Rules are rules – especially if we don’t like you
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review carried a story by Craig Smith on May 4th concerning the firing of a Roman Catholic parish’s youth music director. The youth music director was fired by the “pastor” of the Roman Catholic Church in Sewickley, PA. The pastor is being backed up by the Pittsburgh Diocese of course.
The youth music director, Mary Lynn Pleczkowski, is the wife of a PNCC priest who serves with the United States Air Force. He was recently stationed in Afghanistan.
Mrs. Pleczkowski had worked for the R.C. parish for fifteen (15) years. Many in the parish were saddened by her sudden firing.
The Roman Catholic Church is using a little known provision in its ‘laws’ called the ‘Cardinal’s clause’ as the reason for the firing.
Mrs. Pleczkowski is now without work. I imagine that that’s quite a burden, you know with two children and with your husband away serving his country – most recently in harms way.
Now, the stated reason for using the ‘Cardinal’s clause’ is because the R.C. Church does not recognize Father and Mrs. Pleczkowski’s marriage. Father Pleczkowski was a R.C. priest who left the R.C. Church to get married. He subsequently joined and was accepted by the PNCC as a priest in good standing.
The R.C. Church has a double standard concerning PNCC clergy. They recognize our orders and other sacraments (the Tribune Review story states they do not which is in error), but refuse to recognize PNCC clergy in good standing who used to be R.C. priests.
This double standard opens up all sorts of problems and personally I think it is motivated more by “hurt feelings” than by good theology.
Imagine this. A R.C. parishioner finds him/herself in urgent need of the sacraments. They avail themselves of the sacraments from a PNCC priest. Should they have checked the ‘do not call’ list before doing so?
Many people who read this blog would understand the differences between sacraments being valid and licit (from an R.C. perspective). But what about that poor parishioner who hears half truths from certain R.C. pastors who carry an animus toward the PNCC? These pastors aren’t even familiar with the information printed in the back of the missalette they use.
Speaking of animus:
The October 2005 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and PNCC joint press release on the R.C. – PNCC dialog had this little tidbit in it:
Sacramental sharing between PNCC military chaplains and Roman Catholic military personnel was also discussed.
Actually that statement has been in a few of the releases. Hmmm, I wonder if someone got upset because Father Pleczkowski gave communion to an R.C. soldier (which is perfectly allowable)?
Here’s a few excerpts from the Pittsburgh piece: ‘Cardinal’s clause’ used in church firing
The use of a little known Catholic statute to fire a music leader at a Sewickley church has outraged some parishioners and divided a congregation that has been through controversy before.
The Rev. Ed Wichman removed Mary Lynn Pleczkowski from her paid position as associate music director at St. James Church because she’s married to a priest affiliated with a church the Vatican does not recognize.
Wichman invoked the “cardinal’s clause,” which, in part, prohibits people whose marriages are not recognized by the church from holding church positions. Pleczkowski married her husband, Robert, in a Methodist church about 20 years ago. He now is a priest in the Polish National Catholic Church.
The marriage didn’t show up on the radar screen until Wichman was assigned to the parish, Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese spokesman the Rev. Ron Lengwin said. Wichman attended Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md. with Pleczkowski’s husband roughly two decades ago.
St. James announced Sunday that Pleczkowski was “moving on” from her post.
Pleczkowski did not return numerous calls. Wichman referred calls to Lengwin.
Pleczkowski had worked as associate music director at St. James for about 15 years.
Her dismissal stunned the youth choir Pleczkowski oversaw and hurt her family, said friends and relatives.
“She got kids involved in the choir, and that sparked them to be more involved in the parish,” said St. James parishioner Anna Villella, of Sewickley. “I understand there are rules and regulations but … this is tremendously difficult on the children.”
“Everyone is devastated. She is like a second mom,” said Lacey Gerle, 18, of Sewickley, who has been in the choir at St. James since the sixth grade.
