The Necessity of a Bishop

It has been posited that among Old/Independent Catholics, a bishop is not needed for a community.
Indeed, many communities exist as individual communities on their own without a larger connection. However, this is not an easy path. The community has to exist on its own and find a wandering bishop to ordain for it and provide episcopal services. However, it is also true that it is not easy to belong to a group in our movement. Bishops in our tradition can be untrained, despotic, and overbearing. However, this is not different from any other Church where the bishop can be difficult. I recently saw the movie "Man of God," where St. Nectarios of Aegina was treated terribly by the Patriarch of Alexandria and suffered great persecution from the Synod. In fact, Nectarios was later canonized and the Patriarchate apologized for their cruel treatment.

Despite not being easy, it is necessary for communities to have a bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch stated in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop." 

In the early Church, there were likely presbyter-bishops and deacons who shepherded congregations. As Christianity grew, bishops became monarchical and the three-fold ministry became predominant with priests as an extension of bishops. The deacon is also connected in a special way to the bishop. Bishops were responsible for consecrating other bishops (with 1-2 others), ordaining priests and deacons, as well as shepherding the regional church. There is the exception of the Church of Alexandria who ordained their bishop through the laying on of hands of priests, but this appears to be an exception and died out relatively quickly.

In the Old Catholic tradition, Varlet provided the episcopacy to the Church of Utrecht out of necessity and the church continued through its people, clergy, and bishop. This was affirmed by the Statute of the International Bishops' Conference in 2000 which said (emphasis mine):

"[the local church is a] communion of people, which by the reconciliation in Jesus Christ and by the outpouring and the continuous work of the Holy Spirit is constituted as a unity in a given place around a bishop with the eucharist as its center."

Dr. Esser affirms "The bishop is the sign of unity in his church. The spiritual centre of this unity is the Eucharist, in which the bishop represents the crucified, risen and real present Christ in the congregation. He is the real leader of the Eucharist. The priests in the parishes actually celebrate 'only' being commissioned by the bishop and acting in his place." He goes on to state that Urs van Arx defines the specific Old Catholic charism of the episcopate being "personal, collegial, and communal." 1

Of course, this is complicated in Independent Catholicism. There are hundreds of "wandering bishops" which present challenges to organizational structures (although I do see parallels to bishops of dicasteries and diplomatic missions). But, becoming a bishop is so accessible in Independent Catholicism there are not a lot of reasons to not have some affiliation to a bishop. It is also not outside the  realm of possibility that the pastor of a large congregation becomes a bishop in the early church model, surrounded by priests (presbyters) and deacons. Or, even a loose association can be worked out where a congregation has a tie to a bishop who has oversight (even while the congregation maintains autonomy). However, for Catholics the episcopacy is necessary even when it is difficult.

1: Episcopacy - conciliarity - collegiality - primacy: the theology and the task episcopacy from an Old Catholic perspective.

Liturgical Language Matters

Recently, you may have heard, that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix declared thousands of

baptisms invalid because a priest used "we" instead of "I" in the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the traditional formula in the West, while the East utilizes "The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

The purpose of this blog post is not about that situation in particular, but it is the cause of it--namely addressing the larger issue of adherence to liturgical rites. There has been varying responses and opinion about the Autocephalous Catholic world. These have ranged from not wishing to deviate at all from what is in the book to questioning why is this so important to the claim that jurisdictions or individuals use their own language for most sacraments. This has been a very divisive issue with accusations of adherents being too rigid to questioning "[the dependence on] the shamanistic parroting of particular words."

I freely admit that I fall into the camp that we need to adhere to what has been traditionally used and I will die on this hill. I received all my sacraments in Non-Papal Catholicism and sacramental integrity has always been part of my understanding of Autocephalous Catholicism. I would caution anyone entering our movement, especially former Roman Catholics, that we have traditionally always regarded sacramental forms as important. I was not going to address this issue at all because it has been so acrimonious, but (for me) it is of primary significance. I believe it is dangerous and problematic to deviate from language that is used by the rest of Christendom. My perspective is that 1) it impacts ecumenical relationships by calling into question Autocephalous Catholic sacraments and 2) the forms that have been used have historic, theological meanings that need to remain intact. 

