After priest refuses to accept changes in the Mass, Belleville Diocese forces him to resign
MT. CARMEL -- After 47 years as a priest, and at least two decades of straying from the Roman Catholic Missal by ad libbing parts of the Mass, the Rev. Bill Rowe of St. Mary's Church has resigned under pressure from his bishop.
Why? Because he doesn't agree with new changes in the Mass ordered by the Vatican through the adoption of a reworked version of the Roman Missal that is said to bring the Mass closer to much earlier Latin versions of what must be said by a priest.
Rowe, 72, was called to a meeting in early October at the Belleville home of Bishop Edward Braxton. Rowe said that at the time Braxton told him that he could not change even small parts of what a Catholic priest is supposed to say during the portions of the Mass that are controlled by the Missal.
Rowe said Braxton told him to "think about it" for three days and then write him a letter. Rowe said he sent the letter on Oct. 12 stating he could not accept what Braxton wanted but did not want to resign or retire. He said he did not receive a response until just a few days ago in a letter from Braxton, accepting his resignation. Rowe will leave in June after his successor has been installed.
Neither Braxton nor a spokesman for the diocese could be reached for comment.
Rowe said that during the
most recent Sunday Mass at St. Mary's, "That as best as I can remember," he said near the opening of the Mass, "We thank you God, for giving us Jesus who helped us to be healed in mind and heart and proclaim his love to others."
Rome's new missal required him to instead say, "Lord our God that we may honor you with all our mind and love everyone in truth of heart."
Rowe said he made small changes to make what he was saying "more understandable and more meaningful to parishioners."
Rowe said he has been ad libbing small parts of the Missal since the 1980s and was once warned by former Belleville Bishop Wilton Gregory that he was "pushing the envelope." Gregory is now the archbishop of the Catholic Diocese of Atlanta.
As for what he will do after his career as head of a parish ends, he said, "Maybe I'll run a soup kitchen." Despite his retirement, Rowe will remain a priest.
For the full story, read tomorrow's News-Democrat or go online at www.bnd.com.
Poll:
Should a priest be allowed to change the words he says during Mass?
Yes, if it offers better understanding for parishioners.2772
49%
No, rules of the church are set by a higher authority than the priest.2857
50%
No opinion.70
1%
Total Votes: 5699
Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2012/02/03/2043611/after-priest-refuses-to-accept.html#storylink=cpy
January 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – What’s more newsworthy: that several hundred thousand people converged on Capitol Hill in the midst of a cold rain in the middle of January in order to protest abortion, or that a tiny handful of pro-abortion counter protesters showed up as well?
Here’s another question: are attendees at the March for Life primarily young, vibrant, joyful and peaceful, or are they mostly old and filled with wrath?
Because you can hardly take two steps at the March for Life without seeing an angry nun yelling at a pro-abortion protester, right? (To be fair, this nun is probably saying something as offensive as, "I'll pray for you. Would you like my umbrella?")
For anyone who’s been to the March, the answers are obvious. But it seems that wherever a Washington Post reporter goes, reality undergoes the most unexpected changes.
In its photo montage of yesterday’s March for Life, the Post focused primarily on a tiny cadre of pro-abortion counter protesters that gather every year on the steps of the Supreme Court (mostly, I am convinced, just so that the mainstream media has pro-abortion counter protesters to photograph): a group so small that, if you weren’t looking carefully, you would probably miss it. Those photos that aren’t of the counter protesters are mostly of older pro-lifers yelling at the pro-aborts, praying at the pro-aborts, or clutching rosary beads or pictures of Mary near the pro-aborts.
The caption on one of the Post’s photo reads “Freezing rain Monday morning was said to have limited attendance for both groups.” In response to which Media Research Center writer Tim Graham quipped: “Yes, Post readers: the pro-lifers were limited to many thousands, and the abortion advocates were limited to about 11. The ratio could be a thousand to one, and the newspaper treats them like one versus one.”
But I suppose we can at least give the Post credit for covering the event at all. The Media Research Center (MRC) reports that the New York Times completely ignored the event for the fifth year in a row.