…
A person who posted a comment at Kelly B’s Blog on Your Sewickley may have had a similar clue about revenge.
For info about St. James Parish (they have four websites):
St. James’ Diocesan website
St. James’ own website (Mrs. Pleczkowski is still listed under the Parish Directory, Music Ministry)
St. James’ music ministry website (Mrs. Pleczkowski is prominently listed)
St. James School
From their April 16, 2006 bulletin (note PDF format):
SHORT SERMON
We were called to be witnesses –
not lawyers and judges.
The URI for the bulletin is in part “/bull/20060416”. Yep.
Check out the “Marriage Moments” articles from the bulletins. Ooops, not you Mrs. Pleczkowski.
[dels]blogs4god/polity[/dels]
A point which would seem to be pivotal in this case is whether this marriage in a Methodist church was convalidated in the PNCC. Does the PNCC do that when a marriage ceremony was not performed by a priest? Perhaps the pivotal issue is really whether an RC priest can or may marry at all.
Not what you want to hear but the RCC’s position is logical.
Treating a born PNCC member like that would be illogical and uncharitable if that person isn’t a teacher, etc., supposed to represent the RCC in faith and morals.
In the RC POV, as you probably remember, there’s no subjective guilt in being a born ‘Nat’.
Also, I wonder if Mrs P is a born Nat or an ex-RC herself.
Not hiring ex-RCs is an understandable position for the RCC. And I think as a private and religious group the RCC has the legal right to do what it does.
Though I’m guessing this woman is the equivalent of the church organist or choirmaster and sticks to the musical repertoire chosen by the pastor, et al. I imagine an ex-RC can be just as professional about that as anybody else, which would make sacking her, based on her life outside of her job, unfair, but I still see the logic.
A R.C. parishioner finds him/herself in urgent need of the sacraments. They avail themselves of the sacraments from a PNCC priest. Should they have checked the ‘do not call’ list before doing so?
That scenario and this story are apples and oranges. In that situation even a laicised RC priest could licitly give the sacraments – the emergency ‘supplies’ him with the church’s jurisdiction as you may have learnt in seminary. So the ex-RC PNCC priest likewise could give the sacraments – no problem from the RC POV.
I wonder how much of it is politics. Maybe Fr. Wichman wanted to score some brownie points with his bishop. Since parish is an entity that is more than just the priest, souldn’t it be up to the parish board to decide wether or not to fire Ms. Pleczkowski. Since there was not a problem for 15 years why all of the sudden is it?
To the Young Fogey,
I agree with you. As a matter of fact, many states like NY are right to work states. An employer can hire/fire at its own discretion for any reason whatsoever. The same applied to an employee, they may accept employment or resign at will (not sure if it applies in PA).
Music directors are always a tricky issue. I personally know many R.C. parishes and parishes of other denominations that have organists/choir directors who are not of their denomination, or perhaps of any. It’s typically because the pay rate is so poor in relation to the talent and time required. A lot of those folks are very dedicated to their work as it seems Mrs. Pleczkowski was.
As you said, as long as they play the repertoire they are ok (note that this particular parish seems to follow the ‘Hagen-Haas genre’).
As an aside – I don’t necessarily agree with hiring whomever you can get unless the person hired has a good understanding of what they are playing and why. That could be why many parishes settle for the current sacro-secular prattle being played.
As such, it’s not an issue of hiring/firing staff or of what is being played, but more an issue of pastoring.
A pastor has to rely on more than the prima-facia evidence before him. He really needs to look at the totality of the case.
Was her work bad? How will the kiddies be affected (in the parish and the woman’s children)? How are relationships within the parish affected (I imagine they are forming camps right now)? Are justice and charity both involved? Are there motivations beyond the case at hand – pressure from the bishop, outside influences, motivations ranging from nepotism to revenge?
There is always a thing to do. The question is should that thing be done in the instant case.
