Sioux City, Iowa, Nov 6, 2018 / 01:54 pm (CNA).- A New Mexico man says that an Iowa diocese neglected to tell him about the extent of abuse committed by a priest living in his home. Leaders in the diocese told CNA they tried to warn the man about the priest’s past, and that current leaders have attempted to do everything possible to manage the priest’s situation, within the confines of canon law.
Fr. Jerry Coyle is a priest of Sioux City, Iowa, but he has lived in New Mexico for 32 years. He moved to the state in 1986, to take part in a treatment program at a facility for priests run by the Servants of the Paraclete. He was sent there after telling Bishop Lawrence Soens that over 20 years of priesthood he had abused about 50 male adolescents.
Coyle was removed from ministry and his faculties were revoked after that admission; he was not dismissed from the clerical state.
After Coyle’s time with the Paracletes was completed, he remained in New Mexico. There, more than 10 years ago, he befriended Reuben Ortiz.
Ortiz is a pious and practicing Catholic: he and his family do pro-life ministry, go to homeless shelters, feed the poor, pray the rosary frequently, and even performed music at a World Youth Day. Until recently, Ortiz was a daily Mass-goer.
When Coyle got into a car accident last year, Ortiz invited the priest to move into his Albuquerque home, to live with him, his wife, and his three teenaged children. Coyle lived with the family until June 29.
In a recent Associated Press report, Ortiz’ attorney said that the diocese did not disclose important information about the priest until he was already living in the Ortiz family home. The diocese, however, told CNA that it repeatedly discouraged the Ortiz family from taking in the priest.
Ortiz acknowledged that when he invited Coyle, 85, to live in his home, he already knew that the priest had committed an act of sexual abuse.
“He had told us that he had fondled a kid, and that, it wasn’t, you know, that he knew, he went through treatment for it, and he, he was ok,” Ortiz told CNA.
Ortiz said that even though he knew the priest had sexually assaulted a minor, he wasn’t nervous about his own children.
“No, because he was very secure about the fact that he was wrong about it. And he was also very secure that he wasn’t ever going to do it again,” Ortiz said.
“Because we asked him right out, ‘Well Jerry, what does that mean for our kids?’ And he said, ‘No, no, no, that was wrong, that’s the reason why I’m not doing [active ministry] anymore, I’m not going and serving at Mass; they didn’t take away my priesthood, I’m good that way.’”
“He really, he did have a certain way about him that looked like it was okay. But for him to go and deceive us from the very beginning was already wrong,” Ortiz added.
‘Redemption and forgiveness’
In November 2017, shortly after Coyle got in a car accident and had his license revoked, Ortiz phoned Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City, to let the bishop know about Coyle’s accident, and to inform him that the priest had come to live with the Ortiz family.
“Reuben Ortiz called me after Jerry had his automobile accident, and wanted me to know he couldn’t drive any more, and he needed a place to live because he couldn’t take care of himself, and he wanted to take him into his own home, because they were good friends and he wanted to help Jerry recover from the accident, and he told me he can stay here as long as he wants,” Bishop Nickless recounted to CNA.
“I said to him, ‘Reuben, do you know his history?’ And he said, ‘Yes. Father and I have talked about it; I know that he has abused minors in the past, and I believe in redemption and forgiveness.’”
Nickless said the diocese told Ortiz that because his minor children lived at home, “we think … that is not a good place for Jerry to be, and we’d like him to move.”
“He clearly said he wanted to keep Jerry living with him. We asked him to at least inform his children of Jerry’s history – he said he hadn’t done that – and he said, ‘I’m not going to do that to my children.’”
The problem of where Coyle was to live was taken to the diocesan review board. The review board met Feb. 5, 2018, to discuss Coyle’s living situation, and suggested that he go to a nursing home in New Mexico.
“They immediately recommended that he leave the house,” Nickless said. “I told Reuben that.”
The Diocese of Sioux City encouraged Ortiz to look for a nursing home for Coyle in the Albuquerque area.
“He refused to do that,” Nickless explained. “He kept saying, ‘No, no, I want him here, I want him here, I want him here.’”
On Feb. 8, Fr. Brad Pelzel, vicar general of the Sioux City diocese, spoke with Reuben and his wife, Tania, on the phone, relating what the review board had decided.
At the request of the review board, Pelzel also wrote to Reuben and Tania Feb. 12, following up on their phone conversation. Pelzel’s letter urged that Coyle move to a nursing home. It was thought that one in New Mexico would be most appropriate, because the priest had lived there for so long.
The letter said that the review board was seriously concerned about “Coyle’s self-revealed history of sexual attraction to and contact with boys.”
“When he self-reported his situation … Fr. Coyle admitted that, for a period of about 20 years, he victimized approximately 50 school boys, varying from 7th to 10th grade,” Pelzel wrote.
“The Review Board is grateful to you and your family for your kindness and the Christ-like attention and care you have provided Fr. Coyle, most notably your willingness to welcome him into your home following his traffic accident,” Pelzel wrote.
