ARTICLES

It Was Us Against Them

Does Mahony Want A Priestless Church?

By Robert Kumpel

"What some refer to as a 'vocations crisis'' is, rather, one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, a sign of God's deep love for the Church, and an invitation to a more creative and effective ordering of gifts and energy in the Body of Christ." So wrote Roger Cardinal Mahony in As I Have Done for You, A Pastoral Letter on The Ministry, issued last year. According to some, though, the vocations crisis in the archdiocese of Los Angeles is the fruit of a concerted effort to weed out orthodox applicants to the local seminary.

Younger priests and dismissed seminarians have complained that St. John's routinely questions applicants about their approval of women's ordination, dismissing those who express their opposition to it. One former archdiocesan seminarian said that seminarians must face a "litmus test" before they can hope to get through the door at the seminary.

Kurt (not his real name) was one of many seminarians asked to leave St. John's seminary for "psychological reasons." "I was dismissed for my doctrinal views -- my theology was suspect," he said. "What was really frustrating was, that in the seminary, you have no rights, because nobody has the right to Holy Orders. The seminary faculty holds all the cards."

One of the seminary's major 'card-holders' is vocations director, Sister Kathy Bryant. "The archdiocese, back in the 80s and early 90s, had the team of Father Dick Martini and Sister Kathy Bryant," said Kurt. "They were the co-directors of vocations. Officially, Sister Kathy oversaw women's vocations, but at the time, Cardinal Mahony had her as co-vocational director and co-screener for male vocations as well -- a case of reverse-discrimination. If a man from a parish wanted to be on the screening committee for the Sisters of St. Joseph or another order, of course, they would scream bloody murder; yet these women, who know absolutely nothing about what it is to be a priest, are judging the worthiness and fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

"Sister Kathy had an agenda about what kind of priest they'd be sending out into the field and what kind of seminarian they wanted at St. John's -- you know, 'collaborative ministry,' 'empowered laity' and all that stuff. [Seminarians] were asked, 'do you receive communion on the tongue or in the hand?' 'Do you genuflect?' 'Do you say the rosary?' 'What do you think about the pope?' 'How do you feel about women priests?' 'What would you change if you were pope for a day?' These questions, for somebody who was not 'seminary-wise,' somebody who was just coming off the street -- Joe Sixpack, who has no idea that there is such a battleground in American seminaries -- if he answers honestly, as most young men will -- he's screwed. If he indicates in any way that he's loyal to the magisterium of the Church, or to the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ, that he doesn't have any problem with defending the moral teachings of the Church, that would definitely make him suspect. He wouldn't even make it past the starting gate."

Kurt said that "some of the seminarians just learned to play the game. It's a liberal regime that demands absolute conformity to their likes, preferences, whatever it might be. This wonderful self-proclaimed era of liberalism and renewal has actually become a very oppressive regime in the seminary. They don't just want your bodies; they want your souls. Faculty members would say, 'we want you to be open with us, share your views, think critically, don't just accept everything we say...' and all that. But what they said and what they practiced were very different things. Even though pluralism was one of the banners from Vatican II that they flew whenever it was convenient, they did not live it. They felt themselves completely free to dissent from Church teaching; but there was absolutely no room for students who dissented from their views and their positions.

"It's rigid liberalism. The caricature of the conservative seminarian for the last 20 years has been that he's 'rigid,' 'reactionary,' and 'unbending -- this litany of monstrous, unforgivable sins against the Holy Spirit that the liberals are forever lamenting. But for them, it's 'do as I say, not as I do.' It's like a concentration camp. By and large, from the most liberal to the most conservative seminarians, there was a spirit of fraternity, because it was 'us against them.'"

Kurt said that spirituality at the seminary "has been completely replaced by the secular science of psychology. (Now you have the encroachment of eastern religions and eastern mysticism because people are hungry for an authentic, classical spirituality. Psychology just doesn't nourish the soul.) If a seminarian exhibits doctrinal or theological tendencies that are regarded as 'dangerous,' spiritual counseling or guidance is not used, but psychology. It is actually an abuse of psychology. The faculty's agenda for what kind of students they want and do not want is brazen. Students are dismissed, not told the real reason, and not allowed to see their file.