I would never deny the R.C. Church their right to follow their laws. Law is foundational to a good social order. It comes down to whether the person enforcing the law is doing so as a minimalist, whether they are acting with the spirit and intent of the law, or whether there is another motivation.
To be sure Mrs. Pleczkowski has been hurt. I would hope that she read her employment contract with a sense of understanding. Who knows but her?
As to the point about receiving the sacraments and them being valid – again I agree. You and I and many who inhabit the Catholic blogsphere know this stuff. It’s technical and many of us are educated on the technicalities. Even so – a few examples drawn from real life:
So as to my example about the person in need: It’s not that the sacraments were not valid. It’s not that the person did anything wrong in their need. The problem is that we cannot expect the laity to absorb the totality of sacramental theology. Who knows the state of their catechesis – especially in the U.S. over the past three decades. The problem is the pastor who provides misinformation. “Father, do you mean uncle Tom died in sin?†– “Yep.†The pastor who understands – or should understand – but lashes out anyway.
It comes down to an issue of pastoral responsibility and pastoral care. Pastoral care does not allow one to allow everything or to ignore sin. It is however a much higher standard of care – because we are educated, ordained, and have to answer to God.
To Michael,
R.C. Church law and sacramental theology are very clear on the issue. Once a man becomes a priest he may not marry. A married man may become a priest – but this is not done. Marriage is not an impediment to Orders (thus married deacons, pastoral provision priests, Eastern Rite priests) but Orders is an impediment to Marriage.
That’s fine as long as the person is R.C. The question is how does this apply to priests accepted into the PNCC?
The PNCC ordains both married and single men. Once ordained they may marry. We have a theological and legal difference there.
It is my understanding – and I may be wrong – that the R.C. Church still claims ownership of the men accepted by the PNCC. That’s the real issue – we own you and control your destiny. That is a stumbling block.
I think, and again I may be wrong, that the PNCC expects its adherents to follow the Laws, doctrine, dogma, and theology of the PNCC. We would also expect other Churches, with whom we have some relationship, to respect that. That understanding does not apply to some and not others. It applies to all PNCC members. We would expect the R.C. Church to treat all PNCC faithful equally whether they were once Jewish, Moslem, R.C., Orthodox, or Protestant.
Note on the Times-Tribune article, there is at least one error in it regarding the R.C. – PNCC relationship. Not sure how far they dug into the sacraments received by the Pleczkowski family. From the article, Mrs. Pleczkowski is not granting interviews and the information was developed from ‘friends’. Since I do not know their exact circumstances I cannot venture to guess about their personal circumstances.
As an aside: My wife and I were required to solemnize our civil marriage in the PNCC, which we had wanted to do anyway.
To Rafal,
Parish Councils etc. are nice formalities in the R.C. Church. They are consultative. The pastor can seek out advice and guidance if he wishes. In very limited instances he is required to. However in most cases he is not required to do so. The pastor is in charge and answers only to the Bishop (and perhaps a local vicar, on a limited basis, along the European deanery model).
This generally applies to civil matters – are we going to hold a festival, how’s fundraising going, what are we going to do about the roof, raffle, bingo? Again, he might consult, but the decision is his alone. The Pastor is on his own in regard to liturgical matters and the music ministry is part of the liturgy. The pastor is not going to seek input from the laity in regard to the liturgy.
So to your question, no, the pastor acts according to his own wishes (which should be in accord with the teachings, wishes, and desires of the Church) and needn’t consult anyone.
In the PNCC it is somewhat different. A Parish Committee (PC) is required and they are solely responsible for the ‘business’ of the parish. The pastor is a member of the PC. In the PNCC the pastor is solely responsible for issues of liturgy, faith, and morals in unity with his bishop. (see the Constitution of the PNCC, especially Article VI – Church Authority (PDF Format)). In all things both the Pastor and the PC cooperate. It’s far better to work together than at odds.
Because the PNCC was founded by people who had a strong desire to inculcate the principals of Christ and democracy and because of their poor experience with the R.C. Church, the PNCC’s democratic mode of operating is part and parcel of the Church.