“While acknowledging the grace of Fr. Coyle’s repentance and the 30-plus years of apparent success he has experienced in living out celibate chastity since moving to the Albuquerque area, the Review Board cannot condone the risk you take by allowing Fr. Coyle to reside in your home and recommends in the strongest of terms that the best form of assistance you can provide Fr. Coyle would be to help him find an institution with Assisted Living facilities.”
Ortiz said that it was shocking to see the letter that said Coyle admitted to abusing 50 adolescents. While he was comfortable with having Coyle around his family when he believed the priest had abused one or two adolescents, he felt he had been misled.
“You know the shock that was, what we took on? It traumatized us to see these pages of who this guy was. It shocked us to such a degree that I didn’t want to let my wife know how scared I was.”
He related that he slept downstairs near Coyle, while the rest of his family was upstairs, from the time they received the Feb. 12 letter until Coyle left in June.
Ortiz told CNA fears that Coyle could have abused his son, who is 15.
Financial matters
Although Ortiz chose not to help Coyle find a nursing home, he did accept money from his boarder. Ortiz told CNA he asked the priest for financial contributions to the family home.
According to Nickless, Coyle gave Ortiz almost $30,000 during the eight months he lived in the family home.
Nickless said that Ortiz first told Coyle he needed to buy a larger car to take him to Mass; his family and Coyle could not all fit into their existing vehicle.
Coyle gave Ortiz $25,000 to buy a new car, Nickless told CNA.
A few weeks later, Ortiz said he needed some more money to handle some expenses.
Coyle gave Ortiz another $2,000, Nickless said.
Later, Ortiz said he needed an additional $3,000, “at which point Jerry balked,” Pelzel told CNA.
“Then Reuben demanded that Jerry give him power of attorney and access to his saving and checking account,” according to Pelzel.
“So then Jerry called us and said, ‘This is strange, I think I’m coming back’,” Nickless said.
Asked how much money the priest had given him, Ortiz declined to answer.
“Let me ask you something, okay? What do you, how do you think money has anything to do with this? How does money come into play? I curse the day I ever met him and if I could take back every time that we met, and everything that was spent, both ways, I would do it, gladly, just to avoid that one meeting with him,” Ortiz told CNA.
After Coyle decided to leave, the diocese began making arrangements for Coyle to return to Iowa. Within five days, on June 29, Coyle left the Ortiz’ home.
Month after Coyle left his home, lawyers representing Ortiz told diocesan officials and reporters that the Diocese of Sioux City was guilty of a cover-up.
Ortiz agreed.
“You know what it’s like when you go to your Church officials and they do absolutely nothing for you?” He asked. “They are totally bankrupt when it comes to morals.”
While Nickless told CNA that he tried to explain to Ortiz the allegations against Coyle from the beginning, Ortiz disagreed.
“They’re accepting sin, in such a way that it’s ok, and so they are shameless in this sin to such a point that they think we are going to agree with a letter of that magnitude. See, they told me that; they had gone and said that he had abused; I said he told us he abused a couple kids, we don’t know the extent. But they said, well you know, they didn’t really make it quite clear until the letter … do you know how scary it is to have somebody like this in your home?”
Although he acknowledged inviting Coyle into his home, Ortiz maintains he was used.
“I was used, as far as I’m concerned. I was used for the purpose of people who released this into our society as a plague, and it upsets me, it does. I don’t think I’m ever going to recover from it.”
Ortiz also said that his spiritual director, whom he described as “no slouch in the priesthood” also failed him, because he did not sufficiently warn him not to allow an admitted perpetrator of sexual assault into his home.
Homecoming
When Coyle returned to Iowa, he was placed at Marian Home, a diocesan retirement home in Fort Dodge.
While the board of directors at Marian Home wasn’t notified of Coyle’s past, several staff members at the residence were.
Pelzel says he told the activities director “explicitly what Jerry was accused of, and she promised to be vigilant.”
Marian Home is located across the street from both St. Edmond Catholic School and Fort Dodge Senior High. Students at St. Edmond’s sometimes visit Marian Home, but they did not have contact with Coyle as they do not go to the area in which he lived.
The schools were not informed when Coyle moved to the residence; “it did not occur to us that the school was there at that time,” Nickless said, acknowledging that “We made a mistake in not notifying the school … we should have done a better job of that.”
Coyle has since left Marian Home, and has been taken in by an acquaintance. Nickless said the priest is living “a life of prayer and penance.”
Nickless wrote a letter to the Sioux City diocese Oct. 31 discussing Coyle’s situation, noting that “No one presently at the diocese has firsthand knowledge about Jerry Coyle and that includes me. For the past few months, we have been attempting to put the pieces together about what happened during the 1980s with the files and records that we do have on Jerry Coyle.”
“During the ensuing 32 years, there were no complaints of any misbehavior by Jerry Coyle. Psychologists in Albuquerque advised the diocese that Coyle was highly motivated to change. We know that many disagree with this point, and so do I.”