"There was a story in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, called, "The Vocations Crisis: A Self-Inflicted Wound." The writer was a psychologist for the New York City police department and, for a time, was one of the screening psychologists for the archdiocese of New York. This doctor writes that seminary students are sent to a psychologist because they are 'rigid' or 'have problems dealing with women' or 'have problems with homosexuality.' The writer points out that psychology is abused, because the archdiocese pays the psychologists that most seminaries use, so these psychologists are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. In other words, the rector, vocations advisor, whoever, tells the psychologist, 'what we want your findings to be is this. This is what we want you to hear. Do whatever tests you want to; what we want from you is something that, as a professional, says what we're saying.' I wasn't the only one dismissed for 'psychological reasons.'"

Kurt relates that he came from "a pretty traditional background." "I never regarded myself as a traditionalist," he said. "I saw myself as orthodox, as loyal to the magisterium of the Church and to the teachings of the Holy Father. I didn't see that as being conservative before, during or after my time at St. John's. Conservative, to me, was a fringe, fanatical extremist -- maybe their hearts are in the right place, but they just don't know what battles to fight. But I was labeled as a conservative; they asked me to leave for psychological counseling because they said I had 'problems with authority.' It wasn't problems with authority in the Church, but problems with their authority as faculty. I did not fit their vision of Church; the type of priest they were looking for was not the type of priest that I was showing signs of being.

"The seminary sent me to psychologists and I had to sign waivers saying that whatever I shared in confidence could be shared with the faculty. I received bad evaluations saying that I was 'rigid' and 'reactionary.' I also had 'issues with the role of women in the church' -- not with their legitimate role but with [the faculty's] idea of what that role should be; I didn't dissent from the Church's teaching on women's ordination."

Kurt said that, to one psychologist, "I was a frothing-at-the-mouth conservative, but he was able to sympathize with me because he was a liberal student when he was in the seminary in the 60s. He said, 'There was a group of us who were excited because of the council and the changes in the wind -- a lot of it was euphoria. We were looked at and regarded with a hermeneutic suspicion by the faculty. We were the group being persecuted and placed under the microscope. The faculty regarded us as nonconformists. Now the conservative and traditional students are the nonconformists -- and nonconformists, whatever their platform might be, are not any more welcome in today's seminaries than they were 30 years ago.' He said the entire dynamic and environment had completely changed."

Kurt said, "when they asked me to leave, they acted concerned and solicitous; [they told me] that it was just killing them and was agonizing for them to do this. Out of 'concern and love' for me as a person and for my welfare, they had decided to ask me to leave."

Kurt said "the majority of seminarians at St. John's were of a mindset that defied categories like 'liberal' or 'dissenting.' I would describe them as the 'Catholic Generation X. They were too young to remember the old days, but old enough to have received absolutely nothing in the way of religious education and catechesis."

In spite of his bad experience at St. John's seminary, Kurt is confident that the future of seminary formation will improve. "The situation of the Catholic Church in the United States has been a battleground for the last 30 years. We are entering into a period of reconstruction," he said.

Father Y, an archdiocesan priest, who spoke on condition of anonymity, insists that the practice of screening out orthodox seminarians is subtle. "They try to weed them out before they even get to the seminary -- at the vocations office level. They'll never specifically ask, 'do you agree with women priests?' or anything like that. What they'll ask is, 'how do you feel about women in ministry or collaboration with women in ministry?' If a guy gives an orthodox answer, he gets a definite 'No.'

"I have heard of a few people who have been specifically asked, 'have you given any thought to women priests?' continued Father Y. Not too long ago, one guy told them, 'that's a closed issue. The Holy Father has made that very clear that that's not possible.' Then he backed off on it, but he was not accepted. Usually, at the seminary interviews, they don't ask those types of questions. Most of that stuff is asked by the vocations office."

Father Y said that interviewers purposely ask "nebulous" questions so that their agenda cannot be pinpointed. "In my own case -- it was quite some time ago, but the people who were in charge of vocations then are still in charge now -- I was asked what I thought of women's ministry and so forth. I know that they were asking that, but they'll deny it to the hilt. The specific one who was asking was [Sister] Kathy Bryant and she's been the vocations co-director for 10 or 15 years now. The cardinal put her in about a year or so after he took over and she's been there ever since. Her role has been to weed out as many people as possible -- anybody who's orthodox of course. Now they won't say that they don't want any orthodox students; they'll call it other things. They'll say someone is 'rigid in thought' or 'closed-minded or 'not pastoral' -- whatever that means. They're very proud of the fact that they are unlike other dioceses who are having a lot of vocations, like Lincoln or Peoria; they say, 'those are not the kind of people we want.' They have no qualms about saying that at all.