Re-reading all this, as much as I don’t like modern ‘music ministries’, sacking the poor woman for no good reason after 15 years does sound unfair and petty, as if the pastor had some motive nothing to do with her.
Whether or not one has a parish council is one of those adiaphora Catholics can disagree on, not a matter of faith or morals. One can have that polity and traditional worship as the Orthodox, some Anglicans and some PNCC churches show!
Husband and wife go to the wedding of their son in a PNCC parish. Husband and wife are told by their R.C. pastor that they may not receive the Eucharist – they would be sinning.
Their priest is correct – it wasn’t an emergency so no, they can’t licitly receive at a PNCC church.
PNCC member attends Holy Mass at an R.C. parish while on vacation. Person is denied the Eucharist. Person points out directives in the parish’s missalette – person is told to go away.
That was ignorant and/or stupid of the people running that church. They don’t know or care about their own teachings!
PNCC priest is called to a hospital to anoint and provide viaticum to a dying R.C. individual (on a regular basis). R.C. pastor lives around the corner from the hospital but refuses to venture out after 6pm.
I’d say that was an emergency (created by that pastor!) and thus allowed, and that pastor should be disciplined. If an Orthodox priest skived a sick call like that I understand he’d be defrocked!
R.C. parish is being closed. Mainly Polish-American congregation is upset – told by the local ordinary to go to the PNCC.
Doesn’t reflect the teachings of the RCC. I wonder what the context was – I can imagine the bishop being flippant, like ‘Just go away! Go to the PNCC. Leave me alone!’
Clerical celibacy is a difference in discipline, not theology. I think the PNCC got their practice of allowing the ordained to marry from the Episcopalians, with whom they used to be in communion. (There used to be crossover – Nats who moved where there was no PNCC church would join the local Episcopal church. I’ve met somebody who grew up like that.)
It is my understanding – and I may be wrong – that the R.C. Church still claims ownership of the men accepted by the PNCC. That’s the real issue – we own you and control your destiny. That is a stumbling block.
That is correct and makes sense especially considering that they claim to be the one true church. Leaving is a very grave matter indeed. Such are seen as guilty of schism – born Nats aren’t.
I can turn that around and say you seem to want good standing with the RCC despite leaving. As our fathers among the saints Mick and Keith sang, you can’t always get what you want but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need. (Feel free to hold up a lit cigarette lighter and sway at this point, LOL.)
I call Pittsburgh my home. I have lived there since 1998, well not now since I am in seminary, but it is still my home. I have struggled to understand the RCC bishop. I have met him several times and thought he would be the kind of bishop who would want to work on strengthening relations with other faiths. Once he allowed a Byzantine priest to concelelbrate (I know this is allowed by the RCC), but this priest had been removed from his position as a Roman Clergyman for unkown reasons. The bishop seemed to have no problem with him being a part of the mass though. It seems all the experiences between Bishop Weurl and the Pittsburgh area PNCC clergy have been negative. I do not know this priest of his wife, but I do know another PNCC priest in Pittsburgh that left the RCC to marry. I was told that he was not to be allowed in to a local RCC for a ecumenical service, per request of the Bishop. I am not sure why they hold such a grudge against the PNCC clergy. I have had the exact opposite experiences in other areas, where RC clergy speak very highly of the PNCC.
Once he allowed a Byzantine priest to concelebrate (I know this is allowed by the RCC), but this priest had been removed from his position as a Roman Clergyman for unknown reasons.
If he was in good standing as a Byzantine Catholic priest then his problems with his old Roman Rite bishop must have been worked out satisfactorily.
do not know this priest of his wife, but I do know another PNCC priest in Pittsburgh that left the RCC to marry. I was told that he was not to be allowed in to a local RCC for a ecumenical service, per request of the Bishop. I am not sure why they hold such a grudge against the PNCC clergy.
