Note: I am not jumping to any conclusions regarding the reasons for actions taken by Bishop Olson, since they are unknowable until he tells us. The questions posed below can be summed up thusly. How is this a banning of a legitimate rite of the Church a legitimate remedy to a legitimate problem? I believe it is incumbent upon the Bishop to publicly share this critical information.
In a shocking, largely unexplained, and possibly canonically illegitimate move, and just over three weeks into his tenure, the Bishop of Fort Worth has banned the daily Traditional Mass at Fisher More College. The only reason offered for the startling action that seemingly flies in the face of the rights established in Summorum Pontificum is that such a ban is “for the sake of your own soul.”
I wrote last week, about which there was some controversy, that traditional Catholics within the Church are feeling more and more marginalized. This is not going to help.
In a stunning and breathtaking letter, the Most Rev. Michael Olson, the newly-ordained bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese and the second-youngest bishop in the United States, has fully and totally banned the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass in the chapel of Fisher More College, where it has been offered for the last three years on a daily basis by chaplains all approved by his predecessor bishop according to the college. This blow comes after the students of the college raised $300,000 in about a week to keep the school open for the spring semester (see here).
Rorate has exclusively obtained — through a source who has requested anonymity — a copy of the letter sent last week by the bishop after a personal meeting with the college’s president, Michael King. Even more striking, the letter from Bishop Olson states that he’s doing this “for your own soul,” addressing Mr. King, apparently saying in some twisted way the offering of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is a danger to Mr.King’s soul.
When asked by Rorate for a response to the letter from Bishop Olson, the school declined to comment.
February 24, 2014
Mr. Michael King
Fisher-More College
801 West Shaw Street
Fort Worth, Texas 761 l0Dear Mister King:
Thank you for your visit today. I am writing you to state formally what I told you during our
meeting. These norms take effect immediately.1. You do not have permission to have the public celebration of the Extraordinary Form of
the Mass at the Chapel of Fisher More College. This includes Sundays and weekdays.
The weekly celebration of the Extraordinary Form is available to the faithful every
Sunday at St. Mary of the Assumption Catholic Church in Fort Worth2. You may only have the celebration of fire Mass in the Ordinary Form by priests who
explicitly have faculties for such celebration as granted by me as the Bishop of Fort
Worth.3. Failure to comply with the above-stated norms will result in my withdrawal of permission
to celebrate the Eucharist in your chapel along with withdrawal of permission to reserve
the Blessed Sacrament in the Chapel.I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the students of Fisher-More
College as well as for your own soul. I urge you to comply with them. Please convey to your
students my gratitude for their glfi of the spiritual bouquet. Please assure them of their presence
in my prayers.I remain,
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Michael F4 Olson, STD
Bishop of Fort Worth
This move is made all the more shocking for the lack of justification. As if the daily offering of the TLM, by itself, could be the cause of injury to anyone’s soul. What he offers as a substitute is the one TLM in the entire diocese a few miles away at 5:30pm on Sundays only.
Rorate includes a letter from the Canon Law Centre which suggests that this action of the Bishop is beyond his authority and should be challenged.
I will also note that the Bishop made this decision just over 3 weeks into his tenure in the Diocese. Hardly enough time to address any underlying issues fairly with the college. As such, this seems directed at the TLM only.
Whether beyond his authority under Summorum Pontificum or not, this serious action with minimal justification directed at something so ancient and sacred, reverberates far beyond the confines of campus. This is reminiscent of other recent actions directed against the TLM with minimal justification and will likely be seen as very chilling by traditionalists within the Church, increasing that very dangerous sense of isolation.
Update: It is entirely possible that there are other legitimate issues with FMC, I do not discount that possibility. But how is canonically suspect banning the TLM supposed to address any other issue? If there are underlying issues, deal with them. The TLM is not the source of anyone’s problems. To use it as a punishment or a threat is wholly inappropriate. I would suggest that the Bishop owes the faithful a fuller explanation of the situation.
March 3, 2014 at 9:05 pm
"Well, when they who occupy the high offices created by Divinely-Constituted authority repeatedly teach one thing, why do so many choose to follow those who are directly opposed to those who occupy those Divinely-Constituted authority?"
I don't know. Why do Bishops get appointed now without having to sign the oath against modernism?
March 3, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Rorate Caeli publishes the opinion of the Canon Law Centre (That spelling alone hints of authority) but when one goes to that website and clicks on Advocates one sees one name.
One name, and he is also the founder; that is, he is a centre – albeit a starting centre 🙂
How can a poor Bishop hope to prevail:)
March 3, 2014 at 9:21 pm
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church,..
Dear Michael. There is not one – NOT A SINGLE ONE – of the Bishops in the SSPX who could take this oath because they do not believe in an unerring teaching authority.
The SSPX uses the absence of The Oath as a hammer to beat upon the orthodoxy of all the Bishops who maintain the oinds of Unity and who are in Full Communion with the Pope.
