be able to enter certain graduate programs or schools or have difficulty trying to do so--such as the Ave Maria School of Law (currently in Michigan) which requires applicants to have an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university!
The article stated that Fr. Lamb is willing to offer the Traditional Mass, which came as a big surprise to me, considering his very poor treatment of Fr. Demets earlier. Has Fr. Lamb had a change of heart, or do I not have my facts straight?
Father Lamb is a good priest (Trappist) who sometimes lets his environment get the best of him. I've been somewhat hard on him in the past, but I've grown quite fond of him since.
He offered the Tridentine in Boston and tells me that he'd love to have the Mass at AMU. He was also one of those who signed that document by American intellectuals who lobbied for the Moto Proprio.
Students swarmed to the meeting by the hundreds. Nearly every single man, woman and child on campus – staff and student alike - showed up for the event which, as the protest earlier in the day, had not been on anyone’s Wednesday agenda. It became a packed house. There were no rafters to hang from, but there were 300-400 students present, many having to stand and sit in the aisles.
Hey, just imagine if they had held the meeting in the new oratory, all the "rafters" they could have been hanging from!!
(...makes me wonder what kind of goings-on Healy has in mind for the new festoony-framed "worship space"...) _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
Not yet. It is a candidate for accreditation by the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE). A team from the AALE will make a "site visit" to AMU as the basis for the decision of whether or not to accredit the University this summer or fall when its candidacy status expires.
When it first opened, AMU started an application for accreditation for the regional Southern Association but withdrew it and has made no other progress toward it.
Thus, AMU graduates receive "unaccredited" degrees (although the State of Florida has authorized AMU to grant degrees), and they may not be able to enter certain graduate programs or schools or have difficulty trying to do so--such as the Ave Maria School of Law (currently in Michigan) which requires applicants to have an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university!
I've attended two schools that were in the process of accreditation while I was a student. While I don't claim to know much about the process itself, I can personally attest to the tension and concern that permeates the faculty and student body amidst the procedure. The effect I saw on the administration was, that they were quick to assure everyone that nothing out of the ordinary was going on, and that the impression of a stable, trustworthy and long-lived institution was a good thing for the achievement of accreditation.
Now, if that is the case, but I don't really know if it is key or not, then the Fr. Fessio Fiasco at AMU would seem to be a major foot-in-mouth disease problem for a school trying to become accredited. It makes them look, to me that is, like a bunch of turkeys running around with their heads off. It doesn't give the impression of a school that's even worth the accreditation board's time, much less one that will perhaps cause the board's reputation to suffer if it implodes in the near future. Imagine the questions: "I sent my son there the year after you accredited the school, and look, only 3 years later and the school is abandoned! Why didn't you guys take a closer look at its chances for longevity before you gave it your approval?"
Since you say that AMU is making "no other progress toward" accreditation, it would appear that AMU is not really a serious contender for serious students. Or, perhaps Monaghan has listened too attentively to Healy, whose advice is tainted by Healy's awareness that the unorthodox movement he has in mind for the school would make it rather unpalatable even for the accreditation of a secular body. As such, AMU might be trying to "go it alone" in a world that is hostile to the model they fantasize over, and that since their work is the work of "the spirit," they say to themselves, "We don't need no stinking badges." _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
I don't know that it's fair to say that AMU is "making no further progress toward accreditation." They say they are filing their application to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools next month. The reason they give for withdrawing the application initially relates to complications involving the school's affiliate in Nicaragua, but they say this now is all worked out.
Serv, a poster at the Fumare blog wrote the following:
There is no such thing as The Catholic Educator’s Hall of Fame in Washington, DC, or anywhere else. When a priest makes such a gratuitously untrue statement as Fessio did about his induction into a non-existent hall of fame, that says a lot and none of it good.
Serv, a poster at the Fumare blog wrote the following:
There is no such thing as The Catholic Educator’s Hall of Fame in Washington, DC, or anywhere else. When a priest makes such a gratuitously untrue statement as Fessio did about his induction into a non-existent hall of fame, that says a lot and none of it good.