Passed in 1994 as a way to limit violence outside abortion clinics, the FACE [Freedom of Access to Clinics] Act has been used with greater frequency in recent years.
Since the start of President Barack Obama’s administration in 2009, the Justice Department has filed eight cases under the FACE Act, a sharp increase from the one case filed during the previous eight years.
Mary Susan Pine was one of those eight.
In August 2010 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed a civil suit against Pine, accusing her of violating the FACE Act.
And on January 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case – with some interesting observations.
Pine is a post-abortive mother who has conducted sidewalk counseling at the Presidential Women’s Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, since 2001.
Pine stands at the marked exit of the mill, because the entrance is only accessible by a private road. Pine hopes to reach abortion-minded mothers who are coming in the wrong way, or perhaps service vehicles. Pine seeks to educate whoever she comes in contact with through conversation and pamphlets.
The court document states, “It is undisputed that Ms. Pine has never used obscenities or physical threats.” But she is obviously an aggravant to the mill.
On November 29, 2009, Pine was conducting sidewalk counseling as usual, coincidentally and poignantly on the anniversary of the day she had her abortion.
For an unstated reason West Palm Beach Police Officer Sanjay Raja “had positioned himself so that he could observe Ms. Pine,” according to the court document.
Raja thought he saw Pine force an incoming vehicle to stop by standing in front of it. The driver rolled down the window, and Pine handed he and his female passenger information and engaged them in conversation.
Raja approached them and told the driver to move along because he was impeding traffic. Raja never interviewed the driver, nor did he take down the license number of the vehicle.
The court document then states: “The day after the incident… representatives from the Department of Justice met with the PWC staff, Officer Raja, and another police officer to discuss the incident and determine whether Ms. Pine was in violation of FACE” and obviously decided to move forward. But meanwhile PWC destroyed any surveillance video of the incident.
In other words, the DOJ decided to prosecute Pine with no evidence.
This entire scenario not only sounded fishy to me, it sounded fishy to the court, which wrote in its opinion:
It is rather curious that the Department of Justice was able to meet with the PWC staff and police officers the very next day after the alleged violation occurred. It is also curious that the Government failed to make any efforts to obtain the identities of the passengers who are the alleged victims in this case – the Court finds it hard to believe that the Government was completely unaware of the existence of the sign-in sheets and video surveillance system.
The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and the PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct. If this is the case, the Court would be inclined to sanction the Government with, at a minimum, an adverse inference. Given the absence of further evidence substantiating the Court’s suspicions, the Court is not authorized to do so.
In dismissing the case the Court added it was “at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place.”
I’m not. I expect in years to come it will be revealed that the Obama DOJ sent letters to abortion clinics around the country soon after he came to office, inviting them to provide names of problem pro-lifers so it could attempt to intimidate them and chill their First Amendment rights.
Pro-lifers thank Liberty Counsel for representing Mary. And we also honor Mary for being one of those who bear the brunt of pro-abortion harassment.
Posted by Justin Kendall on Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:06 AM
In late November, a whistle-blower named Larry Probst accused the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph of fostering a "sexually hostile workplace." Two months later, Probst is the latest person to file a lawsuit against the diocese. See the official suit here...
Probst worked at the diocese as a part-time archivist at the Chancery office. He started in 1999 or 2000 on an intermittent basis and then "on a more regular, permanent, part-time basis" in 2007. His lawsuit says the "unwanted and unwelcome sexual harassment from his supervisory priests" and from a co-worker started in spring 2010 and continued until June 30, 2011, when he was fired for what he claims was retaliation for complaining about the unwanted advances.
The lawsuit says the Rev. Charles Michael Coleman, who served as Archivist for the Chancery, hired his friend, a man named Michael St. George, to do data entry from the sacramental records into a computer program called "Parish-Soft." The lawsuit alleges that Coleman and the Rev. Robert Cameron "fawned over" St. George in front of Probst. The lawsuit says Coleman, Cameron and others would talk "about St. George in sexually suggestive ways ... in the presence of" Probst.