Perhaps the local ones are mostly or all really ex-RC priests? Again, not inviting that man to the service makes some sense, although if it wasn’t a concelebrated Mass or didn’t involve administering the sacraments (and an ecumenical service by nature wouldn’t) he could have been invited without a problem. Maybe the bishop didn’t want to cause scandal. After all the man was originally a priest of that diocese. This isn’t rocket science.
perhaps I am just too easy going, but I don’t care if a priest leaves the PNCC for the RCC, I don’t see them as being anymore or anyless of a Christian and would pray that Roman Catholics would feel the same way. If we seek unity we must accept that people change as part of growing in faith. I know a person who was ordained Roman, converted to Anglincanism, and has now found peace within the walls of the Lutheran Church. I am happy that he has succesfully made his journey of faith and I welcome him anytime. I am not saying it is just the RCC that holds these practices and views, but all churches must get rid of the ‘one and only’ mentality. Geez, I was told I am going to burn in hell cause I am not a pentecostal???? Go figure…
To the Young Fogey,
Unfortunately I can’t find my lighter. I’m figuring that the next time I’m lighting the candles before Holy Mass I can do that with the candle lighter 🙂
Some have asked or wondered why the PNCC is in talks with the R.C. Church. Of course the unity Jesus Christ prayed for is the overriding reason. The mundane, albeit important, reason is contained in these examples. We both need to come to the table and try to straighten out these matters, remove confusion, and dispel the distrust that these types of events engender. As I noted, they are stumbling blocks. Some are small, some are big.
On the celibacy/marriage issue, it is my understanding that the Old Catholics (Utrecht) allowed for marriage long before they did anything with the Anglicans.
Based on my review of the Synods of the Church, the issue of clerical celibacy was raised by a delegate at the First Synod of 1904 (Stanislaw Dangel Langowski). The issue was further discussed at the First Special Synod of 1906. The Second General Synod of 1909 preserved celibacy (para. 6). At the Synod of 1914 a report was delivered by a commission appointed to study the issue. The full report was published in Ameryka-Echo, a leading Polish-American newspaper of the time.
The discussion at the 1914 Synod was lengthy (the majority of the day). The discussion concluded after Bishop Hodur gave a reflection on the issue. The Bishop’s explanation was approved unanimously.
My take is that there was a threefold track in the discussion. There was the theological – historical track, the practical (how will we support a priest and a spouse/children) track, and a track concerning the dignity and rights of women (remember that women did not have a right to vote in the United States at this time. Women did have the right to vote and be representatives to the Synod in the PNCC).
Celibacy was abrogated at the Synod of 1921.
The issue of celibacy was seriously considered for at least 17 years. The determination of whether to preserve or abrogate celibacy was based on Scripture, the Fathers, the Synods of the undivided Church, experience of the East (Orthodox, Eastern Rite, Armenian), and the fact that celibacy is an internal discipline of the R.C. Church, from which the Roman Church continued to allow dispensation (Canon Stanislaw Orzechowski, Talleyrand, and practical practice esp. in South America as noted in the 1914 report).
As such, I think it is incorrect to assert that the PNCC “got their practice of allowing the ordained to marry from the Episcopalians.†The Church must be the Church, not simply a mimic of someone else’s practice. If the PNCC were such a Church I would certainly not be here. I think people see far to much of that in the vagante world. “Let’s be cool Catholics and ‘name what you like’ all at the same time.†ala the Liberal Catholic Church.
Some have asked or wondered why the PNCC is in talks with the R.C. Church.