The article stated that Fr. Lamb is willing to offer the Traditional Mass, which came as a big surprise to me, considering his very poor treatment of Fr. Demets earlier. Has Fr. Lamb had a change of heart, or do I not have my facts straight?
Father Lamb is a good priest (Trappist) who sometimes lets his environment get the best of him. I've been somewhat hard on him in the past, but I've grown quite fond of him since.
He offered the Tridentine in Boston and tells me that he'd love to have the Mass at AMU. He was also one of those who signed that document by American intellectuals who lobbied for the Moto Proprio.
This is wonderful news! However, his past actions were very uncharitable, considering that he directed his outburst at a brother priest even more so. An apology is in order. If this take the form of a private letter to Fr. Demets, that would be fine. And Fr. Demets is a great priest, so such a letter would be warmly received. Regards. _________________ Viva Cristo Rey!
Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 26 Location: Greenville, SC
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject:
During the whole "Healing" period when it was all the rage, a group of us gathered around a table and started singing, as we were all in the Advent spirit by that time and we hammered out our theme song:
"O Father Father Richard McAlear"
-Sung to the tune of O Come O Come Emmanuel/ Veni Veni Emmanuel
Quote:
O Father Father Richard McAlear,
Your Healing Masses in us instill fear.
With Sister Gertrude standing behind,
You push us back and call it a sign.
Be healed! Be healed!
O Father McAlear,
Your Healing Masses in us instill fear!
O Father Father Richard McAlear,
Your charismatic cronies at us leer.
They slay in spirits from the dark side.
From Praise and Worship music let us hide!
Be healed! Be healed!
O Father McAlear,
Your charismatic cronies at us leer!
O Father Father Richard McAlear,
Your 'holy laughter' makes us shed a tear.
At Stella's table-altar you pray,
Not to Christ but to some deity.
Be healed! Be healed!
O Father McAlear,
Your 'holy laughter' makes us shed a tear!
O Father McAlear, OMI,
Your charismatic hands you lift up high.
Your ministers self-communicate,
And toss out Jesus for us to partake!
Be healed! Be healed!
O Richard, OMI,
Your charismatic hands you lift up high!
O Father McAlear, OMI,
We think that your disciples are all high.
Upon the ground they writhe as in pain,
Then jump up and shout that they have been slain!
Be healed! Be healed!
O Richard, OMI,
We think that your disciples are all high.
O Father McAlear, OMI,
You really are a funny funny guy.
You speak in tongues we don't understand.
You claim to act upon Divine command!
Be healed! Be healed!
O Richard, OMI,
You really are a funny funny guy!
First off, a professional and informative article. As a member of the Catholic Press, I know that your primary motivation was to investigate abuse of power and what I would even label as corruption and deceit. In fact, this is your legitimate duty. Furthermore, it is obvious that your other motivation is to improve AMU and make it successful. This needs to be stated.
I think at this point in time it is important to recall how all of this started. So let's start at the beginning. AMU was touted as a conservative, Traditional university. However, about three years ago abusive treatment directed towards good Catholic students began a sequence, or a pattern, of open hostility towards Traditionalists, and later, towards "conservatives". The first question this raises is "Why?". There are actually many answers; but only one answer is germane to this present post. Simply, they reflexively thought they could get away with it. This raises the next question, "Why did they think they could treat Traditionalists in such an uncharitable way?". The reason is because they were playing by rules that were ten years old. Back then the SSPX were considered by the ignorant as wild-eyed sedes and the FSSP was under assault from Rome. However, ten years had past and things had changed. While the neo-Catholics were busy contracepting themselves to death, Traditionalists were busy raising good Catholic children, the first large waves of which are just now maturing to adulthood. We are filling our seminaries. We have become established in the press. The fact that neo lurkers like YOU are reading this proves it more than anything. Soon we will gain more and more authority in the Church. So if a neo organization wants its members to roll around and bark like dogs, that's fine, just leave us alone. For if you want to celebrate the last few years left of the New Springtime, you simply have to learn a new rule. If you break this rule, you will bring a lot of unwanted attention to yourself and a lot of trouble upon your head. What is this new rule that you have to get used to? Simple: DON'T MESS WITH TRADITIONALISTS. _________________ Viva Cristo Rey!
