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 1:09 pm
Dogmatic adherence to the only non-dogmatic council and the "liturgical reforms" that were in no way contemplated by, or directed in, the texts of the council is the only requisite for being a "Catholic in good standing." Andrew Coumo will find his way on his journey to the Lord. The Fisher-More folks folks are on the path to damnation.
March 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Pat,
Why don't you address this with a column at the Register?
March 3, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Funny.
March 3, 2014 at 4:09 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm
He didn't offer an explanation in the letter, but he states that he had already discussed this is a face to face meeting. Is it not reasonable to assume that his rationale was explaind at that time?
You don't know the whole story, so maybe you should slow down on the persecution talk. It looks questionable on the surface, but there is perhaps a history here to which you are not privy.
March 3, 2014 at 4:09 pm
There is ZERO canonical authority to forbid a legitimate rite of the Church. ZERO. There isn't a mitigating circumstance that could make this OK.
March 3, 2014 at 2:15 pm
I'd like to hear from Mr. King about what was said at the meeting, but I wouldn't go so far as Rebecca does. It would be bizarre—it is at least suspicious—for the rationale of an action that is sure to be subject to review to be explained face-to-face and then omitted in the written communication. Suppose that you are subject to a federal regulation, for example, and you are called in to a meeting. They give you an explanation for why they are fining you, but then the written letter simply states the amount of the fine and not the reasoning; to a court, that's going to look like an attempt to evade review.
March 3, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Universæ Ecclesiæ says that “Diocesan Bishops, according to Canon Law, are to monitor liturgical matters in order to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses, always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.” If I wished to defend Bp. Olson’s actions, I might suggest that he is acting in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father’s successor, Francis, who has made clear his contempt for the usus antiquior and the pseudo-hipster Catholics who adhere to it.
March 3, 2014 at 2:33 pm
There is much more to the story, but I am not allowed to talk about it. This isn't an attack on the TLM, its the problems with FMC (and its feeder school FMA). I see no good reporting here, trying to get to the underlying issues by talking to the staff that has left FMA recently.
March 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm
How is it anything but questionable to forbid the celebration of the Mass? How is it good for souls to deny them access to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord?
March 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Simon,
"…pseudo-hipster Catholics?"
March 3, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Whether or not there is more to the story, how can it be appropriate to cut off the faithful from a legitimate form of the Mass? Since many of the students there come from families who exclusively pray the EF mass, this will effectively shut down the school, won't it? Seems like a drastic overreach of power to me, no matter what problems there might be at the school.
March 3, 2014 at 2:55 pm
I have been thinking a lot about how the RC way doesn't really allow for local unity. The Fort Worth bishop is little more than an administrator appointed by Rome, and we know how this Papal stuff works- the power of the current pope is more important than whatever previous popes said before. The filoque is an example of this- it is not necessarily an error in doctrine, but clearly a flouting of the rules established by a council and a pope.
But post Benedict's motu propio on the chapel door and defy the bureaucrat. While you are at it, find some liturgical books that are a bit older than 1962. Nothing from the sixties is traditional.
March 3, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Listen all,
If there are underlying issues at FMC, then the Bishop should address those issues. How does restricting the TLM address any issue? How can the TLM be a danger to one's soul? If there is bad theology at FMC, then deal with that. But to use the TLM as a cudgel is inappropriate.
March 3, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Why is it that egregious abuses we see everyday, out in the open, are not treated like this? Why is it only the TLM / Traditionalists getting spanked by bishops, with the ensuing, mysterious whispers of "we don't know what has transpired".
Well, how bad could it be? If it's something so horrendous wouldn't we know about it? This is pastoral? The crazy Germans bishops want communion for divorce-and-remarrieds and the TLM is being suppressed, all in the name of caring for souls…. this is nuts.
March 3, 2014 at 2:59 pm
I've heard just enough hints from contacts at Fisher-More to think there's something to what Federoff11 says.
But the problem is that I am having trouble imagining a problem that has as its solution the (canonically problematic) yanking of the Extraordinary Form from the campus – and only that solution. Why not just insist that both forms be celebrated?
Let us say – getting wild and imaginative here – that you had a professor denouncing the New Mass as invalid and the result of a Jewish conspiracy, with the administration supporting him; let us even say the students formed a Klaus Barbie Fan Club that conducting public burnings of the modern Roman Missal on campus grounds on Saturday nights (while roasting s'mores over the fires). Well, in case like that, you'd have a far more grave problem, and just stopping TLM's is not going to solve it. At that point, you'd be yanking its Catholic credentials altogether.
Yes, there are concerns at Fisher-More. But I can't see how this ban of the TLM on campus is a proper solution. Especially in a diocese that has only one TLM location, and only once a week. He's only been on the job three weeks, but he could put a lot of traditionalists' minds at ease – and respond to what I know is an underserved tradition-desiring constituency – if he were to complement this action with some act to expand TLM availability, by non-problematic priests, in his diocese.
March 3, 2014 at 3:00 pm
The Bishop is the Vicar of Christ in his diocese
March 3, 2014 at 3:19 pm
I would like to know who was celebrating these Masses. Did the school have a suspended priest coming by to say daily Mass? It's weird that the school has such a focus on liturgy (in itself, good), and yet no mention on their website of a chaplain or the identity of those saying Mass.
March 3, 2014 at 3:20 pm
Jason, yes, but he must exercise his authority within the confines of the law of the Roman Church and the universal law of the Catholic Church, as established by the Holy See. The bishop had the authority to do what he did under the regmie of Ecclesia Dei, but Summorum Pontificum supersedes Ecclesia Dei.
March 3, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Two words Jason, ready?
1. rembert
2. weakland
March 3, 2014 at 3:24 pm
No wonder so many love SSPX……….
March 3, 2014 at 3:26 pm
If the college had a pro-baby murdering club or a pro-sodomite group the Bishop would be fine with that.
The Catholic Church is becoming a joke
March 3, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Viva yes Cristo the people of the Catholic Church are a joke that is why they need Christ. Rembert and Weakland were successor of the apostles selected by the Successor of Peter, so if you are looking for someone to blame, then well (or the people should go back to selecting their bishops they can't do worse than the Popes)….. Olson as the Chief Judge (so to speak) in his diocese can say, with authority, what is consistent with the Universal Law. Until Olson is disciplined, excommunicated or disposed the Pope must believe he is operating in the letter of the law.