Regarding the first perspective, I believe that it behooves us to use the same formularies as the rest of Christendom or to use formularies that have broad acceptance. This makes things easier for laity who come to us for sacraments to transfer their membership to other Christian bodies with the sure and certain knowledge that their baptism and confirmation will be regarded as acceptable or valid by those bodies. It is a fallacy to believe that all people who join our parishes or jurisdictions will be there from baptism to death. Following common formularies makes our relationships with other Christian bodies easier because we maintain the same liturgical language which has theological meaning.

The second perspective, perhaps the most important, is that theological language has meaning. As Christians, we study Scripture because we believe that the experiences and words there have impact on how we live our faith. We also pass down hymns, like the Phos Hilaron from the 3-4th centuries, whose words "O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and see the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee" still resonate today.

The same is true about our sacramental words. While I am an adherent of tradition, I am not so naive to believe that Our Blessed Lord celebrated a High Mass for the first Eucharist. I also will freely affirm that I HOPE that sacraments performed incorrectly still convey grace out of mercy. However, I do believe that formulas developed throughout time and took on meaning that is still impactful for us today. Opponents might say "but all tradition started somewhere," which is true, but it is self serving to believe that we can do it better than those who have come before us. 

IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE that members of the Independent Sacramental Movement and Autocephalous Catholic, Independent Catholic, Independent Anglican, (so called non-canonical) Orthodox individuals use the essential sacramental form for all of their sacraments. These are VERY VERY MINIMAL. A sentence. If you want to compose your own Mass, it's not my thing but be my guest. But keep the Dominical words. If you want to baptize a child do it with water with a common formula. Add in whatever you want, but please do not mess with the essentials. The same is true for ordination. I have watched some ordination rites with horror, not knowing who was consecrated, what was consecrated, or if someone was consecrated. The actual requirements are extremely simple. Otherwise, we call into question our sacraments and we do a disservice to those who need our sacramental ministry.

There are certainly options for those who want to compose their own rites which better fit their theology. Some Protestant groups, for example, like the Oneness Pentecostals. Or, there are non-orthodox (little o) groups which do not intend to carry on the apostolic tradition which has been passed down to them. But please, exercise caution when using the Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox moniker in your name if you disbelieve in the importance of sacramental words. 

“Our modern theology, which in many ways has ceased to be personal, i.e. centered on the Christian experience of "person," nevertheless - and maybe as a result of this - has become utterly individualistic. It views everything in the Church - sacraments, rites, and even the Church herself - as primarily, if not exclusively, individual "means of grace," aimed at the individual, at his individual sanctification. It has lost the very categories by which to express the Church and her life as that new reality which precisely overcomes and transcends all "individualism," transforms individuals into persons, and in which me are persons only because and inasmuch as they are united to God, and, in Him, to one another and to the whole of life.” ― Alexander Schmemann

Visiting Cleric Manners

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is that some of us believe that our indelible mark of ordination means that we should be extended liturgical favors wherever we go. This can be problematic where there are representatives from multiple jurisdictions in one area. If the parish of, say, Saint Drogo exists in Anytown and an ISM cleric shows up, many times the cleric will expect to concelebrate or participate in the liturgy. No cleric should just expect this to happen, regardless of if they belong to a mainstream tradition or the ISM. Because of sometimes loose ordination standards in the Autocephalous Catholic world, one must be especially careful to prevent anyone from participating liturgically without a degree of vetting and care.

This is particularly thorny when someone is a bishop. They may show up with all the tat and the glamor and expect to preside at the Eucharist. Again, this is a break of protocol. It is the role of the pastor (or the Board depending on how the parish is run) to invite a cleric to preside or participate. A community sets itself up for problems if they allow just anyone to celebrate, and the bishop should not automatically expect it. Assume, if you are a bishop, that you are celebrating as a priest and leave the episcopal grandeur at home unless specifically asked. It is highly advisable for bishops to call themselves father so as not to cause confusion in the parish if they are not that parish's bishop or even with that jurisdiction.