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: AQ Exclusive: Story behind the story of Fr. Fessio &
servitium wrote:
Among other absurdities, they were made to run around in circles shouting Native American chants near the start of the Mass, then as a group they were made to sing the day’s Holy Gospel, the words of which were scrolling in “bouncy ball” fashion across Teleprompters that had been rolled in for the occasion. When two of the scandalized students brought their concerns to those who were overseeing the event, not only were they harshly rebuffed, but their retreat was cut short and the two were put on the next plane back to Florida. When Healy and others in the administration got wind of the incident, the students were severely censured and an effort was made to have them expelled.
Is this supposed to be a university or a nursery school?
It is ridiculous to expel students from a university because they object to running around in circles and chanting at the beginning of a Mass.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: Don't mess with traditionalists
jadep wrote:
What is this new rule that you have to get used to? Simple: DON'T MESS WITH TRADITIONALISTS.
How do we get our bishops used to this new rule?
As we all know, bishops love new rules and all manner of imaginative innovations, but this new rule could be a little different.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 1716 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject:
That was good, serv. I actually took time to read the article and hope that the "charismatic" faction at AMU will eventually die out. _________________ http://randomthoughtsasian.blogspot.com/
I have an earnest question I seek feedback on in regards to the debacle. I don't want to seem like I'm questioning the motives of any of the priests involved or their devotion to the Church and salvation of souls.
My question revolves around what's the bigger problem: claiming that the NO is the Traditional Mass by priests who are explicitly opposed to tradition, or Fr. Fessio who shows the conservative face of Catholicism and calls the Traditional Mass the Vetus Ordo (or something like that), and now the Novus Ordo is the traditional Mass by his own wording. What's the bigger problem of the 2?
We know Fr. Fessio isn't a threat in the confessional, and certainly a blessing, but what about Catholic modesty issues that have never been enforced at such schools, proper respect of traditional Catholic values and liturgical life vs. other priests who are are openly opposed to tradition (with specific exceptions mentioned previously). Both parties aren't promoters of the Traditional Mass of the Latin rite.
To me this incident is a good thing because it tears away the mask of the problems that are hidden being brought to the light. Thinking you are living the pinnacle of Catholicism at a "conservative" college that allows collective immodesty and abuses against tradition are better seen in the light.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:14 am Post subject: A perspective
mikelvsgod wrote:
Both parties aren't promoters of the Traditional Mass of the Latin rite.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king.
Better a reverent NO ad orientem and in Latin than crazy charischismatics falling all over themselves and slurring like a bunch of drunkards.
To me this incident is a good thing because it tears away the mask of the problems that are hidden being brought to the light.
We might think we have seen the problem exposed, and perhaps we have, but there might be deeper ones. These guys have been very afraid of letting something come to light, and they might have still been able to keep "it" under concealment, whatever it is. There could be more to this story, yet.
Quote:
Thinking you are living the pinnacle of Catholicism at a "conservative" college that allows collective immodesty and abuses against tradition are better seen in the light.
Hasn't this been the problem with the New Order all along? Catholics want to be loyal to the pope and what the Church teaches, so they followed along with the "changes" after Vat2, partially because it had a fancy name, aggiornamento. What the heck is aggiornamento, anyway? It's what we're supposed to do, according to "the spirit of Vatican II." Well, what's the spirit of Vat2? But the questions are never really answered. They just go around in circles, like the water in a toilet bowl.
The students at AMU have legitimate questions, and the administration is obviously giving them the run-around. They think they can put on the appearance of openness and honesty, and that's all anyone wants, is appearances. But the facade of willingness to talk conceals the real intention to disclose nothing.