The bishop wrote that police “were not contacted when Coyle self-admitted, but policies have changed since 1986. Now the policy is to contact civil authorities, which we will follow, since we have [now] named victims of Jerry Coyle.”
In a Nov. 6 statement, the diocese elaborated.
“The issue that is most important for the public to understand is that many of the allegations made in the past, prior to the 2002 ‘Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People’ were not followed up with an investigation by civil authorities. The Church often sent priests to treatment, in hopes that any actions of misconduct could be cured. We know now that is not the way to handle any allegation of sexual misconduct, and with the 2002 Charter to guide us, we have protocols in place to follow, which we do,” the statement said.
“As far as Jerry Coyle, he has had no criminal charges made against him. He self-admitted, and there was not one allegation until 1986, and this individual was an adult, so the statute of limitations had run out. We recognize that when Coyle self-admitted, each parish should have been notified, and we should have asked victims to come forward. We apologize that this did not happen under the leadership of the Diocese of Sioux City at that time.”
Nickless wrote to the diocese last month: “If you are a victim of Jerry Coyle or any priest or person associated with the Diocese of Sioux City, please come forward.” In recent weeks, several alleged victims of Coyle have come forward to the diocese.
But in 2002, when the diocese initially reviewed its records with local prosecutors, there were no identifiable victims of Coyle. Pelzel said that at that time, a student at a local university had made allegations against Coyle to another priest; but the allegation was anonymous and the diocese had no way to contact the alleged victim.
Another individual had said Coyle had acted “kind of weird” in the sacristy, but didn’t remember “anything else much.”
While Coyle was removed from ministry in 1986, he was not dismissed from the clerical state, and remains a priest of the Diocese of Sioux City. As such, the diocese is obliged under canon law to provide housing and board for him. The diocesan conduct review board is now discussing the possibility of pursuing a dismissal from the clerical state for Coyle.
However, “once a priest is elderly and frail and sick, as Fr. Coyle is, most of the time it’s recommended [by the Vatican] that he live a life of prayer and penance,” Nickless explained.
In fact, the Sioux City diocese attempted to have another elderly priest dismissed from the clerical state, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refused, citing his advanced age.
The review board has also been discussing the preparation and release of a list of credibly accused clerics of the diocese, especially how to make sure that such a list would be accurate. The diocese has stated that a list of credibly accused priests will be published “as soon as we know we have all of the information we need to move forward.”
The Nov. 6 statement said that Coyle’s case raises important questions about how the Church addresses sexual abuse.
“Bishop Nickless inherited many issues from the past. These are the ones we are dealing with today. One of the most difficult issues is this: where do we put known alleged abuser priests that are still alive, but have no charges against them? What do we do with these men? We know that you do not want them in your community. Many care facilities will not, or cannot, take them. Their families sometimes will take them in, but not always. They cannot go to a prison, as civil authorities say that the statute of limitations has run out to prosecute them. This leaves us with very few choices. We understand that the many members of the public are anxious and fearful about sex offenders, because the crime is so egregious. However, if they are not charged and sent to prison, there are few options for housing them.”
“Local Bishops do not have the authority to ‘defrock’ a priest, properly known as laicization. Laicization is a complicated process that is handled by the Vatican; however, a Bishop can remove a priest’s ability to function as a priest, and this has been done. Additionally, once laicized, Diocesan officials lose all ability to supervise formerly accused clergy,” the statement added.
“The Diocese of Sioux City does follow the Charter’s guidelines for all claims of abuse in the present day. As we follow up on past cases, we want to do that in a way that helps victims to feel that have some peace and justice. We set up a meeting on December 6, 2018 with the Attorney General of Iowa to discuss matters further. A list of credibly accused priests will be published, as soon as we know we have all of the information we need to move forward.”
[…]
Though I attend primarily the Novo Ordo Mass (and the TLM only occasionally, i.e., when the opportunity arises), I would dare to say that what we as a Church need is a prompt reversal of all restrictions to the TLM. This is part and parcel of any serious and true work for the UNITY of the Church based on the motto of Unity in Diversity.
Thank you. That’s true. The Church does have unity in diversity. How many rites and liturgies do we have? Quite a few.
“Just as before,” he added, “the granting of this dispensation is based upon an ongoing effort to promote the full appreciation and acceptance of the liturgical books renewed by decree of the Second Vatican Council and promulgated by popes St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II.”
According to Pope Benedict XVI, The Magisterium of The Catholic Church did not prohibit the TLM, so on whose authority did Jorge Bergoglio prohibit the TLM ? Certainly not on The True Magisterium of The Catholic Church which never prohibited The TLM, nor has it ever denied Christ’s teaching on sexual morality, as Jorge Bergoglio did, which serves out of respect for the Sanctity and Dignity of the life of every beloved son and daughter. Let the counterfeit magisterium justify why the TLM , The Beautiful and Reverent Mass of All Ages, which differs from the less reverent but still legitimate Novo Ordo Mass , in both form and substance should be prohibited, and why they are at it, let them explain on whose authority Catholic Churches were stripped of The Altar Rails? Certainly not Christ’s.
