I just saw John Derbyshire write the following on The Corner.

Agree or disagree with Pat Buchanan, but don’t tell me he isn’t a very, very sweet guy.

Somebody tell Derbyshire that Buchanan is Irish-Catholic so the lovefest will end.

From: Der Tommissar, Santa Fe blogger and all around Real Swell Guy (RSG)

Subject: Your Letter of August 14th, 2006

Your Excellency,

It is with all due filial devotion and charity that I am compelled to write this letter. Nonetheless, I am filled with great pain in doing so. For better of for worse, you are my bishop; you are the head of the local church. Please understand that I too am head of a church. I am the head of my domestic church. As such, I am responsible for raising my children in the Catholic Faith as well as being responsible for providing an environment for them and my wife to grow in holiness. Unlike you, Your Excellency, I do not have a mitre and a crozier. This is because my wife won’t let me make myself a set. In no way, however, does that reduce my responsibility, which is the reason I am writing this. Please indulge me as I quote a few excerpts from your letter:

I have not received any comments from the San Ignacio Parishoners nor from anyone at the Mission of San Miguel in Santa Fe.

Translation: Only the steerage passengers are complaining about the rotten food and the rats.

Exactly what does this have to do with the concerns raised? The blurb quoted appeared in a parish bulletin quite some distance from both Mass locations. It is due to the fact that the Latin Mass community is drawn from the entire state (as I am sure you know), that this comment attributed to you was made known. San Miguel Mission does not have a parish bulletin since it is not a parish and does not have the resources to produce one. Also, neither the parishoners of San Ignacio nor those who attend the Mass at San Miguel Mission would have reason for complaint. There is nothing in your note that states that a wedding Mass could not be held at San Ignacio according to the reformed rite of the Church nor is there a reason that the priest who says Mass at San Miguel would not be allowed to perform the wedding in a parish church with the permission of that church’s pastor. The only people in your statement that are explicitly discriminated against are those with an attachment to the traditional form of the Mass. There is also a disturbing subcontext to your statement, Your Excellency. It implies that in some way those who attend the “Latin Mass” are of some lesser status than the parishoners of San Ignacio (or any other “regular” parishoner elsewhere). Does the fact that only those who attend the Latin Mass make this not a problem? For the record, my family is recorded as parishoners of San Ignacio. I suppose this means that you have now officially heard a complaint from a San Ignacio parishoner. Does this mean the issue should now be bumped up in merit?

However, the Priest Council has recommended that we not establish a Latin Parish or Mission but continue, as I have, the Latin Mass in accord with the Ecclesia Dei indult. Again this decision is based on the recommendation of the Priest Council of the Archdiocese.

Your Excellency, could you please explain to me why I should care what the Priest Council of the Archdiocese thinks? Could you at least offer us their reasoning for recommending so? After all, wasn’t Vatican II supposed to end the “dictatorship of clericalism” or something? Why should the decision of a bunch of priests, most of them unknown to the average Mass-goer, have the power to curtail the modest aspirations of folks that said priests do nothing for? Are any of them worried that they’d have to pitch in and do a “Latin Mass” on the Feast of the Assumption? The whole thing smacks of a Star Chamber proceeding in which we, the People of God (that was something I always heard from my ex-nun religion teacher in high school; it’s also the name of the Archdiocesan newspaper, nifty huh?), aren’t even allowed to state our case. In fact, I can’t even find a list of the members of the priest council in order to express my concerns. I’ve asked your Chancery for it, I’ve even left a message for your Chancellor (I’m pretty sure he’s on it). Nothing. If they can’t care the slightest bit about us, why should we care the slightest bit about them? Tell them Der Tommissar thinks they should all have a Coke and a smile and go bother the Unitarians.

I’d also like to take a moment to point out something of which you may not be aware, Your Excellency. Those of us in the pews are really starting to not believe that everything any given priest says to us is in our best interests. You may have seen some signs of this in Dallas during that whole Rudy Kos episode. Many of us trust our pastors, if we know them well and see that they care about us at times other than when the collection basket is passed around. On average, however, the common opinion is that the clergy is only concerned with protecting turf and enjoying the perks of their position. We’ve seen far too many of them at The Bullring or Ten Thousand Waves after asking us to dig deeper for the good of the parish (fascinating fact: Christ went into the desert to fast and pray for 40 days but His desert had no Japanese onsen in the vicinity. Maybe a few priests could try it that way).

Since you’ve been a priest for quite a while I’m going to assume you’ve not seen the movie Animal House. In one scene at the end Kevin Bacon tries to calm a panicking crowd in the midst of a riot and is flattened by a terrified sea of humanity. “All is well” was his manic cry. Your Excellency, all is not well.

All was not well when Rudy Kos (and numerous others like him) were ordained and loosed upon our children.

All was not well when you had to take over the Phoenix diocese because Bishop O’Brien could find neither a designated driver nor the self-control to limit his drinking enough to avoid a fatal hit and run accident.

All is not well when a number of Catholics feel that the thing most stressed from our pulpits is the need to have some hotels built on the plaza. I don’t want to be a back-seat bishop or anything, Your Excellency, but if you guys could coordinate something about supporting pro-life candidates a week before election day half as well as the Santa Fe pastors had been pumping up the faithful to support city councilmen who would approve that real-estate deal, that would be the most awesome thing ever.

In short, all is not well. The Church is suffering from a serious credibility and trust gap. Telling us, “Look, we’ve made a decision, and you know we’d never do anything that would be harmful to the laity. You can trust us on this!” is going to be met with little more than snickers and disbelief. We both know that the aspirations of those who attend San Ignacio are legitimate and well within the bounds of what the Holy Father allows. Please remove the obstacles to their attainment as only you can. Let the healing begin, Your Excellency.

Let the healing begin.

Yours in Christ,

DT