The hypocrisy and duplicity hangs heavy like a deep, dank tarn... _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: Re: AQ Exclusive: Story behind the story of Fr. Fessio &
Sed Contra wrote:
What a trio of thugs.
We need a video of these clowns flopping on the floor like decked fish, during one of their "charismatic experiences."
I've noticed that one of the common features of the hoe-downs, the pow-wows (for a lack of a better term), is that they have one guy stand on the sidelines to oversee everything, and he stops people who are trying to operate video cameras. They don't want to have these things on record for some reason, from what I've seen. I went to a charismatic retreat once, and over 3 days, everyone was focused, in all their activities and prayers, on the climactic event that would take place Saturday evening. That's when they would stand in concentric circles in a dimly lit room. After wiggling and shaking their arms and rolling their heads around, sort of like loosening up, they would start to sing their theme songs and then various members would begin "speaking in tongues," which isn't at all what is in the Bible, but rather inane babbling for no purpose but to get others worked up into a feeding frenzy, or a state of madness (for lack of a better term). Anyone in the group who wouldn't get with the program would be considered a wet blanket, and the rumors would then circulate that they're the reason that session "didn't go very well." Then they would share their recollection of previous experiences where everyone had gotten into the action and it had been a lot "better."
Remember that time? Yeah, that was really "good."
I don't have any problem whatsoever imagining these three, above, rolling on the floor, babbling like ninnies. They just have that look about them...
(for lack of a better emoticon) _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
As a student and traditional Catholic at AMU, I will say that there is more involved then this article says-- its not that simple.
As somebody who believes that the "Healing" mass are fake, I must say that there is quite a bit of exaggeration of the situation here with Fr. McAlier. Nobody was "rocking out" at the healing mass. There are no drums in the liturgies here. They played guitar, yes, but the music they played were just cheezy songs like "We Fall Down" and "In the Secret", etc.-- hardly "rocking". The traditionalist Catholics on this campus feel that there is something inherently wrong with having guitar music on campus for the liturgies.
I don't want to bring a new discussion into this, but there is nothing wrong with having guitar in the liturgy. I don't think its the best kind of music to have-- I believe that Gregorian Chant, Sacred Polyphony and organ are best suited for the liturgy-- but sometimes people don't have much of an option of liturgical music other than guitar.
During the whole "Healing" period when it was all the rage, a group of us gathered around a table and started singing, as we were all in the Advent spirit by that time and we hammered out our theme song:
"O Father Father Richard McAlear"
-Sung to the tune of O Come O Come Emmanuel/ Veni Veni Emmanuel
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but I guess I do, now.
You have committed a blasphemy by dragging the melody of a sacred hymn to God, through the muck and mire of ridicule against a misguided priest.
Shame on you.
You really ought never, never substitute the words of a holy song with words meant to tease, jibe or criticize anyone, especially a priest. It makes you look bad, it gives bad example to others, and it instills a dirty connotation to the music itself, such that whenever you sing it in the future, or whenever someone who hears you sing it, hears or sings it in the future, their recollection of your foul deed comes to mind, disturbing their act of prayer that every hymn sung to God should be.
You "hammered out your theme song?" So, this garbage is something you did on a regular basis? Excuse me for saying so, but what you were wont to do is habitual blasphemy, then. That's even WORSE.
I cannot emphasize this enough. You have done a terrible thing. It is absolutely nothing to be proud of. And I have to say this in the public forum so as to let others know they shouldn't do this, either. For singing is a public act. Others can hear you. You ought to be aware that you can be heard. You ought to strive to sing that which helps others lift their souls to God, not that which takes away from their prayer. Those who sing pray twice, but those who sing blasphemy -- well, I think you get the message.
At least, I hope you do...
One of the key elements of the two major heresies in the history of the Church was the abuse of music.
Martin Luther took bar room drinking songs, replaced the words with Scripture quotations, and introduced them into his worship services. They were instant "hits." Many centuries before him, Arius was a traveling minstrel who sang his denial of the divinity of Our Lord in catchy tunes that people started to imitate, even after he left town. It was his rotten, blasphemous music that spread the Arian heresy all over Christendom.