Until those whose competence it is, The Faithful, declare the counterfeit magisterium that is attempting to subsist within The Catholic Church, anathema, ipso facto , for in their denial of The Unity of The Holy Ghost, they deny The Divinity of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, the crisis in The Catholic Church will continue, for The Charitable Anathema was instituted by Christ, Himself, for The Salvation of Souls, including the Souls of those who deny The Divinity of The Word Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Incarnate.
“You cannot be My Disciples if you do not Abide In My Word.” – The Charitable Anathema Of Jesus The Christ.
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“The Magisterium of The Catholic Church did not prohibit the TLM,” but what the church most definitely did was to replace the 1962 Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus in 1965. The decree is called ‘Nuper edita instructione’ and was implemented with a new copy of these pages of the Missal published, printed, advertised and sold, to replace the corresponding pages of the 1962 Missal.
Abp Lefebvre welcomed these revisions
“The priest coming nearer to the faithful; communicating with them; praying and singing with them and therefore standing at the pulpit; saying the Collect, the Epistle, and the Gospel in their language; the priest singing in the traditional melodies the Kyrie, the Gloria, the creed with the faithful; these are so many good reforms that give back to that part of the Mass its true finality.
Abp. M Lefebvre; Itinéraires vol 95 July-August 1965 “
So what? Who is Abp. M Lefebvre that we should countenance his words? Did He die on the cross to save us? Did He rise from the dead to prove He was Who He said He was? So what if Abp. M Lefebvre did this, that or any other thing. I brushed my teeth last night, drank coffee this morning, and cleaned the garage today. So what?
6 or 7 different Rites, and 24 separate Churches, including the predominant Latin Church.
Agreed.It is appalling that the Latin Mass is at all discouraged, let alone forbidden.
Thank you St. Margaret of Scotland for your intercession. 🙏 🏴
“[T]he granting of this dispensation is based upon an ongoing effort to promote the full appreciation and acceptance of the liturgical books renewed by decree of the Second Vatican Council and promulgated by popes St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II.” This is exactly why the SSPX remains the only viable solution. The whole point of Traditionis Custodes is to force Catholics the accept something that is false, namely that the Mass of Pope Paul VI has been good for the faithful and that it constitutes a reform and renewal of the liturgy.
Although I firmly believe that the “Novus Ordo” should be respected and accepted by ALL Catholics and that the tendency to label it “inane” or “non-reverent”, etc. should end now (or at least be kept to oneself), I also believe that the TLM should be allowed to continue for those who find it more efficacious in their walk with Christ and the practice of the Catholic faith.
NOTHING is accomplished by promoting the TLM as “THE Mass,” and disparaging the “Novus Ordo” as…well, I won’t repeat it. All this condemnation of the “New Mass” does, IMHO, is demonstrate that the TLM does NOT help Catholics to show love and respect for others who are greatly edified by the “New Mass.”
As a convert to Catholicism from DYNAMIC Evangelical Protestantism, I am one of those people who loves the “New Mass”, including the acceptance of not kneeling (as I am not able to kneel–doctor’s orders), the contemporary music along with traditional hymns (all in the vernacular most of the time), the prayers in my own dear heart language, and it’s acceptance of the much-maligned “CITH” (Communion in the Hand).
Many years before I converted, I occasionally attended Latin Masses–and found them totally lacking in anything that would appeal to most Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants. I certainly never went down the “Jack T. Chick” road and considered Catholicism a “mystery cult opposed to Christianity”, especially as the Pro-Life Movement gathered strength in the Catholic Churches long before any of the Protestants figured out that abortion is a real sin (and some Protestant denominations STILL haven’t figured this out, e.g., the United Methodists, who recently experienced a split with this issue as one of the causes).
I knew that Catholics were Christians–but many Protestants couldn’t get past the “Mass in a foreign, in fact, “Dead” language.” Now they can–and many converts have come into Holy Mother Church and quite a few of them have become “evangelists” of Catholicism to Protestants, resulting in even MORE converts to Holy Mother Church! There’s just something GOOD about “hearing the truth of the Gospel” in your OWN DEAR UNDERSTANDABLE HEART LANGUGE!
Yes, Protestants did convert under the TLM, but…I don’t think ?? that this was as common as it is today (other than in mixed marriage when the non-Catholic spouse converted, often just for the sake of the marriage, not because they actually accepted “Catholicism). I am grateful that I was able to hear the truth about Catholicism and Protestantism from former Protestant ministers (e.g., Scott Hahn) who converted.
Again, I do believe that the TLM should be available to those who love “all things classical” and find it more efficacious to their faith than the “New Mass.” There’s plenty of room for both! But there’s no room, IMO, for disparaging the Mass that we don’t like.
Mrs. Whitlock says: Protestants did convert under the TLM, but…I don’t think ?? that this was as common as it is today (other than in….,” etc., etc.