The lawsuit also alleges that St. George made unwanted sexual advances toward Probst, creating "a sexually hostile work environment."
Probst's lawsuit says the sexual harassment included:
a. Sexually offensive comments from St. George such as “I don’t date someone with a hatchet wound,” referring to a girlfriend of a co-worker.
b. Sexually offensive comments from St, George about removing pornography from his computer desktop before he could allow a Parish Soft technician access to his computer.
c. Sexually offensive advances and gestures from St. George such as arching up and grabbing his crotch while riding in a vehicle with Plaintiff at the request of Father Coleman.
d. Sexually offensive comments from Father Coleman, such as about games men play where the loser has to “service” the other men under the table.
e. Sexually offensive comments from Father Cameron such as that St. George could “cum in my hand.”
The lawsuit also alleges that St. George used a diocesan computer in the archives to read sexually explicit personal e-mails with messages such as "A Big Fat Cock" and a story about how a guy liked having sex in a bathroom.
Probst reported the e-mail to Coleman in summer/fall 2010. Coleman was allegedly concerned only that the e-mail be deleted so St. George's job would be spared. Probst also reported "the sexually offensive advances, comments and materials" to diocesan communications director Rebecca Summers in January or February 2011.
The lawsuit says Probst raised the issue with others in early 2011. Court records say he told Monsignor Blacet in February. In March, he told diocesan priest Phil Luebbert. He also told the diocese's chief financial officer, Dave Malanowski, in March that he was concerned about St. George's role. Malanowski allegedly told Probst that he did "not want to get into relational issues" between Coleman and St. George.
On March 18, 2011, Probst reported the "sexually hostile environment" created by St. George and the advances made by St. George to Bradley Offutt, the chancellor of the diocese, the lawsuit says. Probst told Offutt that he'd reported the behavior but it "was overlooked, tolerated and sanctioned by" Coleman. Offutt allegedly tried to dissuade Probst from coming forward and warned Probst that he could lose his job. Probst went ahead with his complaint, showing Offutt a screen capture of an offending e-mail left open on St. George's computer. The lawsuit says Offutt put the screen grab in an envelope, which he forwarded to the diocesan human resources director Rhonda Stucinski and management information services director Julie Creech.
Probst's lawsuit says he was "ostracized at work by co-worker and priests in the Chancery office" after making the complaints.
The lawsuit says the diocese's answer to St. George looking at sexually explicit e-mails on a computer was to give St. George a new login, giving him exclusive and protected access to the computer. The diocese also informed Probst in May 2011 that his job was being eliminated due to a lack of funding. Probst's last day was June 30, 2011. The next day, the diocese hired a woman to work part time in the archives.
We're often told that the homosexual problem in the Church doesn't exist. Don't believe it! In England and Wales a 2003 survey of priests where over half responded disclosed that 53% thought ordaining practicing homosexuals was fine and dandy. Fact is, the homosexual cabal is still active in many dioceses. Here's the latest in Kansas City-St. Joseph where a former employee, Larry Probst, is suing the diocese for a sexually hostile work environment. Probst was an archivist in the chancery and describes homosexual harassment by priests as well as sexually charged and lewd comments.
This problem will continue as long as homosexuals are admitted to the priesthood. Keeping it secret, as Cardinal-elect (at the time) William Levada suggested in 2006 is hardly the answer. In an address given during the installation of the new rector for the North American Pontifical College in Rome, Levada stated that a priest who reveals his homosexuality "places an obstacle to his ability to represent Christ the bridegroom to his bride, the people of God." He asked the question, "Does he not see how his declaration places him at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity?"
Levada's words are a head scratcher. Does he really believe the spousal nature of the bridegroom/priest to his bride/the Church is less compromised when the priest keeps his disordered nature secret? That's like claiming a disordered man who identifies as homosexual can keep his secret and marry a woman -- like infamous sex abuser Rudy Kos. His former wife warned Church authorities about his homosexuality before he was admitted to the seminary. They ignored her.