Music, especially songs, has a tremendous power to move the human spirit. That's why the highest use of our voice is to sing the praises of God, for that's what the highest angels in heaven do.
And, likewise, our efforts in singing are never wasted when we sing songs to our Lady. Marian hymns, if you will practice, learn and share them, will help you to emerge from the morass of impurity into which you have descended, and you will emerge purified by the immaculate influence of the Mother of God. _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
In Spring of 2006, Father Fessio gave a homily on the Church’s teaching regarding sacred music. Using quotes from popes from Saint Pius X up through John Paul II to gently but persuasively make his case, Father taught that the music used in liturgy should appeal to the higher nature and befit the solemnity of he sacred event at hand - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The highlighted words are precisely what these Charischismatic thugs don't get.
As a ... traditional Catholic ... there is nothing wrong with having guitar in the liturgy.
Guitars, like all stringed instruments, are profane instruments. Profane instruments have never any place in the sacred setting of Mass. Never.
You can have a concert, even perhaps a concert in a church building, when there is no other one available, and you can use profane instruments. But you should never use them for Mass.
Never.
Properly, the human voice, a capella, is all that should be at Mass. Second to that, a pipe organ is permissible, even with the voice, but properly not with Gregorian Chant. If the singers have a problem staying in tune, there are ways of fixing that without having to rely on the organ to keep you in tune. I speak from experience. I know what I'm saying is true.
Beyond that, an electronic organ is okay, in a pinch, so long as it is made to sound like a pipe organ. It should not be adjusted or "stopped" to sound artificial or like a carousel band organ. It should not have any percussion sounds, like cymbals, drums or shaking bells. The bells shaken by the altar boy at Mass is a sound that is reserved for the altar boy, not the organist. There should never be a piano at Mass.
I was at a local piano store recently (three or four years ago), and found a vintage Steinway Concert Grand there for sale. It was among about 50 other, similar looking pianos. But this one had a most beautiful action and a full, rich sound. I could tell, by playing it, that it was a rare find. Its price tag said $35,000. That was outside my budget. But I had wished it was not. The shimmering satin black finish and the responsive, easy action of the keys gave it a feel of a rare work of art, for it practically would draw the music out of my fingers, a sensation that has to be experienced to understand. It was obviously very well maintained, having most likely been built in the 20's. I came back to the store two weeks later and found it had a "sold" tag on it. The customer's name was there. It was a priest's name, the pastor of a local parish. I later went to the church, and found this fine instrument planted firmly in the new, updated "sanctuary," where a Freemason-style square altar with the four-corners candles was shoved out into the pews like a boxing arena.
It might be a marvelous piano, but it doesn't belong in the church!
These days, you find violins, flutes, trumpets and even percussion (piano is a percussion instrument) in the NO Mass setting. This is all improper, no matter how "nice" it sounds. Even a handbell chorus is improper at Mass. It's okay for a concert, but not at Mass. The bells that the organ can play are just about the extreme limit, since the bells in the bell tower, outside, might be heard during Mass. But the organ should only use bells as a rare ornament, not as the principle melody, as a handbell chorus does. _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
Your post is spot on. It's also very coincidentally timely because in the homily mentioned in the article that got Fr. Fessio in trouble, he explains the very meaning of the word "profane." I should have linked to it in the article, here it is:
Another coincidence in your post is that the music director, Diana Silva, requested a piano in the building AMU uses as a chapel at the temporary campus only for the purpose of having a rehersal tool. The chapel is a multi purpose building.
Although he was fully aware that Diana (of course) had no intention of incorporating the piano into the liturgy, Father Fessio denied the request because he knew that if the piano was there, it would be used by others for Mass. Diana agreed with him.
The blogs: anti-charismatics lash out at Father Fessio firing
Perhaps I've just lead a sheltered life and haven't been exposed to enough of this stuff before ... but what on earth is that "Spirit Daily" site supposed to be??? There's something "spiritual" there for sure but not one (many?) that I'd care to recognize or spend time with. Disturbing to say the least.