That’s obvious: the PNCC split was really nothing to do with religion and this group shouldn’t be separated from its parent. Logically the Hodur and similar schisms never should have happened. Virtually all of the PNCC saints and devotions came from Rome! And frankly the PNCC is endangered as the original, real reason for the schism no longer exists. (Not that Irish prejudice no longer exists, but…) Its generational members aren’t Poles (as I think you mentioned, they don’t speak Polish); they’re Americans. And now that a Pole has been a long-reigning Pope…
Ethnic resentment won’t keep a church like this going after about four generations. (I’m amazed the PNCC has lasted that long! Don’t get me wrong – because it has real congregations and born members it gets my respect.) The Slavic Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics are going through exactly the same thing, despite the surprise convert boomlet to Orthodoxy. They’re not being replenished enough by post-Communist immigration (most of those people are secular anyway), the largely old membership is dying and the young are moving out of the old neighbourhoods to different parts of the country, marrying outside their ethnic group and assimilating to the mainstream.
Some real reasons for the continued separation are cultural: disciplinary matters/adiaphora like the PNCC’s semi-congregational polity (the parochial councils and lay ownership of churches, an historic reaction to Irish-American persecution) and clerical marriage. These aren’t really roadblocks to reunion (dispensations would take care of everything) except Rome would have to consider extending those things to all RCs, which it doesn’t want to do.
As such, I think it is incorrect to assert that the PNCC “got their practice of allowing the ordained to marry from the Episcopalians.â€
So the Utrechtians did it first and the PNCC followed in 1921, 25 years before the affiliation with the Episcopal Church?
The Church …not simply a mimic of someone else’s practice.
A punto, which is why for all the potentially appealing things about it I find the PNCC illogical. Of course one can say the same of Anglo-Catholics but they acknowledge Rome and that being out of communion is an anomaly they happen to have been born into. I can imagine PNCC spokesmen going in that direction.
Believe me, I understand the exile mentality and wanting things to be different/better/as they should be, but ex-RC PNCCs, and clergy at that, talking incessantly about and obviously pining for approval from Rome make me wonder…
I talk about Rome a lot too but unlike these chaps don’t claim to be a spokesman for another church. Basically I have an admittedly idealised view of what Western Catholicism in itself is and should be but as I’ve matured (been doing the church thing for 25 years) I know that modern RCs aren’t interested in that and I don’t pester them begging for some kind of acceptance. I know the rules and honour them.
Bottom line: if you leave and are ordained somewhere else, they won’t accept you on your terms. Live with it or go back.
I wonder… If I am a Roman Catholic and start going to PNCC, since PNCC is closer to my heart, I commit a grave sin. Since during every mass at PNCC people receive absolution (RCC says that PNCC’s sacraments are valid) I get absolved from it. So could anyone tell me if I live with grave sin by attending Mass and receive communion in PNCC?
Rafal,
It has been my experience that it would depend on who you ask. Obviously, if you ask the Bishop of Pittsburgh he would say you are living in sin, however, I am friends with several RC priests of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who think the PNCC is a wonderful denomination and encourage people who are uncomfortable in the RCC to visit a PNCC parish. From my experiences here at my protestant seminary, I have met many many people who love Catholicism, but don’t like Rome. They are all curious about the PNCC because there are several schism Catholic churches in the area, but they are of those ‘here today gone tomorrow breed’. The PNCC has history and I think a strong future if the PNCC can spread the word a little better.
To answer your question, Rafal, the RCC would say in that case the absolution is null and void, just like if you went to RC confession and left out a mortal sin. (The born Nats are acting in good conscience.) The confession and/or absolution are then worse than useless; they’re a sacrilege, yet another sin you need to confess at the RC church.
P.S.
The PNCC is in much better shape than the Methodist Church according to my Methodist classmates.
Isn’t that a double standard? A born PNC gets an absolution while a converted from RCC does not? I thought that excommunication of Bishop Hodur was lifted by RCC. Bishop Hodur was a RC priest and become PNC priest (the first one). By lifting the excommunication, didn’t Rome set a precedent?
Also what does a converted PNC mean? Let’s say that I was baptized in RC, but thrughout my life did not really found God in RC. Then I started to think about God and I found him at PNCC. So I can say that I found God for the first time at PNCC. Does the fact that I was baptized at RC play any part? I could not say “no, take me to PNCC to be baptized” when I was 2 months old :-). One can say that I am playing a lawyer, but aren’t we making too much from human-made rules and forgetting what faith in Jesus Christ is really all about?
