Faith packet loss
L.A. Catholic points to a bizarre homily by a Father Kester who was on a leave of absence for awhile but is now back.
"[Those already baptized in another Christian faith] ... have to read this little thing that said 'I profess and believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and holds to be revealed by God.' I sat back there and I thought ... mmm ... [I'm] glad they didn't ask me to read that. I'd have to say ... I believe ... really ... a good part of it ... most of it [laughter]. I'm not sure I wanna stand up there and say I believe all [of it], everything."
"I once went and talked [about] this with my spiritual director ... [about] something I was having a little problem with, a little article of faith and he said, 'Kevin, faith is a gift from God and nobody can tell you you have to believe something. You either have the gift of faith to believe it or you don't.' I felt kind of good about that, that that would allow me to at least ponder these imponderables and not get too unglued."
He also links to an audio file of the homily. If spiritual directors could be sued for malpractice this one certainly could. To say that every article of faith requires a separate gift of faith is unbelievably dumb. As if each article of faith required a matching packet of faith to be sent to verify it. Kind of a faith protocol system sent along the grace backbone. That if there is a faith packet loss then you have a mismatch between what you should believe and what you can believe. The Catechism says:
Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason.
and
In faith, the human intellect and will co-operate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.
Known as 
Sounds to me like Cardinal Mahoney needs to recall this priest and his spiritual director back to the cathedral, give them a good spiritual beating each day, and then require them to profess the faith of the Church or leave the priesthood, not letting the door hit them in the ass on their way out.
We do not need priests who do not believe. We need even less a priest who preaches homilies that contain material that are theologically anti-Catholic. If they continue to do so, they need to be removed, disciplines, and, if necessary, removed. This can be hard for some Catholics to accept, but nothing but orthodoxy in our faith can be accepted by the faithful. If a priest does not believe what the Church teaches, he needs to leave fast.
Ummm, why is a priest expressing his divided consceince in a homily? And why is he making public his conversation with his spiritual director?
*tap,tap, tap* (on shoulder)
"Father, this is MASS, you're not on Jerry Springer."
Well said Theresa.
It's not just divided consciences we have to hear about though. At least something like that could keep me awake.
Isn't father forever telling me about himself in a million ways. And a million more if he forgot any.
Wouldn't a few words on the gospel be a bit more appropriate I'm always saying to myself.
Benedict, my hope: Send an iron clad order from Rome to every diocese, "Don't let these guys loose until they can preach".
I hope that isn't the Kevin Kester I went to parochial school with. It isn't a common surname in the Church, and the Kesters I knew were the children of a Catholic mother and a Jewish-convert father (just like my children, in fact).
"mmm...I'm glad they didn't ask me to read that. I'd have to say...I believe...really...a good part of it...most of it. I am not sure I wanna stand up there and say I believe all of it, everything."
Hmm, Before I was ordained a transitional deacon, I was asked to take an oath of fidelity and sign a profession of faith along the lines of one who is to be recieved into the Church. It went further, however, and cast me in the role of one who is to pass on this teaching by virtue of my office. As I understand, it is on file (either in my own diocesan chancery or in that of the Archdiocese of Chicago where oath was taken and profession signed). I also believe that priests, before assuming a post of jurisdiction (such as pastor), are also required to renew that oath and profession.
For further details see canon 833 particularly no. 6 It states:
"The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula provided by the Apostolic See:...6th in the presence of the local ordinary or his delegate and at the beginning of their function, PASTORS, the rector of a seminary, and teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; THOSE TO BE PROMOTED TO THE DIACONATE."
hmm, I guess it is a good thing he didn't take that oath (to which he was obliged)!
Yes, Father T., and I'm sure it wouldn't strike my husband's fancy if I declared my oath to "keep faithful only to him" to be the particular part of the oath I wasn't believing today! And if I went around declaring that in front of the wee ones, I'm thinking that's the "give scandal" part that the Church admonishes.