The blogs: anti-charismatics lash out at Father Fessio firing
Perhaps I've just lead a sheltered life and haven't been exposed to enough of this stuff before ... but what on earth is that "Spirit Daily" site supposed to be??? There's something "spiritual" there for sure but not one (many?) that I'd care to recognize or spend time with. Disturbing to say the least.
I am new here. Just stumbled onto the site today. I know nothing of AMU or the controversy being discussed other than what I have read on this thread.
Note: I linked over from Spirit Daily.com.
I have questions, maybe this is not the right thread so I apologize in advance.
I do not understand the apparent disdain and even hostility to charismatic Catholics which I see in this thread. All of the charismatics I know truly love the Catholic Church and its tradition. Are there "extreme charismatics" who shun tradition, or are rebellious towards the authority of the Magisterium of the Church?
Not trying in any way to be contentious, just trying to appreciate the percieved POV/attitude, towards a certain group, which I find incongruous with the practice of Catholic Christianity.
Give me one document, one Pope that says that the guitar is a "profane instrument".
Second, in case you didn't know, prior to Vatican II stringed instruments were all over the place, and this wasn't wrong. In fact, even at the Latin Mass at AMU stringed instruments, horns, trumpets, etc. are occassionally used. The traditionalist Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius use orchestral instruments as well. Is it wrong? Absolutely not!
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
"120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.
But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."
I agree that organ is best (as is clearly laid down in Sacrosanctum Concilium), but this doesn't mean that guitars are "profane instruments". If you mean "profane" in that it is a popular secular instrument right now, so was organ at one time. Of course, organ has built its tradition within the church, and it is found to be the best instrument to be used for the liturgy. This does not mean that other instruments are bad. In fact, in this same document, they say that traditional instruments of other peoples may be used:
119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.
Therefore, when missionaries are being given training in music, every effort should be made to see that they become competent in promoting the traditional music of these peoples, both in schools and in sacred services, as far as may be practicable.
Again, this is acceptable, though not the best.
If you were to be in a parish where they sang poor Gregorian chant, had a horrible organist, and nobody in the music department could read music, do you think it would be better to have no music, or guitar music? I would choose the latter. Music plays a crucial role in the liturgy-- it lifts our souls to God. Dom Jaques Hourlier quotes Henri Davenson in his book Reflections on the Spirituality of Gregorian Chant:
"Becasue music can affect our feelings or sentiments, it falls into the realm of psychology. And, beyond this, the mind, worked on by these feelings, forms value-judgements and ideas. In the end, the soul knows it has been enriched. All this is what we refer to when we talk about the spirituality of music, a spirituality that simultaneously involves feelings, value-judgements, and ideas."
So clearly, given that the music does not lead us to secular, carnal emotions (as is stated later), what is wrong with having guitar music in the liturgy?
Even Cardinal Arinze said in a Inside the Vatican issue:
"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar. That would be rather severe. But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, the visit of a special group, etc."
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with having guitar music. Its not the best? It's not. Is there higher music out there? Yes. This does not mean that we should ban guitar music period, however. I would prefer well-done Gather hymns over poorly-sung Adoremus hymns any day.
This is not entirely true. Fr. McAlear occasionally imports a praise and worship group from Rochester, NY (I think) for his healing Masses. They bring drums. Also, there are Panis Vitae retreats during the year where drums are used. So while AMU groups do not use drums, outside groups which come in for liturgies do use them. How the Chaplain's office justifies such a double standard has never been explained.
Are there "extreme charismatics" who shun tradition, or are rebellious towards the authority of the Magisterium of the Church?
The first part of your question is easy to answer: read the article at the top of this thread. It will tell you all that you need to know.
The second part of your question is more difficult to answer. It depends on what one means by "the authority of the Magisterium of the Church". The Charischismatic thugs at AMU a) equate "the authority of the Magisterium of the Church" with "the Spirit of Vatican II", b) identify those who oppose "the Spirit of Vatican II" as "rebels", and c) deal with said "rebels" with the thuggish expedience of a Skull and Bones disciplinary reprisal.