This article cites graphs, numbers and sources refuting your “think??” thoughts. “https://padreperegrino.org/2025/03/newevang/
Praise be to God for Scott Hahn being able to teach you the Faith which Protestantism rejected.
Yes, it should be simply made clear we are NOT Protestants, we are Roman Catholics. If the Prots don’t like our mass types why should we care?
Our “brand” is watered down enough in the past 60 years and severely damaged from the scandals revealed. At this point, leave well enough alone and spend the extra energy visiting the sick and homebound, or volunteering in our parishes to help offset the lack of community priests.
Amen.
Protestants may not have been able to convert “under” the TLM because Protestant theology lacks a certain vision or belief in God’s good mercy. Protestant theology rejects traditional Catholic visions of the power of Catholic worship. Some Catholic worshipers do aspire and do attain certain promises and certain degrees of God-man union. Other worshipers find this fact to be UNBELIEVABLE.
The very idea repulsed some people. A church more to their own inkling beckoned. Criticism of Catholic traditional liturgy and its members often followed.
People WILL find reasons to reject the power of God’s good kindness in another. Blame and rejection serve a useful, if temporary, balm to a troubled conscience.
“I am grateful that I was able to hear the truth about Catholicism and Protestantism from former Protestant ministers (e.g., Scott Hahn) who converted.” Note: Scott Hahn attends the Traditional Latin Mass, something many people here would like to deprive him of.
The Latin Mass should go away. 😛
Catherine,
I agree. Have you read Diane Montagna’s reporting about the survey upon which Traditionis Custodes based its claims? Diane presents evidence to the contrary. See today’s Extra, Extra News and Views, first article in the list.
That two year extension should be the limit. After two years, strictly novus ordo. It’s well past time for the Church to decommission the preconciliar Mass. TLM Protestants can defect to the SSPX, as one commenter above has said. You either obey or you don’t.
The Church also needs to celebrate the novus ordo much better than it does. I daresay the implementation of the novus ordo has been inept. Correct the abuses, improve the quality, celebrate the novus ordo properly, and then decomission the TLM once and for all.
“TLM Protestants can defect to the SSPX.”
Thank you Robert for clearly stating the ideological agenda of the bully, Franciscus.
That’s the description I was thinking of as well.
As I’ve mentioned several times, if the TLM saves souls that wouldn’t be saved who are we to judge?
“Have all these changes served the renewal and vivification of faith? The opposite is the case. Vocations to the priesthood, as well as conversions, have greatly decreased, and the attendance of Catholics at Mass has greatly fallen off. The New Ordo Missae and most especially the reform of the liturgy of feasts and of the whole liturgical year, is so colorless, inorganic, and artificial, that it will not be able to last long.” – Dietrich Von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard (1973) p. 73. Hildebrand could not have predicted people like you, who are blind to all evidence of the drastic failure of the Novus Ordo. But already, the trends that have continued unabated to the present day were clearly visible only a few years after the imposition of the new Mass.
I can’t judge the merit your comment about the decrease of vocations being caused by the advent of the “Novus Ordo” Mass, but I would like to suggest that the more likely reasons are because of the tumultuous changes in our world society, especially in the U.S.A..–and yes, this could well include, but not be limited to, the “New Mass.”
These changes include rebellion in the U.S. against the Viet Nam War back in the 1960s and 70s (which seemed to validate rebellion against traditional male roles in society), the rise of the use of hallucinogenic recreational drugs among Americans from all income levels and communities, the increasing ease by which people, (especially men) are able to acquire pornographic materials and become addicted, the rise of the LGBTQ, etc. population and the acceptance of their agenda by many people from all walks of life who had relatives/friends who were part of it or who were secretly part of it themselves or who simply lacked the discernment to disagree with this life choice, the decline of the public schools to adequately prepare students to enter the working world in jobs that were likely to pay a living wage, the increasing animosity and vitriolic attitudes between politicians which has led to disillusionment with “authority figures”, the development of so many opportunities for women to enter all job fields and also gain more respect and authority, and the incredibly rapid rise of the INTERNET and social media, which has enabled many people to learn about alternatives to organized religion and be convinced of the supposed value of these.
Also, of course, family size has decreased (artificial birth control, increasing inflation and expenses often making it necessary for both husband and wife to work at a paying job out of the home just to pay basic expenses, women’s liberation from “slavery” to the home, etc.). This decreasing birth rate alone means that there will be fewer young men available to become priests.
As for the smaller number of vocations–keep in mind that a lot of the Protestant churches have closed their doors, and some denominations have been discontinued, including the Baptist denomination that I grew with as a child, and the number of Protestant pastors who have been educated in a seminary instead of simply declaring themself a “pastor” has greatly decreased as well. I don’t know about the Islamic, Buddhist, and Jewish faiths–it’s possible that their leadership has dropped, too.
If Jack T. Chick was still alive, he would be proclaiming that the End of the World is eminent! (I don’t think that’s correct! 🙂
I do agree with you that the lack of men interested in at least looking into vocations is alarming and very sad. I pray often that my only grandchild, a boy, will discern a call to the priesthood someday–but it would mean the end of his daddy’s family line. Sigh.
