What is going on in Oklahoma that faithful Catholics should be so abused?

Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, 
please Tweet my posts.

A guest post from Mr. Laramie Hirsch on the continuing saga of insult and attack on Catholics faithful to the tradition of the Church and Her liturgy.

After reading Mr. Hirsch's column, I am asking myself, "Does this priest suffer from "gay-rage?"

Catty Priest Insults Minorities In Homily...
By Laramie Hirsch

...And, by minorities, I don't mean brown-skinned people, immigrants, or homosexuals.  Instead, the minorities I mention are the most hated minorities in the Catholic Church: Traditionalists.

If you attended Mass at a certain parish in Tulsa early this July, you'd be pleased to see a good sized group of people at a diocesan Traditional Latin Mass.  While the priest there hardly spoke English at all, being a man from Ecuador, he nevertheless did his utmost to worship the Almighty.  Latin is the universal high language of the Church.  It was such a beautiful service, as it always has been ever since the TLM was brought to the parish about a decade ago.  The people there have been taught the beauty of the Church's tradition like never before.  This is all thanks to now-retired Bishop Emeritus Slattery and the former parish priest who has now left the state.

On that, the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, the parish's Extraordinary Form would feature a reading from Matthew 7:15-21 .  Only it wasn't read by the Hispanic priest.  He dutifully stepped aside, and the passage was instead read by the parish priest himself:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.  Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

If only the Hispanic priest gave the homily.  By all accounts, he appears to love the Latin Mass.  Or, dare we dream, wouldn't it have been nice if the homily came from the former parish priest who introduced the Latin Mass in the first place?  (It seems that he was actually in town that day)  Or even the retired bishop who always protected the Catholic Tradition in this part of Oklahoma?  No.  The homily was given by the current parish priest.  Yet, surely after a full year of shepherding over the Traditionalist laity, this priest would have grown some kind of fondness for the flock beneath him.  Right?

The congregation waited for the kind-hearted instructions from their shepherd.
 

What Took Place

After reading from Matthew, the sermon took a strange turn.  At first, the priest didn't seem to make sense.  It was as though his words melted into typical post-Vatican II gobbelty gook language.  While he initially seemed to be deconstructing St. Paul's writing style, it all seemed one big incoherent ramble.  After that, the priest then talked about people's athletic ability.  He commented about how the people of Christ's day didn't need to go to the gym because they walked everywhere.

Suddenly, just when it seemed his sermon (?) should be wrapping up, he capped off his ramble by bringing up zip codes.  He talked about the parish' s own poor neighborhood, and that local income was not very high.  This was a common, perennial problem, he explained, as it's been a low-income neighborhood since the 1950s.  But then, he unmistakably complained about laity who drive in from widely divergent locations.  He appeared to scoff at those who would drive one to two hours every Sunday from other towns and counties.  And, of course, the only people doing this were the parishioners attending that diocesan Latin Mass.

Then, just as he did last year, he stated that the Latin Mass group in particular was not giving their proper share of money during collection time.  He told the congregation that he preferred having only a Spanish and English Mass.  They were reminded that the FSSP is across the river on the West side of town.  And then, to qualify himself, he said that he had done his job and kept all of his promises to them for the past year, ever since he took over the parish.

In other words: "I've done everything I was supposed to do for you people.  But really, you're not welcome"

He ended his "homily" abruptly and walked off.  He did not assist the Hispanic priest with distribution of the Eucharist after that.  I have to wonder, was the Hispanic priest aware of the American priest's statements?

Parishioners later noticed that the side chapel had its statues removed, and it looked blander and more Protestant.
 

What Was The Sunday Message?

So, did this priest think he appropriately tied his "homily" to the gospel reading from Matthew?  Was he comparing a good tree that produces good fruit to an evil tree that produces bad fruit?  More to the point: does this priest think the Latin Mass produces bad fruit?  After all, according to him, the Traditional Catholic community wasn't generating enough income for the parish.  So, shall we also conclude that, in this priest's mind, good fruit = money?  Bad fruit = less money?  Is money the objective?  Is it cash that should concern us?  Do diocesan Traditionalists produce bad fruit in the form of inadequate collection amounts?  If so, how much more do they need to fork over until they are good and worthy in this priest's eyes?

I always thought that, in post-Vatican II Catholic Church, good fruit = happiness, togetherness, community, fraternal charity, good feelings, and all that emotional hippy dippy stuff.  If so, this tradition-hating priest certainly doesn't value these aspects when it comes to interacting with the Latin Mass parishioners.  Certainly, dare I say, it does not appear as though this priest considers "good fruit" to be wholesome, clean, confessed souls in a state of grace.  (That's just a dusty, triumphalist, pre-Vatican II novelty).  Not in this "homily."  Allegedly, he does not even consistently hear confessions from the Latin Mass group on a monthly basis--as he said he would in the beginning of his tenure.  But even assuming these reports to be wrong: is confession once a month enough?