...in the homily mentioned in the article that got Fr. Fessio in trouble, he explains the very meaning of the word "profane." I should have linked to it in the article, here it is:
I wouldn't be too surprised if we are getting to the real crux of the matter. Music is extremely powerful. And for those who would reform and remold the Church into some kind of whacko NewAge hootenanny or whatever, they absolutely could not do it without a simultaneous change in the music.
If the music is sacred, the Mass will never be corrupted, in general. The two do not coexist. When the Modernists rolled through New York like General Sherman on parade, what they did, primarily, was to whisk away the patrimony of sacred hymns.
It's happening still, all around us, but it had to happen in New York first, apparently. I have a friend who saw boxcars filled with sheet music and taken to an incinerator in 1965. New York City.
Quote:
...the music director, Diana Silva, requested a piano in the building AMU uses as a chapel at the temporary campus only for the purpose of having a rehearsal tool. The chapel is a multi-purpose building.
Although he was fully aware that Diana (of course) had no intention of incorporating the piano into the liturgy, Father Fessio denied the request because he knew that if the piano was there, it would be used by others for Mass. Diana agreed with him.
Another tragedy of our times. Pianos are wonderful things, especially for rehearsal, because they hit the note on tune and (played properly) in time. It's very effective at getting the voice directed and then fading out to leave the voice sustained. But the piano does not belong in the Mass.
It's really a shame that merely having a piano on hand would then result in it being brought into the chapel for Mass. That is definitely a problem with the administration. No question whatsoever!
P.S. This is really freaking me out, because an accompanist I knew, who could play organ very well, but also piano, passed away a few years ago from cancer. She was a heavy smoker. Due to her influence, a baby grand piano was placed up near the altar at the local NO parish. Her name was Sylvia Diana. Is that a coincidence or what? Almost an exact reversal of "Diana Silva," and almost a complete reversal of musical sensibility or whatever-you-call-it. _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
Give me one document, one Pope that says that the guitar is a "profane instrument".
...
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
...
Even Cardinal Arinze said in a Inside the Vatican issue:
...
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with having guitar music. Its not the best? It's not. Is there higher music out there? Yes. This does not mean that we should ban guitar music period, however. I would prefer well-done Gather hymns over poorly-sung Adoremus hymns any day.
I have a new name for the worst headache: a Brambila Headache!
Because that's what you're giving me. Congratulations.
Sacrosanctum Concilium? Cardinal Arinze? Give me a break!
You don't have to explain to me next, that you're irreformable. Why don't you go to AMU? Nick Healy would no doubt love to have you around. You could hang out with him, perhaps even roll around on the floor, "slain in the spirit" with him. How lovely.
NOT. _________________ Intercednte smper Vrgine Dei Genitrce Mara
The blogs: anti-charismatics lash out at Father Fessio firing
Perhaps I've just lead a sheltered life and haven't been exposed to enough of this stuff before ... but what on earth is that "Spirit Daily" site supposed to be??? There's something "spiritual" there for sure but not one (many?) that I'd care to recognize or spend time with. Disturbing to say the least.
I am new here. Just stumbled onto the site today. I know nothing of AMU or the controversy being discussed other than what I have read on this thread.
Note: I linked over from Spirit Daily.com.
I have questions, maybe this is not the right thread so I apologize in advance.
I do not understand the apparent disdain and even hostility to charismatic Catholics which I see in this thread. All of the charismatics I know truly love the Catholic Church and its tradition. Are there "extreme charismatics" who shun tradition, or are rebellious towards the authority of the Magisterium of the Church?
Not trying in any way to be contentious, just trying to appreciate the percieved POV/attitude, towards a certain group, which I find incongruous with the practice of Catholic Christianity.
Thanks for indulging my perhaps naive first post.