“It’s well past time for the Church to decommission the preconciliar Mass.”
Why, exactly?
About “decommission[ing] TLM once and for all,”
And if/when the Novus Ordo is done right as you recommend, it might ALSO look like the early Mass recorded in the Didache (early 2nd Century https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) .…The “glory,” the “sacrifice,” “knowledge,” being “reconciled,” “evil”, “immortality,” “grace” and stuff like that!
Chapter 9, The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)
Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life of knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever [….] But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6.
Chapter 10, Prayer after Communion
But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever [….] Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory forever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away [….].
Chapter 14, Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day
But every Lord’s Day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
SUMMARY: The one bad thing about decommissioning and amnesia is that it makes us forget a lot of stuff.
A Woodstock peace we with y’all!
Two years is a long time. Plenty of time for these people to prepare for the inevitable.
I’m really puzzled why it should be of any concern to folks who don’t attend the TLM in the first place?
Not to pick on anyone in particular but our society seems to encourage “Karens” and not just in homeowner associations. Surely we each have enough to be concerned about in our own lives and parishes?
Let’s hope and pray that some Midwestern pragmatism seeps its way back into Rome.
Saving souls.
Any kind of regional pragmatism would be a good thing.
🙂
since the Pope is from the midwest…
If I were to attend a Spanish-language Mass in any of the THOUSANDS of parishes throughout the USA or attend Mass in any of the hundreds of non-English speaking countries across the globe, I WOULD UNDERSTAND NOT ONE WORD OF WHAT’S BEING SAID! Now, that’s real unity for you.
I wonder how many of the TLM people actually understand what is being said! During pre Vatican II masses many devout would be saying the rosary!
Assuming our ancestors were literate, they’d have a trusty missalette with them at Mass with Latin on one side & their native language translation on the other. It wasn’t rocket science unless you couldn’t read. Which to be fair though was often the case depending on the era & location.
The Our Father & other prayers said routinely at the TLM were memorized. Even by my illiterate ancestors.
The rosary recital @ Mass is a bit of a trope I think.
JAMES CONNOR: I don’t know whether you were around during the pre-Vatican II days, but this Catholic was able to follow the Mass with the simultaneous translation of Latin into English using my St.Joseph Missal. I was able to sing Gregorian chant as a 4th grader and know full well what I was singing. Of course, this was before the Catholic faith was dumbed down by the homosexualists in the Church.
James,
That’s why there are English/Latin hand missals.
If you are correct about TLM attendees not knowing the words the irony here is even more shocking: TLM folks might not know what the priest is saying but they believe in the miracle of the Mass and True Presence.
A huge percentage of Catholics at large know exactly what the words mean, but they do not believe.
This is the ultimate tragedy and the crisis of our times.
Ave Maria!
I understand every word of the Latin at Mass, but during those parts of the Mass reserved to the priest, I often pray the rosary or some other devotion. That you would cite this as some defect of the TLM (or maybe a defect on my part?) would suggest that you do not understand what a Mass is and is not. Many of the pre-Vatican II popes specifically endorsed praying the rosary during Mass, including (ironically?) Leo XIII.
This is one reason why the Mass was updated. The rosary is a personal devotion; Mass is meant to be public worship. The reason why popes may have allowed the rosary was because many people didn’t understand the Latin language. The rosary does not belong during Mass.
Gary, who’s placed you in charge of deciding how individual Catholics ought to worship God? What you write about people praying the rosary during Mass is offensive. Assuming that one day you get to enjoy the Beatific Vision, you just might find yourself in the company of a multitude of fellow Catholics who prayed the rosary during Mass.
Praying the Rosary involves meditation or contemplation of the major events of Our Lord’s life. One involves His Sacrificial Giving of His Life, another His Offering Us His Consecrated Body. Seriously. What’s the problem with prayer centering on those? How about some pro-life themes? How about His Conception or His Blessing John the Baptist in the Womb? What’s the problem there? How about His Resurrection? Should a person not think of this during the Mass? The Ascension?, the Assumption, the FINDING JESUS IN THE TEMPLE? During the Mass, why ought we not pray or honor the Mysteries of Christ? Should we rather read text messages or sports scores from our phone, now that we’ve passed beyond the year 1964?
It might help you to understand at least the approach that many Protestant converts to Catholicism have about the Mass. I realize that many Mass attendees are cradle Catholics, but these days, I believe that there are many converts from Protestantism also attending.
For Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants, UNDERSTANDING and participation in the “worship service” is of utmost importance. Just “being there” and receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is not enough, at least in their minds.
From a very young age, Protestant children are encouraged to “pay attention” to those parts of the Protestant worship service that they can understand (e.g., various hymns and songs, and stories that the pastors tell, etc.). Many teens and adults take notes during the sermon. Of course, the Bible is extremely important to Protestants, and many Protestants expect the “sermon” or “message” to have a Scriptural origin and to illuminate the Scripture passage and help the listener to apply the teaching to their own life.
