What do the Bishops Say about CITI/Rentapriest?--Chapter Two

The question, "What do the Bishops say about CITI/Rentapriest?" has been asked, especially by conservative Catholics and the media. Our experience with bishops since 1992 has been a positive one. Only one, however, has made a public statement supporting of our work. In the early days of CITI's existence, I was introduced to Bishop Michael Kenny of Alaska. I wrote and sent him materials. He responded that he would be happy to serve as a "behind the scenes" board member. He unfortunately died of a brain aneurysm several months later. While attending a workshop at a Directors of Religious Education Conferences (DRE) in Washington, D.C., I asked a pertinent question at the end of Bishop McCarthy's talk, and at the same time introducing myself and Rentapriest to him and the audience. After he responded, he pointed his finger at me and in front of 350 people said, "Don't stop what you're doing. God bless you." On another occasion in the late 1990s, I was on my way back to the airport after attending the Call to Action Conference in Milwaukee, WI. The only other passenger on the airport shuttle bus was Bishop Raymond Lucker of New Ulm, MN. I was aware of the tremendous shortages of priests in his diocese and so during our conversation, I asked the Bishop what he would do if we placed married priests in some of his priestless parishes. He replied, "Oh, I would have to stop it." I then asked, "What if no one complained?" He said, "I would look the other way." I contacted one of the married priests in the area and asked for names of parishioners so that I could call them. Unfortunately, the married priest was unsure and called Bishop Lucker for his approval. Naturally, the Bishop said, "No." His public approval would have sent a red flag to Rome. (Lucker was obviously saying, "Just do it!" but don't ask/tell me about it.) For several years, one Maine married priest has celebrated Mass, at the request of the congregation, when the regular priest presider is not available. The Bishop has known and does nothing, presumably because he is aware that his flock is well taken care of. A later meeting with an East Coast bishop revealed that he refused to accept into his diocese, married priest converts from other religions in protest of priests who married. I applauded his position. During the very early days of CITI, I attended one of the Bishops' Conferences and met with a midwestern Archbishop. I was really curious about the injustice (I felt) between the use of married priest converts, while priests who married lost their "faculties" in the church. When asked "Why?", the Archbishop responded, "Resentment." I said, "Resentment? What do you mean?" He replied, "When a priest is in discernment about whether to leave and get married or stay in the clerical priesthood, there's a lot of love and understanding on the part of the church. But, when he walks out that door, 'resentment' sets in." I thought, what a strange attitude from Jesus' representatives on earth. So, the bottom line messages are: 1. "Mandatory celibacy" is about "resentment" for those who have the integrity to leave when they struggle with lack of intimacy or they fall in love. (We certainly have heard enough stories since 2002 about priests who hide behind the collar and abuse women and children.) 2. If a parish is without a priest for Eucharist, especially during the holidays/holydays, they can invite a married Roman Catholic priest to celebrate, without obtaining permission from anyone. Just do it! According to Canon Law, the bishops have an obligation to the people of God, to provide sacramental ministry and if they cannot send a cleric, a married priest in your congregation will do...and chances are, the bishop will look the other way. #30