BUT, the fact remains that all the Bishops of the SSPX could not take the oath
March 3, 2014 at 9:39 pm
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/03/fr-zs-first-reaction-to-bp-olson-banning-extraordinary-form-at-fort-worths-fisher-more-college/
FR. Z has some useful updates.
I wonder when Rorate's ,Adfero, after his Call to Action , will apologise and do penance for inciting contention and for stirring-up division within the Body of Christ by calling for such action when he knew so little about the situation- or do those actions no longer count as the sisters of the Capital Sins?
There may be just more than one reason Rorate Caeli no longer links to Fr. Z.
March 3, 2014 at 9:58 pm
"it could be a cross to bear"… I'm trying to think if I know anyone else who has borne a cross and invited me to join Him… any ideas? Gee, how SHALL I fulfill my Sunday obligation in the meantime?…
March 3, 2014 at 10:10 pm
The SSPX is not the topic here.
March 3, 2014 at 11:20 pm
adamant4242:
What are you talking about? Geocentrism? Dogmatic Creationism? Even if they are talking about these things, since when are these heresies or cause for sanction.
No, this is about the TLM whether you like it or not. If it were truly about something else, then the Bishop would address it.
March 3, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Let me make a few points here:
1) The EF is celebrated at a nearby parish church. So it's not as if the students have lost all access to the EF.
2) Some canonists reporting on Father Z's blog have noted that a) the fact that Masses at FMC occur in an oratory changes the applicability of Summorum Pontificum, and that b) those changes may very well give the bishop the right to suspend the TLM there.
3) Another commenter on Fr. Z's blog rightfully points out that Bp. Olson has canon lawyers on his staff, and is not likely to have taken this step without assurance that he is complying with the appropriate laws.
4) There's quite a few hints out there that may indicate some form of abuse of the TLM; I know Dr. Taylor Marshall, a devote of the TLM, worked there until a few months ago, when he quit without having another job in front of him (a risky thing, as Texas doesn't pay any unemployment to people who quit).
As I pointed out on Facebook, Pat, it all revolves around who originally released the news and how they framed it. Rorate Coeli deliberately front-loaded the event as an attack on the TLM because they've been convinced since 2 hours after the election that "Pope Francis hates the TLM". Doctor Marshall is convinced it's not, and that +Olson had good cause to suspend it at FMC. I suggest strongly we wait to read his take on the matter.
March 3, 2014 at 11:58 pm
Mr. Layne:
The EF being celebrated at 5:30pm on Sunday once per week doesn't mitigate this dictatorial measure by the Bishop. Again, whatever problems exist at FMC, they do not call for removing the TLM. When will traditional Catholics cease being 2nd class citizens. Apparently, only when they accept the modernist agenda.
March 4, 2014 at 12:00 am
Anthony:
About those points:
1) The nearest celebration of the TLM is eight miles away, and doesn't have it during the week. This is hardly suitable for integrating with campus life.
2) Assuming the spirit of the motu proprio is not being violated here, decrees that restrict are to be interpreted strictly, while decrees that permit are to be interpreted generously. Wanna guess where Summorum Pontificum falls?
3) No kidding. He has canonists on his staff. So did the Bishop of Calgary, Alberta, when he forbid the FSSP from celebrating the TLM publicly, openly stating that he was not restricted by the motu proprio. His little exercise in despotism lasted no more than a few weeks.
4) There are a LOT of problems with Fisher More College, some of which involve not learning anything from the lessons of Magdalen College. They are not stated in the letter. Not everyone to whom the letter is addressed was at the meeting. The bishop is bound as a matter of record to state the reasons in the letter, and the school is well within its canonical rights to demand the reasons as a matter of record. So now, instead of a problem, we have a solution that is not entirely based on the problem.
We agree on one thing. Rorate Caeli is rarely of any help when it comes to these things, other than being able to say "Yay, we told everybody first. Yay!"
March 4, 2014 at 12:05 am
Ah, Fr. Z just published a list of the craziness at FMC and it appears Fr. Gruner said Mass there recently. Really, that says it all. Gruner is the epicenter of crazy. No one who wishes to remain on the side of the real Church should be supporting anyone mixed up with Gruner. Lots of people here need to re-think their earlier positions. No Bishop can allow that sort of insanity to operate in their diocese, any more than allowing attempted ordinations of females or similar liberal craziness.
March 4, 2014 at 12:31 am
adamant4242:
You are the epicenter of crazy. Now, doesn't that solve the matter. I've just stated it, it must be true. No need for facts or support.
March 4, 2014 at 12:40 am
Anyone who likes and can spell g-o-o-g-l-e can learn all they want about Fr. Gruner.
March 4, 2014 at 1:11 am
The nearest TLM is two miles away at St. Mary of the Assumption in Fort Worth. According to Google Maps, the trip is 10-15 minutes by bus.