Loading ...
Unlike many appointees from mid-level sees to major archbishoprics, less is known about Archbishop Edwin O’Brien because these past ten years he has headed the military archdiocese, a post which is not exactly in the media limelight. He received some brief attention concering a controversy over the use of Our Lord’s Holy Name in inter-faith prayers within the military ordinariate. Now he is the Archbishop of Baltimore, the oldest see in the United States. I asked Simplex Sacerdos, a Navy chaplain who has served with the Marine Corps in Iraq, to share his thoughts with us on the appointment of Archbishop Edwin Frederick O’Brien as the 15th Archbishop of Baltimore.
My first reaction to the news was one of gladness: Archbishop O’Brien is a faithful Catholic and has always demonstrated himself to be very loyal to the Holy See. Also, he is very conscientious and hardworking, embodying the best of the “old school” clerical character. Secondly, though, I was a little apprehensive for the Military Archdiocese, since he has been a sane and stable presence for the past several years and has done many good things for the military chaplains and faithful. For instance, he has abolished (except in very unusual cases) the practice of allowing Lay Leaders (Catholic laymen in the military who act as official leaders for the Catholics of a certain unit or command) to possess the Blessed Sacrament; this practice was attended by a lot of abuses and confusion. Archbishop O’Brien was justifiably alarmed by the fairly widespread perception that a lay-led service (usually Scripture and Holy Communion) was the same as the Holy Sacrifice, and therefore he all but eliminated this practice. (In certain cases, when a group would be deprived of the Blessed Sacrament for a notable period, say three or four months, it is permitted under stringent conditions.) He has also greatly improved the Lay Leader training and striven to make it uniform throughout the military; the CD that the Military Archdiocese distributes for this training is extremely orthodox and complete in its presentation of the Holy Eucharist and the Mass. Moreover, he has in at least one case that I know of removed a priest who was grossly negligent of his duties; his judgment in that case was vindicated when the priest in question apostatized to some branch of the Orthodox without scarcely missing a beat. Finally, Archbishop O’Brien has been conscientious in trying to attract vocations to the priesthood (specifically, of course, with an aim to serve in the chaplaincy) and in encouraging young Catholics in the military to form groups where they can learn their Faith better and support each other in living the Catholic life.
If I have a reservation, if such is the right word, it would be that he will need a good deal of firmness and resolve if he is to correct the abuses that may be there in Baltimore. Certainly, things have not been noticeably improved amongst the military chaplains; he has simply done his best to keep things at a tolerable level. To be fair, it cannot be easy to deal with so many priests (many of them in their fifties and sixties) from different parts of the United States. He tends to be somewhat shy and reserved (as so many of us priests are, myself included), and no doubt some of your readers will remember his less than fiery defense of praying in the Holy Name. Personally, I don’t think this is an instance of true timidity; rather, there are issues within the military of the Fundamentalist Protestants seeking to aggrandize their influence in certain cases. But, as I mentioned above, this posture is, it seems to me, more one of conserving a certain status quo rather than boldly advancing the cause of the Faith.
In this new era in the Church, though, perhaps it will be enough, even a great good, to have an orthodox bishop at the helm in Baltimore to encourage the fervent among his priests and laity, so that slowly or (may God grant it!) quickly the influence of the lax and heterodox will vanish.
Our thanks to Simplex Sacerdos for these enlightening remarks!
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Why is it that all the articles on this website have the same judgemental and self-serving tone? If it were mere opinion that was expressed there would be little concern for such an approach. Rather what is presented here is not just opinion but rather the establishment of ‘The Way things should be done’. Why is it that the Catholic way is identical with your opinions? The more I read the more I see that the same faulty first principles driving members of this weblog as the those who ardently subscribe to the Tablet and their ilk. I’m right is not a principle of Catholic thinking.
Mr. Brown, I think that some time in the newly renovated papal dungeons would improve your attitude remarkably!
What an uncharitable outburst from Mr Brown, on such a balanced piece. To my mind it simply doesn’t make sense. Would Mr Brown like to point out a single instance of what he alleges? On second thoughts don’t bother, I shall probably die of boredom before I finish reading it.
“Papal dungeons?” So now Iosephus not content to be both judge and jury wishes to fill the role of executioner! Thank you for going out of your way to prove my point. Tell me, what is my crime- disagreeing with you?
As for dear Mr. Shaw, to help you stay awake, should I write something that has as its sole point of reference- you? And who is it that lacks charity? I seem to remember something about splinters and beams in the eyes of men. Perhaps the dear Mr Shaw would consider renewing his acquaintance with Christian charity instead of beating others over the head with it?
Kind regards
With any luck, there’s no trace of lumber, whatever the size, in those papal dungeons.
Yes I should imagine that most of it gets used as kindling.
Okay, Andrew, what precisely is wrong with thinking one is right? This can be wrong only if we actually are wrong, whether in what we advocate or in the vehemence we place upon it or in the manner in which we advance our cause. You yourself are criticizing us, without much in the way of substantive analysis. “The Way things should be done’. Why is it that the Catholic way is identical with your opinions” What specifically do you think is distorted in our approach? How would you analyze the situation otherwise? If you venture to criticize, you should be able to provide an alternative analysis so that we may be edified and learn. Once you provide this alternative, “nonjudgmental” and “non-self-serving” model for how we should go about things, what would prevent us from saying that *you* in turn have exceeded your authority? Do you see now why some of my colleagues in the Society were willing to poke fun at you? I for one would like to see an authentic, well-intentioned critique, but since your whole tirade was against “judgmentalism,” it is hard for me to see how you could finish the job you started — that of “correcting the sinner” — without yourself becoming guilty of that which you criticize. “By the standards with which you judge, you shall be judged.” If we are supposed to be meek and polite and more positive, why did you not act that way toward us?
And I *sincerely* desire for you to write up any correction or suggestion you have. I wrote this post not just to contradict you, but to get you to see the contradictions in your own methodology.
What a delightfully Modern way of arguing Mr Petrus has! Have you by chance written for the Tablet?
You see dear Mr Petrus the problem lies not in thinking one’s reasoning is right in the light of first principles, rather thinking that my first principle is that I am right.
One does really need to make a distinction between opinion and Truth. Something sadly your little lesson in abstract modernity fails to achieve.
And thank you for your paternalism- “do you see why others made fun of you?” Should I nod my head as I suck my lollipop? I do hope now that you can see why you elicit such comments.
I see Mr Brown simply has no substantive arguments against the Society or its opinions. Perhaps the problem is simply that - well - he disagrees with them. Alas, when people take their own opinions as fact, and judge others by that!