Sadly, most (not all) Protestants consider the Holy Communion an “ordinance” and don’t accept “sacraments”. This means that in most Evangelical Protestant churches, the “communion” is only offered once a month at only one worship service–or in some churches (not all), only a few times a year. They see it as a “ceremony of remembrance” rather than something efficacious for our souls. But of course, without the authority given to priests by Holy Mother Church, the communion elements are simply a “ceremonial prop.”
Many times, cradle Catholics don’t understand these “attentive” attitudes towards Mass from Protestants and their enthusiastic participation in everything from the postures to the prayer to opening the missalette or hymnals and singing the hymns with GUSTO! But try to understand that “praying your own personal prayers during corporate worship” is foreign to most Protestants for whom “understanding” and “learning more” are big priorities. JMO–I personally think that it would be good for Catholics, both traditional and contemporary, to have a more detailed knowledge and understanding of their own amazing and TRUE faith, and the recognition that, as members of the Church that Jesus Christ Himself started, and participants in the Holy Communion during which Jesus Christ becomes Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, it would be good if they could be attentive to the Mass whether it is TLM or the “New” Mass, and participate fully in the rubrics of the Mass, including singing the hymns, when/if it is “their turn” to participate. But I’m not “the judge” and this is JMO, not binding on anyone! I am more concerned with discerning my own sins and failures to honor the Lord and His Church. And I’m pretty certain that many Catholics, both traditional and “contemporary”, DO participate fully and practice ardent devotion during Holy Mass.
Mrs. Whitluck,
Did you write this comment to meiron? My comment discussed the Rosary relative to the Mass. I don’t understand how your comment addresses that.
I think I understand now. You seem to be saying that some Mass attendees come from a Protestant background. They may see a person at Mass holding the Rosary, focusing prayer on the Mother of Christ and His Life as only a fully human mother could do, as something strange and incongruous with the Protestant idea of communal or conformist-uniformist type worship. Therefore, perhaps other Mass-attendees (particularly those of previous Protestant worship inclination) would see a person at Mass with rosary beads in hand as inappropriate, distressing, or confusing. Less than ideal, IOW.
It may interest and educate you if you would be willing and able to learn what both JPII and Paul VI had to say about the Rosary:
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html
Then maybe get back to me. Or not. At least consider that others do not necessarily follow the same JMO inclinations as you. There is no need to look at another’s piety or devotion as somehow skewed in the direction of disorder. God is God to everyone, and Mary, Our Mother loves you and me more than we know. We owe her for delivering Christ to us.
Yet this is a Catholic Mass. So why would a Catholic be concerned about what Protestant attendees may think?
The Church wants us to pray the Mass. The rosary isn’t part of the Mass. Private prayers and devotions belong elsewhere. The priest saying Mass is not background noise for us to catch up on personal prayers. Corporate worship is a Catholic concept. We are to pray the Mass as a group together, united, not together doing our own prayers in the same room. There’s a difference.
I bet you would be able to understand a little of the Spanish Mass because some words are quite similar to the Latin but i hear you. A universal prayer language has many advantages.
Latin was it!
For the Latin Rite, yes knowall. It was and is.
DiogenesRedux, were you to attend the TLM anywhere in the world you would understand the majority of what is being said. Just not what is spoken in the local language. Being able to understand the mass in all countries with Latin as the shared language, That is real unity for you.
As regards Mr. Connor’s question, quite a few learn and know the Latin being prayed. Plus, the Saint Joseph missal has the Latin on the left and the English on the right. Why is it so difficult for people to understand this?
Joseph: I agree. I was simply making a point to those who find Latin so disagreeable – mainly because they don’t understand the language. On the other hand, no one has a problem with Masses being said in Spanish – a language most Anglos cannot understand.
Mass for care of the climate in. TLM out. Pacamama must be pleased.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/praying-world-halts-climate-change-theres-now-catholic-mass-that-2025-07-03/
For those seeking Sacred Tradition and the peace of Christ, find a reverent Mass: https://reverentcatholicmass.com/map
Us traddies should strive mightily to avoid ‘sterile polemic’, but we must never let go of the fundamental truth: the Novus Ordo is a disastrous mistake, and the Church cannot recover till she recovers her authentic liturgy.
Thank you for showing that trads are SSPX at heart and hate the Vatican II Church.
There can be no reconciliation between trads and the Vatican II Catholics if the trads are going to be recalcitrant.
The novus ordo is the Roman Rite’s new, reformed, authentic liturgy. You need to accept that. If you can’t or won’t, then off to the SSPX with you, schismatic.
Pope Francis was right about the TLM fomenting hatred for the Church. The trads have made an idol out of the TLM.
In reality, there is no such thing as the novus ordo. Catholic Mass varies from parish to parish just as much as any Protestant worship service varies from all the others. It is odd to hear devotees of such extreme diversity demand absolute uniformity. It is quite an example of cognitive dissonance.
If one was truly schismatic the SSPX wouldn’t be much interested in having them join. The SSPX are not in schism.