My proposal for parishes is below. Feel free to take this advice or leave it, but hopefully it can provide some degree of protection for your community.

1. For visiting clerics, do not expect to participate in the liturgy. Assume you will be sitting in the pews with the congregation. 

2. Clergy may invite visiting clerics to liturgically participate after a period of getting to know the cleric, understanding their training and background, and defining expectations up front about frequency, etc.

3. A criminal and child abuse check should be done on visiting clerics or a letter should be provided by the cleric from their jurisdiction stating the result of their last background/abuse check and when the check occurred.

4. If the visiting cleric continues to participate to a meaningful degree in the life of the parish, it is advisable that they meet with the clergy (and/or any administering Board) to set expectations about how often they will participate, when background checks will be refreshed, clarity on identification as visiting clergy, etc. 

The above, of course, assumes that there is no issue with the community's jurisdiction regarding inviting visiting clerics outside the group or with the visiting cleric's jurisdiction about celebrating in non-jurisdictional communities. 

Not only does this protect everyone involved, but it also protects friendships and relationships between everyone involved. If someone just expects to participate, it can lead to hurt feelings and frustrations. The key, as with every human relationship, is open and honest communication.

“If according to times and needs you should be obliged to make fresh rules and change current things, do it with prudence and good advice.” - St. Angela Merici

Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Autocephalous Catholic Apostolic Lineage

Ohiychuk and Prazsky

In 988, the Baptism of Kyvian Rus occurred by Saint Vladimir of Kyiv (secularly Vladimir the Great). Ukraine continued under the Metropolitante of Kyiv under the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1448. At this time, the Council of Moscow's Bishops appointed a Metropolitan of Kyiv without the Ecumenical Patriarch's blessing. Further changes to the territory came in 1596, when there was a split among Orthodox believers. Part remained Orthodox and the remaining believers joined the Roman Catholic Church. 

In 1685, the formal absorption of Kyiv as a religious entity into the Russian Orthodox Church when Patriarch Dionysius IV issued a letter granting control over Kyiv to Moscow (apparently through simony). This status of subjugation continued until Ukrainian independence in as the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917. At this time, the Ukrainian Autocephalus Orthodox Church was proclaimed. In 1921, an All-Ukrainian Sobor was called in Ukraine declaring independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky was chosen as the head of the church Upon election, he used Ukrainian in the liturgy instead of Church Slavonic. Because of this, was was deposed by Russian bishops who also disagreed with his promotion of Ukraine and liberal views. 

 On October 23, 1921 Lypkivsky was consecrated as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. No bishop would participate in his consecration so, in the Alexandrian model, he was consecrated by the laying on of hands of priests present. By 1924 the church had grown to 30 bishops and 1,500 priests and deacons in 1,100 parishes. However, it was not recognized because of the unorthodox consecration received by Lypkivsky and other bishops. By 1927, Lypkivsky was under house arrest by the Soviets until his execution on November 27, 1937 because of his Ukrainian nationalism.

Meanwhile, on November 13, 1924 the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios VII granted autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church and stated that the subjugation of the Kyvian Metropolia to Moscow was contrary to canon law. However, he did not recognize the established Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church despite appeals to do so. The church's situation changed when the Nazis invaded and took control of parts of Ukrainian territory. In 1942, in light of the 1924 Tomos, Bishop Polycarp (Sikorsky) of Lutsk (formerly of the Church of Poland) consecrated the first Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox bishops in apostolic succession. Around a dozen bishops were consecrated by 1944. As the Soviets advanced, however, those who did not escape to the West perished. 

Metropolitan Polycarp died in France in 1953 and Metropolitan Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) who was ordained by Polycarp made his way to Germany then to Canada and finally to the United States, where he settled at Bound Brook, NJ. Another bishop, Archbishop Hryhoriy Ohiychuk, formerly Archbishop of Zhytomyr fled to the United States. 

