I’ve already made my strong distaste for this type of anonymity made known there. It was pointed out that speaking out has its cost. Frankly, I don’t need clergy coaching me on ecclesiastical politics and the cost of discipleship.
Fr Jim Blue, defender of Father Anonymous:
In a world where serious input is requested and welcomed by ecclesiastical authorities that would work, Todd, but the sad truth is that no cleric can speak the truth about the VC2010 without sacrificing his career. That goes for clerics at all levels.
So instead we get this piece of wishy-washy preaching:
Perhaps it would be more honest just not to show up, and to pray at home or elsewhere—but perhaps too it’s important that we not overreact to the moral failures of our hierarchy by letting these failures provoke us into absenting ourselves from the Church of our baptism. Such integrity from the ordinary members of the Church amid authority’s failures has noble precedent.
I think I get it. This priest is happy to preserve his path to glory, or at least in keeping stocked in whisky and cigars and in-house plumbing. But it’s fine to muse about advising people to skip Mass. Or maybe not: he can’t decide. Maybe this is just a typing exercise, and it has nothing to do with morality at all.
So as to my question in the title above: I vote two thumbs down. This sort of pontificating is even worse than the MoroneyMissal, which, as many agree, is horrific enough.
Taking a stand, a public stand, in the face of opposition is indeed dangerous, unnerving, and challenging. But a believer, not to mention a priest, is called by God, by nature of baptism, to imitate the Master. If an issue is important enough to merit an internet sermon on morality, then by God, the person taking the Church to task should step out from behind the computer, the curtain of anonymity, and do what is needed. And do it publicly. And if it’s not important enough to imitate the Lord and demonstrate the Paschal Mystery, I don’t think the message is worth hearing.