How, Adam? Are the Methodists hæmorrhaging people like other oldline Protestant churches? Or do they mean Modernism/apostasy from Christian belief?
And those RC priests are being disobedient – the hypothetical answer from the bishop is what RC really teaches.
Sorry for the double post but Rafal’s latest and mine crossed. No, it’s not a double standard. The born Nat didn’t consciously leave RC; you did. RC teaching doesn’t care how you feel; it cares about what you do.
Also what does a converted PNC mean?
Erm, either somebody who joins the PNCC or a PNCC member who has a revival of his faith?
One can say that I am playing a lawyer, but aren’t we making too much from human-made rules and forgetting what faith in Jesus Christ is really all about?
That can be true up to a point but that’s not really so of traditional Catholic practice even in canon law and taken too far it’s relativistic and Protestant: ‘To find Jesus I don’t need the stinkin’ church telling me what to do’.
Wow, comments! I love dialogs like this…
To several of the issues raised:
The PNCC has matured beyond the ethic enclave, hurt feelings, dislike of the Irish/German Bishops milieu. That may have been the ethos even up through the mid 1950’s. As with anything, and most especially the Church, the Holy Spirit guides and directs it. The Spirit leads the Church to a fuller understanding of Christ and of itself.
The PNCC, like any valid Church, is not a static body. It must have more than just the marks of the Church – one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, it must be alive, and as the Young Fogey points out, needs to have living parishes, generational members, and I’ll add, evangelization.
Certainly the seeds of what the Church is today have been there from the beginning. The PNCC fills a role as Church. The sacraments, the proclamation of the Word, the effort to bring about the Kingdom and to teach and baptize are what Church is about. It is also about adhering to the Apostolic faith (thus the break with Utrecht). It is also about bearing a certain witness to its older sister.
To Rafal, I know that making a change in your Church is a difficult journey and you have my prayers. I experienced that myself. The seeds for my being in the PNCC were there all along. Those seeds needed to mature – and with the help of the Holy Spirit, the sacraments and study – they continue to mature. It took me 39 years to figure it out. It is about finding the orthodox faith – right belief. I found that in the PNCC. I think I might have found it in Orthodoxy as well, but I would be a fish out of water there.
Either way the R.C. Church can feel free to lay claim to me and say I’m an excommunicated schismatic, subject to their law. As I’ve matured I’ve found that what the PNCC tells me is true. What the R.C. Church says in regard to its legalisms is false. What the R.C. Church says is within their laws and it doesn’t apply to me, except in their own minds. Just because they are ‘bigger’ doesn’t make them ‘infallible’ 🙂 I am absolved of sin, receive the Eucharist worthily, am anointed as necessary, and the Church tells me it is true.
The PNCC is not a Protestant body. We are Catholic. It is not that I believe (faith plus theology) because it feels nice for me. I believe because the revealed truth is given to me by the Church as handed down by the Apostles and their successors. Sometimes it doesn’t feel so nice – but that’s repentance – the changes we are all called to make.
Many people who come into the PNCC say – hey you’re just like the R.C. Church, but with points I like. As they delve deeper and grow they begin to understand that the two Churches are similar in some ways but that the theology and practice of the PNCC is far more orthodox.
To the Young Fogey’s point, “You [the PNCC] seem to want good standing with the RCC despite leaving.â€
It’s the ‘lady doth protest too much’ argument. At times it would seem that way. But where does it come from? I certainly express my personal opinions here and a lot comes from my background – both the blessings and the hurts. What is the Church saying? For that, we have to read the dialog documents.