This begins the introduction of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into Autocephalous Catholicism. Archbishop Hryhoriy consecrated William Andrew Prazsky in May 1969. It has been alleged that Prazsky was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood by Walter Propheta, although Gary Ward's book lists him as a member of the Liberal Catholic Church (which is unproven; see here: https://sites.google.com/site/gnostickos/bbishopsprazsky2).

Prazsky went on to consecrate Bishop Andre Penachio who consecrated Bishop Joseph Fradale who, in 1983, consecrated sub-conditione Bishop Peter Paul Brennan (from whom many people descend). Prazsky also consecrated Alexis Nizza who, in 1999, consecrated Metropolitans Stephen Petrovitch and Michael Champion. They went on to form the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Sobornopravna). They consecrated Bishop Oleh Kulyk (Patriarch Moses) who went on to declare himself Patriarch of Kyiv and consecrated or received numerous individuals (see here: http://www.soborna.org/). 

The lineage of the UAOC entered so-called Old Calendarist Churches as well. Metropolitan Mstyslav, later elected Patriarch in 1991 upon Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union and his successor, Patriarch Dymytry (Yarema), was consecrator of Bishop Raphael (Leonid Motovilov) of Krasnoyarsk in 1996. The Russian True Orthodox Church was part of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church but left their jurisdiction. Bishop Raphael joined this group but left in 1999 to form the True Orthodox Church in Russia, and became Metropolitan Raphael and leader of this jurisdiction (see: http://ipckatakomb.ru/pages/577/). 

The True Orthodox Church of Russia later joined up with the Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece under Metropolitan Angelos of Avlona. Also in the union was the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The Metropolia was a member of the Holy Synod of Milan, itself under the Patriarchiate of Kyiv from 1995-1996. 

Unfortunately, because of this history the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been condemned by other groups because of its tumultuous history. However, this is to be expected of a country which has been invaded numerous times and subject to frequent destabilization. As mentioned, Metropolitan Mstyslav was elected Patriarch in 1991 and in 1992 there was a Unification Synod between the UAOC and part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Part of the UAOC did not accept the unficiation and continued under Patriarch Dymytry (mentioned above) while the unified group continued under Patriarch Volodymyr (Romaniuk) and later Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko). This group, in 2018, joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was re-named the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church joined the OCU as well, leading to stabilization in the country of Ukrainian groups independent of Russia. 

Please note: this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. It has been simplified and reduced for space and time.

Clerical Apostasy in Autocephalous Catholicism

In the early church, there were regulations about ordaining converts too quickly. There was concern that the new ordinands would be weak in their faith or would leave the faith all together. In time, other stipulations were put on candidates, such as age of ordination at the Council of Trullo. The Church wanted to ensure that it was ordaining candidates who were strong in their faith and wise in years. The ultimate goal was to prevent scandal as well as the loss of faith by the clergy.

During times of persecution, the Church was presented with another problem—how to treat those who handed over sacred objects when faced with death or torture. The Donatists, who were condemned as heretical, said that a cleric who gave over sacred objects to persecutors did not have valid sacraments. Ultimately, the Church disagreed and said that the sins of the celebrant do not affect the validity of what is done (ex opere operato).

While the sacramental guidelines on Donatism concerned priests who avoided martyrdom, it did not address clerics who left the faith all together. The Church was initially strict on anyone who left the faith, and forgiveness was denied even unto death. However, as persecutions increased and people reverted or acquiesced to cult worship to avoid martyrdom, the Church loosened up. Despite welcoming back those who apostatized, clerics were still to be deposed. An example of this is in the canons of the Council of Ephesus (431), which indicated that those who apostatized to the Nestorians should be deposed.

With the divergent paths of the East and West, there were different views on the grace of the sacraments of clergy who were outside the church. The Augustinian view, held by the West, is that once a priest always a priest and the sacramental character remains regardless. The view of Cyprian, held by the East, is that a cleric’s orders depend on their union with the Church at large. Outside the Church, the cleric has no sacraments (although they have used economy when admitting formerly schismatic groups). Sacraments celebrated outside the Church are not licit in the West and are invalid in the East.