And what of those poor English and Spanish Mass parishioners, living in that low-income zip code?  Are their contributions inadequate and deserving of a scolding?  Do those communities produce bad fruit as well?  Or are they somehow exempt?  Are those poor folks mystically holy because of their poorness?  Do their low incomes make them virtuous, while the assumed higher incomes of the Traditionalists make them less virtuous?  Is it even accurate to assume the traditionalists have higher incomes, or is that a blanket assumption by the priest?

Did the priest even mean any of this?  Or was he simply ignoring the Sunday gospel reading, preferring to instead deliver a reckless, harsh message to a group of people who've done nothing to him?
 

What This Does To A Community

Modernist post-Vatican II priests have 20th Century liberal values.  They want to sweep the "old dusty Catholic Church" under the rug.  They want to shove all those un-hip, stubborn losers who "can't get with it" into a ghetto.  They are in the middle of transforming the Catholic Church into "a new thing," and laity holding onto how it's always been are in the way.  The New Order uses a sort of federal-government-eminent-domain tactic that runs over communities such as this.

There once was a strong community at this parish.  In fact, it was rather famous, regionally speaking.  People had always praised the good things Bishop Edward Slattery had done, and a lot of it took place in this very parish under a good priest.  But after the retirement and replacement of the good bishop, and after the installation of Pope Francis' new bishop, it has been demonstrated that there has always been a cabal of priests in this town who, under the surface, always vehemently opposed what Bp. Slattery did.  There have always been priests in Tulsa's diocese who have hated Tradition.  At best, these priests view Tulsa's traditionalist laity as an inconvenience.  Judging from the abuse this particular parish has received in the past year, we can conclude that some priests view this group of laity with contempt.  They have therefore tried to destroy this community--and not without results.

If we are going to refer to the fruits of good or bad intentions, then let's see this situation for what it is.  The fruit of this priest and the new bishop is the scattering of Tulsa's Traditionalist community in many directions.  The fruit of their work is angst, both in this community and beyond.  The fruit of these New Order clergymen has been to instill a deep sense of abandonment in laity in Northeast Oklahoma.  Those who hold on to their faith amidst these sorts of trials feel as though the Sword of Damocles hangs over their head.  These people have not been uplifted; they have been tolerated.  They have not been embraced and welcomed; they have been alienated.  They have no intrinsic worth to the local Catholic community.  No one dares ask them what they think.  They are an elephant in the room.  If a priest in the diocese dares to offer to learn the Latin Mass, he becomes a marked man.  Traditionalists are avoided.  They are shunned.  It wouldn't surprise me if they were given their own drinking fountains.  

If this is the fruit of the new bishop, the new priest, and those who agree with their agenda, then let us ask: is this good fruit or bad fruit?
 

Conclusions: Money, Money, Money...?

Let's recap what the three congregations were contributing last October, the last time this very same priest complained about money.  According to that church bulletin, the figures were as follows:

Anglos (28% of the parish) contribute 40%

Hispanics (60% of the parish) contribute 46%

Latin (12% of the parish) contribute 24%

(The term "Anglos" is the priest's terminology, not mine.)

As you can see, the Latin Mass congregation was contributing twice the amount that they represented for the pleasure of having this priest spit in their face.  Today, thanks to a steady diet of nasty, passive-aggressive discouragement, the Latin Mass community has been reduced to 60% of what they once were.  Yet, these people continue to provide more money than they actually represent.

Even more interesting is the fact that some of the Hispanic laity have also witnessed this priest's actions.  After all, it was a combination of the English, Spanish, and Latin Mass congregations who helped to build and complete the St. Toribio Shrine.  Yet, this new priest is undoing many of the Catholic reforms the former priest brought to the parish.  This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Hispanic community.  No es bueno.  They don't like it.    Some have even left for another Tulsa Spanish-speaking parish.  Some tried attending the TLM at one point--perhaps longing for traces of their former shepherd.  I can't help but wonder what changes took place in that congregation since last year.

If money truly was the end goal of this priest, he would stop being ugly to the Latin Mass laity.  Why?  Because they've been carrying a large portion of the parishes' finances on their shoulders.  If and when they go, the parish will be all the poorer for it.  In effect, this new priest will have driven out a large source of income.  But ultimately, does he really care about the money?  Or does this priest value the removal of those Trads over everything else?

In this situation, at best, we can assume that this priest is materialist.  But what is more likely is that this priest is acting in malice towards these people.  He wants them gone.  Period.