But Levada's speech makes one wonder. How many hidden homosexuals are serving the Church? How many are practicing? I've heard homosexuals argue that celibacy, which they define as not having relations with a woman, doesn't apply to them. And they appear to believe it if the claims in Probst's lawsuit are true.
(From The Irish Catholic Marist Messenger and Mar '59, Our Lady's Digest)
A winter's night already thrown its black pall over the quays of Dublin when an urgent ringing of the presbytery door bell of one of the city parishes brought its aging pastor quickly to his feet.
It was so dark that he could scarcely distinguish the form of a woman on the doorstep. She spoke rapidly, as if anxious to be gone. "A poor man," she said, "was dying very far down, beyond the great jetty of the North Wall.
A priest was needed. There was not time to lose." And, having delivered her message, she sped away into the night. "I will go myself," murmured the old priest, peering after the retreating figure.
There were no buses in those days, and the tram cars did not go along the quays, so he set out on foot.
It was very dark and he seemed to be walking a long time but he was heedless of fatigue as he clasped the Blessed Sacrament to his heart with one hand and carried the Holy Oils in the other.
His sole guide was the lighthouse flashing every two seconds across the bay. The tide rose high on either side of the jetty on which he walked, and it was the sound of the waves rather than anything he could see which led him at last to a group of fishermen's cottages.
"My question is about attending the new Mass. I find it very unnerving to attend this Mass as I feel that it is more of a social hour than time I can spend with my Lord and assisting at Mass. Besides I always attended a Mass said in Latin and with people who dressed respectfully for our Lord and women who covered their heads in respect. So my question to you is how do I go to this new Mass not really feeling like I'm attending Mass. I feel like I am just doing this for show."
LH
ANSWER
Dear LH,
First, thank you for the courage it took to ask about the Elephant in the Room that everyone sees and no one wants to talk about. Even our priests. Especially our priests — and more especially our bishops who are too deeply involved in other things of a more ... social nature, and decidedly more pressing than the salvation of souls.
The short answer:
Buy a 1962 Roman Missal (available from Baronius Press and other publishers), go to page 9, the "Liturgical Calendar", find the month and date of the Mass for the forthcoming Sunday (or weekday), hunker down in a back pew and open it to pages 889 - 896 ("Preparation for Holy Mass") BEFORE Mass begins.
When Mass proper begins, do as the rest of the congregation does (if kneeling is not practiced — yes, we know, incredible, but it happens — kneel anyway when you know you should — especially during the Canon of the Mass when the species of bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Most Holy Body and the Most Precious Blood of Christ during the Holy Eucharist, and after receiving Him in Holy Communion — even if everyone just sits and drapes their arms over the backs of the pews). You have no obligation to join in singing that you are "The Light of the World" (you probably do not esteem yourself to be so, and neither do I) or, in fact, any other maudlin ditty. At times of singing, you can quietly read or re-read the Gospel or Epistles in your Roman Missal — fiercely focusing on them to drown out the strident singing and the banging of the drums and piano. Or you could simply close your eyes, intent upon your presence at the foot of the Cross before which you stand at Mass. This requires holy focus. Pray to Mary. She will help you. While it appears that everyone is paying attention to virtually everyone else except Christ — you are paying attention to God through either the Readings in your Missal or your place under the Cross.
MT. CARMEL -- After 47 years as a priest, and at least two decades of straying from the Roman Catholic Missal by ad libbing parts of the Mass, the Rev. Bill Rowe of St. Mary's Church has resigned under pressure from his bishop.
-time archivist at the Chancery office. He started in 1999 or 2000 on an intermittent basis and then "on a more regular, permanent, part-time basis" in 2007. His lawsuit says the "unwanted and unwelcome sexual harassment from his supervisory priests" and from a co-worker started in spring 2010 and continued until June 30, 2011, when he was fired for what he claims was retaliation for complaining about the unwanted advances.
The lawsuit says the 
Probst's lawsuit says the sexual harassment included:
social nature, and decidedly more pressing than the salvation of souls.