As I am from a Western viewpoint, I will write about the Western position. The challenge among Autocephalous Catholics is that we cannot adhere to the first two conditions of the Early Church. Almost all ordinands in our jurisdiction are converts, and if we want to have any sort of sacramental growth, we have to ordain people earlier than occurred in the Early Church. Similarly, we do not generally adhere to age requirements (within reason, of course) because they can be rigid and are not necessarily an indication of growth. Both the East and the West have granted exceptions to age requirements, meaning that while they can be helpful guides they are not set in stone.

So, we ordain people who are new-ish to our jurisdiction and they leave. The problem is less when they leave for another jurisdiction or Christian group. The bigger issue is when they leave Christianity all together. There have been several examples of this in our Autocephalous Catholic history, where someone has been ordained and left Christianity to practice another religion. Each of those examples should teach us a lesson on if there are any steps to avoid in the future to ensure such a candidate is not ordained until they are mature in the faith. Of course, we will never prevent all candidate who may become apostates. That is impossible. But we can try our best to prevent it when possible.

What we can do is prevent candidates from returning after they have apostatized. While I am of the opinion that someone who has left Holy Orders still has an indelible mark, I think it is prudent to deny them the ability to return to active ministry if they have abandoned Christianity. Of course, this does not mean those who fluctuate in their faith. We are all on a journey and some of us will explore new paths but still maintain adherence to the Nicene Creed, the sacraments, etc. There are also those who also learn what is helpful in other religious traditions while maintaining their own Christian faith. I am speaking here only of those who have publicly abandoned Christianity or formally joined another religious tradition. I stand here with the Council of Ephesus that they should be deposed and not return.

While this may seem harsh, clergy are seen as “professional Christians.” Rightly or wrongly, our example carries much sway with Christians and with non-Christians. If we give up public profession of our faith, we have abandoned our call. One can always revert to Christianity, but not as a cleric. 

 

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?'” - John 11:25-26.

Control Issues in Autocephalous Catholicism

My church believes as me,
I control all I that I see,
Titles and dressing up are so much fun,
Yet now I am but a church of one.

We have a control problem in Autocephalous Catholicism. It starts early, as my dumb little ditty says. First, we find a jurisdiction that believes (almost) everything we do. After all, we might have come from mainstream denominations that we judged had too many liberals or too many conservatives, so we want to recreate the perfect oasis for ourselves and our beliefs. Naturally, the next step is to seek ordination. Our movement is, I have argued, almost opposite to clericalism because few people aren’t ordained! Inevitably, the next step is to move towards the episcopacy. Bishop so and so wants an auxiliary, we want to ensure we have some control, the succession must be preserved, etc. There are numerous reasons for it happening. And then comes the power struggle. Over very little.

One of the tests of Independent Catholicism is that we are made up of very independent people. We all want to be in control of our own destinies. This isn’t an inherently bad thing on its own, but when we use it with the desire to rule… Well, then we fall into the quote of Saint John Chrysostom that “the desire to rule of the mother of all heresies.” Unfortunately, this is playing out in several jurisdictions I know of right now and has happen untold times in the past. In a cynical view, a bishop is ordained who then wants to be in control or the bishop in charge does not want to give up control. And a split ensues. Or, in a more neutral sense, people just can’t get along and a split ensues. The result is the same.

I think this is something we need to address. There are a couple of realities we need to face first. Ultimately, we have not been good at continuing parishes and groups past talented leadership or a generation. Since the beginning of our movement, we have had churches, some quite successful, which have come and ultimately gone because they had a charismatic pastor (until they didn’t) or had a supportive group carrying it (until they didn’t). We also have not been good at keeping groups together on a larger scale. Parishes split off or groups discontinue, leaving dioceses with few constituents and jurisdictions with few members.

We have also never been good at screening candidates who want to serve. I’m not suggesting that we are alone in this dilemma. There are plenty of mainstream clergy who want to dress up and feel important as well, lest we be condemned as such. But the essence of ministry is service, not being served. How can we call people who truly want to serve the People of God by offering the sacraments of God? And how can we find a way to support them in this role?