“…Francis was right about the TLM fomenting hatred for the Church.”
Francis was right only in the eyes of those who choose to hate. Some hate the TLM, some hate adherents of the TLM, and some hate the Church. That is their choice.
Francis’s words were only infallible when he taught time-honored dogmatic truth. His words and dislike of the TLM reflected his personal choice and opinion. That opinion and choice is by no means or measure infallible.
If Francis supported or caused others to hate the Church, TLM adherents, or the TLM itself, Francis will surely give account. All shall be called to account. All who hate the Mass, the Church, or its members while professing its Creed shall not escape by pointing to Francis as an excuse.
Do you go by the title of “Pope Sebastian”? You come across as hopelessly supercillious.
Plenty of vitriol in these comments and it’s not coming from the TLM crowd.
Just sayin’.
It’s a shame Miss Cleo. A divided, bickering Church is a weakened Church.
Is that a snide joke? This is of course NOT “Miss Cleo” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Cleo. I’m old enough to remember her, and I get the impression you are, too. Don’t go there.
We’re you responding to my comments to Miss Cleo? I’m not sure what you meant. Sorry.
I respectfully and sadly disagree. I’ve seen some pretty disturbing comments on this thread, and many were from the proponents of the traditional Latin Mass, although others were from the proponents of the “New” Mass. Satan just loves warfare between Christians. Be careful out there, everyone! And remember that Holy Mother Church recognizes both forms of the Mass as “legitimate.”
All too true! I’m a convert, and compared with what I have seen in Baptist and Bible churches, I’m impressed with the depth and profundity of all valid Catholic Masses, and Orthodox Divine Liturgies to boot. When the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity deigns to make Himself present among us sinners, all I can do is adore. That is not to say that all preparations for His coming are the same, but I will say that all preparations are inadequate — OR ELSE THE LIKES OF ME WOULD NOT BE PRESENT.
Yes, Mrs Sharon that was the point I think. Division comes from all sides.
The Apostles argued and probably fought frequently, as did our Founding Fathers (USA)
No doubt, knowall.
Our fallen nature doesn’t change much.
Never underestimate the disposition on the part of hierarchs to lie.
Ask the trads how many of them want mutual enrichment from the NO to the TLM. Things like vernacular proclamation of the readings, a three-year lectionary cycle, and participation in the ordinary by the assembly. You’ll get vociferous opposition.
Trads don’t want mutual enrichment. Trads don’t want Vatican II. Trads want their pristine TLM. They don’t even care if the TLM is in union with the Catholic Church. They’ll go to the Lefebvrites if it comes down to a choice between that and the Novus Ordo.
That’s the mindset that Francis and now Leo has to correct. Leo has to be a true and authoritative spiritual father: he needs to take away the TLM pacifier and reaffirm that the Roman Church has one unique liturgical form: the Novus Ordo Mass.
We would not be having this conversation if Archbishop Lefebvre hadn’t schismatically ordained new priests and bishops without the pope’s authorization. Lefebvre chose the TLM over the Church. JPII and BXVI tried to keep Lefebvrite-leaning Catholics in the Church by granting them permission for the TLM. That didn’t work. The trads are SSPX, anti Vatican II to their core. The TLM would be nonexistent were it not for Lefebvre.
It’s high time we all admit it to be true like adults and just go our separate ways. Trads are welcome in the Catholic Church, but only on the condition that they celebrate the Novus Ordo with the rest of us.
You keep telling us that trads do this and trads want that. They’ll don this and they’ll do that if this and that. Seems you know a lot about trads. Too bad your words are only wishful projections. prejudicial, untruthful, and uncharitable supposition. God rest your soul.
Try this on for size: “NO’ers are welcome in the Catholic Church, but only on the condition that they celebrate the Tridentine Mass.” There. That seems to fit, right and just.
Except there was an ecumenical council that decreed the Tridentine Mass should be changed. Trads can’t argue against that and remain good Catholics. The novus ordoans are right: you have to accept Vatican 2 with its liturgical reform in order to be Catholic. You can’t be Catholic and reject an ecumenical council. The novus ordo Mass is definitely on more solid footing than the Tridentine Mass is.
Amy, you sound like a veritable autocrat. One would never think you were referring to others who also are members of the Body of Christ. Where’s your charity?
Did Pope Paul VI reject VCII and its liturgical reform when he granted the “Agatha Christie” indult to England in 1971?
By definition, an indult is an exception to the norm.
Trads have no good arguments at all.
The novus ordo is the Mass of the Roman Church. The TLM is obsolete, outdated, inferior, superseded, passe, and should be eliminated from use. Preserving and perpetuating it hurts the Church. Pastoral exceptions were made for people who had a hard time adjusting to the new Mass, but that time is long over. Now the TLM is a form and a sign of resistance, which is why it must be forbidden.
Well, Mr Donald, there you go. Division comes from every side.
My personal experience has been that parishes offering both forms of the Mass get along just fine. No one really cares what the folks at the TLM are up to and visa versa.