What you should do is perform a search through AngelQueen using the words "Medjugorje", "Charismatics" and "Franciscan University". http://angelqueen.org/forum/search.php Type my name in the "search for author" box. You will come across a few highly informative articles and comments that'll fully answer your questions and explain in detail why many of us "rad trads" oppose or have a few legitimate problems with the Charismatic movement.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 47 Location: Ave Maria, FL
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: AQ Exclusive: Story behind the story of Fr. Fessio & AMU
Matthaei wrote:
Brambila wrote:
Give me one document, one Pope that says that the guitar is a "profane instrument".
...
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
...
Even Cardinal Arinze said in a Inside the Vatican issue:
...
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with having guitar music. Its not the best? It's not. Is there higher music out there? Yes. This does not mean that we should ban guitar music period, however. I would prefer well-done Gather hymns over poorly-sung Adoremus hymns any day.
I have a new name for the worst headache: a Brambila Headache!
Because that's what you're giving me. Congratulations.
Sacrosanctum Concilium? Cardinal Arinze? Give me a break!
You don't have to explain to me next, that you're irreformable. Why don't you go to AMU? Nick Healy would no doubt love to have you around. You could hang out with him, perhaps even roll around on the floor, "slain in the spirit" with him. How lovely.
NOT.
Matthaei,
Brambila IS a student at AMU. Go gently, she (he?) provided Church documents and quotes for her side, and asked you to provide some for your side, and you didn't. She also stated she is a trad, not a Charischismatic. Read carefully. Not that I'm against you in this part of the debate, but it needs to be done right. Proper debate requires facts and supporting evidence; please provide.
Servitium:
WELL DONE! The underlying cause is starting to show much more clearly. I hope the secular press (especially in Southwest FL) picks this piece up and runs with it. Being mentioned in the article was a little scary, but I've posted that information in prior threads on AQ and certainly stand behind them. As we've said before, it'll take a major change to get Monaghan to turn the battleship around. Hopefully, full disclosure like this AQ exclusive will shed light and dispel the darkness. Well done, again.
I have a new name for the worst headache: a Brambila Headache!
Because that's what you're giving me. Congratulations.
Sacrosanctum Concilium? Cardinal Arinze? Give me a break!
You don't have to explain to me next, that you're irreformable. Why don't you go to AMU? Nick Healy would no doubt love to have you around. You could hang out with him, perhaps even roll around on the floor, "slain in the spirit" with him. How lovely.
NOT.
That is so completely uncalled for. You owe Brambila , who has posted reasonable comments (even if you disagree) and who has behaved with nothing but charity, an apology.
Give me one document, one Pope that says that the guitar is a "profane instrument".
Brambila, you might want to check out Tra le Sollecitudini, the Instruction on Sacred Music promulgated by Saint Pope Pius X on November 22, 1903. In part, the Saint proclaimed:
Saint Pope Pius X wrote:
VI. Organ and instruments
15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.
...
19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the placeprovided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.
Brambila wrote:
Second, in case you didn't know, prior to Vatican II stringed instruments were all over the place, and this wasn't wrong. In fact, even at the Latin Mass at AMU stringed instruments, horns, trumpets, etc. are occassionally used. The traditionalist Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius use orchestral instruments as well. Is it wrong? Absolutely not!
I have already disproved your first claim. As I have elaborated upon elsewhere on this forum, it is my considered opinion, based upon extensive personal experience, that the gang at Saint John Cantius are not Traditionalists by any stretch of the imagination. They are "reverent" modernists at best.
Brambila wrote:
If you were to be in a parish where they sang poor Gregorian chant, had a horrible organist, and nobody in the music department could read music, do you think it would be better to have no music, or guitar music? I would choose the latter. Music plays a crucial role in the liturgy-- it lifts our souls to God.
Smoking a nice cigar while sipping a good single malt lifts my soul to God, but I don't insist on firing up a Fuentes Canone and slurping a Speyside in Church. Why should your personal fetishes be indulged if mine are not?
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Next
Page 1 of 6
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I'm kidding! Couldn't resist.