"I'm fully convinced that these people are absolutely committed to a priestless church. The whole new pastoral associates program that they are implementing in Los Angeles is basically lay people taking on the role of priests in everything except the sacraments. We were actually told that they are envisioning one priest per parish, assisted by several pastoral associates. You cannot promote vocations to the priesthood and prepare for a priestless church at the same time, and that's what they are doing."

Who is behind this drive for a priestless church? "I hate to say it," said Father Y, "but who else could it possibly be but the cardinal himself? He doesn't want the 'model' of church that we have had up until now. I don't know if he would say 'priestless;' he would say we don't need this number of priests. For instance, he readily will accept the resignation of any priest for retirement without asking any questions or trying to talk him out of it. Even if they are not at retirement age, he accepts every single one that comes in. It's as if they are hoping we have as few as possible, so that we will be forced to use these pastoral associates."

Like Father Y, many seminarians are wise to the practices of vocations screeners and play along with the questioning, showing no leanings toward orthodoxy so they can be ordained. "I would say the vast majority of priests in Los Angles are good, solid, Catholic, orthodox priests," said Father Y, "but they are keeping it to themselves. There are quite a few priests of my generation who managed to get through the seminary, but we know that there is nothing we can do for the time being. So we do what we know we're supposed to be doing -- administering the sacraments, planting the seeds and, hopefully, in eleven years when things change [Mahony's retirement], it will be better."

Father Z, a graduate of St. John's seminary who has since left the diocese, is not surprised at these allegations. "In my day," he said, "there were still a number of very orthodox priests on the faculty. From what I understand, it's very different now (at St. John's). They really screen you out. I was never asked those kinds of questions. We had some feminists on the faculty that pushed the idea, but we'd just laugh at them when they'd carry on about that and we never got in trouble for it. Now I hear it's a whole different world. Sister Kathy Bryant was after my time. I don't want to be uncharitable, but she's very bad -- for the whole diocese.

Like Father Y, Father Z believes the majority of priests in Los Angeles are orthodox without trying to broadcast it too loudly. "Most of the priests are good, holy men. They really want to exercise their ministry in the way they' ve known it in their life. There is a very small group -- from the late 60s and early 70s -- who are brainwashed. They believe whatever went before was bad, and that particular crowd comprises the real liberals. They don't even know why they do liberal things. They just do it because they think they have to; it's 'what you do now,' and they don't want to be 'out of touch.'

While Father Z isn't sure about Mahony's plans for a priestless Church, he believes the archdiocesan hostility to traditional Catholicism has taken its toll on vocations. "I do know that a lot of priests have left. The cardinal likes a certain kind of priest. You can tell that they don't want vocations, because they do nothing to inspire vocations. He's purposely put a very liberal, feminist Sister (Kathy Bryant) as the vocations person.

"I think if we got a reasonable archbishop of Los Angeles, all of a sudden things would just switch. There's such a small minority of the real liberals and 'protestantized' Catholics that things would switch right away."

If Father Z's assessment of Mahony seems to contradict the Cardinal's gentle public image, Father Z is not alone in his view. Both Father Y and Father Z are frightened of Mahony and spoke only on assurance of anonymity. "The cardinal is a tough man," one explained. "He will just crush you. He won't stop. I know of a priest who spoke out against something the cardinal was behind and he would not back off until the priest resigned. He even threatened to withdraw financial support. He has a lot of power because Los Angeles is one of the richest dioceses in the world and money is power. That's one of the biggest ways he throws his weight around.

"I pray for a real conversion (for Mahony). If he were to convert he would just be a powerhouse for the Church. He is a very engaging person. When he's in your presence, he really wins you over. He has a way of gauging you and he holds all his cards to his chest. He lets you break the ground and, once that happens, he's very agreeable to whatever you say. Everyone walks away from him saying, 'what a wonderful man!' When you're with him one on one, he really does fool you. It's when you find out what he's done later that you realize what you're dealing with, and it's not gentle. I know a lot of priests who have suffered under him. If you want holy priests, you need a holy bishop."

I attempted several times to reach Sister Kathy Bryant for her response. She did not return my phone calls.

TOP