I do not think that it is ‘standing’ the PNCC desires because that’s already part of R.C. Canon Law, the USCCB Ecumenical Directory and other papal documents. As I stated before, I think the PNCC expects all its faithful to be treated the same. We would also hope the R.C. clergy stick to what’s already stated in Canon Law, the U.S. Ecumenical Directory, etc. and that they refrain from engaging in acts and rhetoric that is unhelpful – and sometimes dangerous. I know that it is pie in the sky! They can’t seem to get everyone on the same page (or rubrics) regarding the central element of the Church – the Holy Mass.
Here’s a resource from the Archdiocese of Boston on the application of Canon 844.3 to members of the PNCC: The Pastoral Guidelines concerning admission of Polish National Catholics to sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church (Canon 844)
As I was thinking about this issue I thought I would ask about how the Orthodox treat such situations, i.e. former clergy or others who have left? Does Orthodoxy lay claim to those who have left? My understanding is that you are either in or out. In Orthodoxy (almost all) there is nothing similar to Canon 844. If you have not been baptized, chrismated, received the Eucharist, and remain a member in good standing (not a heretic or schismatic) you are ok, otherwise goodbye?
As I was thinking about this issue I thought I would ask about how the Orthodox treat such situations, i.e. former clergy or others who have left?
They aren’t communed. Just like Rome does in that situtation.
Does Orthodoxy lay claim to those who have left?
In a sense yes.
My understanding is that you are either in or out.
Essentially.
In Orthodoxy (almost all) there is nothing similar to Canon 844. If you have not been baptized, chrismated, received the Eucharist, and remain a member in good standing (not a heretic or schismatic) you are ok, otherwise goodbye?
If I understand you correctly, yes.
Some more thoughts:
The Hodur and similar schisms happened at the same time as and parallelled the Toth one that brought many Ruthenian immigrants into the Russian Orthodox Church. (To fair it could/should be called the John Ireland schism, not the Toth one, as he pushed them into it! He had a lot to answer to God for.)
Now when Rome started to Novus Ordofy itself, did what’s now the OCA follow suit? No, not really, though some hard-line Orthodox might argue that they have! They’ve Americanised (like the PNCC, their immigration really ended with World War I; they’re fourth-generation Americans), using the Gregorian calendar and mostly English and not Slavonic anymore, but all that was nothing like what happened after Vatican II. Of course not – they’re of a different rite with a life of its own, not derivative of something else. (Here I’m not pushing the ‘Orthodoxy is a completely different religion’ line, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.)
Why did the PNCC act differently? Did it reflect Hodur’s inclination in that direction many years before (when he wrote his own ordo of Mass and experimented with ‘facing the people’… back in the 1930s?) or was it because somehow the PNCC know that they aren’t really a stand-alone church and logically belong under their patriarch, the Pope, and so were trying to follow his lead? Much of mainline Protestantism, especially the liturgical churches, likewise copied the NO. The second question applies just as much to them. As a friend put it years ago, the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of Rites, or whatever name it’s using now, regulates the worship of the entire Western world.
Good to know that there are still a couple of PNCC hold-outs doing something at least Tridentinish.
A question:
Does the PNCC accept old, retired but work worthy Episcopal Priests who have had it. I was ordained in 1971 before the Women’s ordination horror.
I am a priest in good standing with the Anglican Church of Rwanda.
Canon Koscheski,
In regard to your question, the process for clergy transfers is the responsibility of the Office of the Prime Bishop.
You can contact the Most Rev. Robert M. Nemkovich as follows:
By telephone: 570-346-9131 or 570-346-2125
You may write to him at: 1006 Pittston Ave., Scranton, PA 18505-4109
I would like to know as members of other denominations Cristinas that we feel called to ministry and identify with the PNCC but are outside the U.S., we may contact.
Me gustaria saber como miembros de otras denominaciones cristinas que nos sentimos llamados al ministerio y nos identificamos con la PNCC pero estamos fuera de USA, podemos entrar en contacto.
Carlos,
I responded to you privately by E-mail with contact information. Thank you for writing.