Some path forward: Figure out why people are joining the jurisdiction. Is it because they believe exactly what you do? Is this a good thing necessarily? What are you willing to allow in divergent beliefs before you start anathematizing each other? Next, ask candidates what they plan to do with their ministry. Hold them to that and ensure that they are doing some ministry. It does not matter if you have less clergy because you don’t want people who don’t do anything. The majority of people think we are strange anyway, so having more people doesn’t necessarily even make an impact. Is it just to dress up? Why do they want to dress up?

Then and most significantly, identify and address control issues. What is it that is trying to be controlled? Why? Does it even really matter? I’m willing to do a lot to keep communion with people because it matters. Relationships matter. We have but a short time on this earth, and it’s a pity to spend any of it fighting over stupid things.

Now, I’m not saying this is a magic bullet for us all to live in harmony and grow. But I think it is some concrete steps to identify how we can stop some of the stigma we have had since Peter Anson’s time and move forward. If we can get control of our control issues, we’ll all be a lot better off in the end.

 

“You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds. What you cannot turn to good, you must, at least, make as little bad as you can.” – St. Thomas More 

Morality vs Moralizing

I recently came across an obituary that stopped me in my tracks. It was a remembrance of Father James (Jim) Doherty of Glasgow. It is hard not to be struck by the stories listed in The Telegraph about him. Hagiography or not, they provide insight into the life of what sounds like an extraordinary priest. Here is one of the stories, courtesy of The Telegraph:

His bluntness irked the bishops, but to the laity it spelt sincerity and an absence of snobbery. An oft-repeated story told of Doherty ringing up a woman who had not been to church for years to see if she would like him to bless her home. “The old priest never came to see us,” the woman said, “because of our living arrangements – you see, I’m living with my partner and we’ve three bairns out of wedlock.”

“I’m here to bless your house, honey, not judge your circumstances,” replied Doherty. “Where do you live?”

“Oh, thank you father. We live in a flat, our name is Smith, but press the top buzzer. There are Smiths below us, but you don’t want to go there because they’re a couple of poofs.”

“Is that right? Well, see, if I do press the wrong buzzer and I get the two poofs, I’ll just say: ‘Hello you two poofs, can you tell me where the two fornicating adulterers and their three bastard children live?’ ”

A characteristic act of Doherty’s was to attach an HIV red ribbon to a statue of St Vincent. And in 2005 he addressed the Scottish Parliament. “Having a morality and moralising are two different things,” he said. “My Church has been trying to get its own house in order since it began.”

This story points out an important issue: there is a difference between morality and moralizing. For us as Christians, we are called to examine ourselves frequently and even harshly. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk reminds us: "Let us examine these things and the rest, and let us look at how we live, how we conduct ourselves, how we think, how we talk, how we act, with what kind of heart we go about before the God who sees all things, how we treat one another." Our morality and ethics are how we judge ourselves.

Yet, so often we have the desire to moralize and judge others. Saint Maximus the Confessor says: "Whoever is curious to know about the sins of others or judges his brother out of suspicion has not yet begun to repent, neither does he care to know about his own sins, heavier than heaviest lead indeed. He does not know why people are heavy-hearted, take pleasure in vanity and seek after falsehood (Psalms 4:3). So, as a madman wandering in the dark and neglecting his own sins, he muses on the sins of others—either real or imaginary—guided by his suspicion. "

As clergy and laity, let us focus on our own sins and not the sins of others. There are, of course, times when things must be dealt with accordingly. Those in the church have swept things under the rug far too often. This does not mean we turn a blind eye to grave scandal or someone is being injured, hurt, or in imminent danger. In these circumstances, we have a moral imperative to stop evil from occurring. Besides the harmful actions of others, when it comes to their sins, we leave those to God who is the only true judge.

To view Fr. Jim's requiem, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkMvmb1JwI. To read the obituary in The Telegraph, view here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/01/21/fr-james-big-jim-doherty-well-loved-glasgow-catholic-priest/.

“Those who look well after their own consciences rarely fall into the sin of judging others.” – St. Francis de Sales