|
Bishop Anthony Taylor
Editor’s Note:
We are pleased to give His Excellency Bishop Anthony B.
Taylor of Little Rock, Arkansas, the opportunity to
respond to our December 2011
article
The Little Rock vs. the Big Rock.
As we noted in our personal communication with His Excellency
earlier this month, there are admittedly two sides to
every story, and the Bishop, being successor to the
Apostles and prince of the Church, is certainly entitled
to defend not only his side of the present controversy
but also his own name and reputation as he sees fit.
Guest columnist Ray Zürbeck, on the other hand, assures
us that despite Bishop Taylor’s laudable efforts to put
the matter to rest, there are still a number of
unanswered questions that traditionalists in Arkansas
would very much like to see addressed. Our intent in
allowing this discussion to continue, therefore, is
certainly not to unjustly criticize anyone, much less a
Bishop of the Church, but rather to allow the two sides
to hash this matter out a bit more and, hopefully, to
facilitate greater understanding and thus increased
availability of the traditional Latin Mass in Arkansas
and beyond. Many thanks to His Excellency for his
comments and clarifications. MJM
Two weeks ago I received a copy of “The Little Rock
vs. the Big Rock" by guest columnist Ray Zürbeck,
published in the December 25, 2011 issue of The
Remnant. The man who sent it to me believed the
interpretation given by Mr. Zürbeck to the events
describes in that article and was very disturbed by the
thought that what Mr. Zürbeck wrote might be true. Mr.
Zürbeck arrived at his interpretation of events in
"The Little Rock vs. the Big Rock" without ever
contacting me to discuss the matters about which he
makes such inflammatory claims, so I have composed the
following response which will show that the conspiracy
he describes in does not in fact exist.
First,
he recounts the experience of many Latin Mass people
being "defriended" from my Facebook account and he
interprets this to have some connection with the
allegations received about this same time against Fr.
Laurent Demets FSSP. Indeed, he notes the coincidence
that some "defriendings" occurred on the same day that
the allegations were received—November 7, 2011. The
truth about the Facebook "defriendings" has to do with a
problem I had with Facebook, not a problem with the
Latin Mass community, as follows: Facebook discovered
that I had violated their policies regarding "friends,"
having about 8,500 "friends" most of whom I do not know
personally, on two personal pages in order to evade
their 5,000 friend limit—a Bishop Anthony Basil
Taylor page and a Bishop Anthony B. Taylor
page. I had to change one of my personal pages to a
"public person" page and restrict the remaining personal
page to friends whom I know personally. I was able to
switch the first of these pages to the public person
page with no difficulty but limiting the Bishop
Anthony B. Taylor personal page to friends whom I
know personally was a two-step process: sending a notice
asking people to switch to my public person page and
then "defriending" those people who I did not know
personally after sending them that notice. I began this
task by sending "friends" on this second page who I do
not know personally the following notice:
To all my Friends: Facebook requires me to change my
personal page into a public figure page and so I need
you to go to:
http://www.facebook.com/browse/?type=admined_pages&id=1307354610#!/pages/Bishop-Anthony-Basil-Taylor/191037844284052
and click the "like" button to continue to stay in
contact with me. My homilies will no longer be posted
here, instead they will be on my Facebook-mandated
public figure page.
I sent this notice individually to about 1,500 people in
late October and early to mid-November, 2011, at first
to people who sent me messages during that time, and
then one by one as I went down the list of "friends" on
this second page in alphabetical order and about 500 of
these made the switch. Unfortunately, I only made it
through the first part of the alphabet before Facebook
froze my account again, saying that I was sending too
many messages too quickly, many on the same day and so
was abusing the system—leaving 2,895 not yet changed
over "friends" in that account and I abandoned the
effort. It was tedious and time consuming to send this
message to each person. Since we are supposedly dealing
with friends, Facebook alphabetizes by first names, not
surnames. Latin Mass people who sent me messages during
late October and early to mid-November 2011, or who have
first names in the first part of the alphabet apparently
think I singled them out since they are not in
communication with my other "friends" who also received
this message asking them to switch over to my public
person page. I did not remove anyone from my list of
friends without first sending them the message directing
them to switch over to my public person page. Also, I
would like to invite anyone who is interested to join my
“public person” page by going to Bishop Anthony Basil
Taylor on Facebook. I also wish to apologize for
the offense given to people for not having explained
more fully the reasons for having to ask them to switch
to my “public person” page.
Second,
Mr. Zürbeck calls into question my motives in two cases
where allegations had been received regarding priests
serving in Arkansas. Whenever I have to implement our
safe environment and professional misconduct policies,
there are inevitably those who—due to lack of
information, some of which is confidential—cannot
believe that the allegations are true or disagree with
the ecclesiastical and civil procedures that I must
follow in handling such cases. Ever since the Dallas
Charter was adopted by the USCCB, bishops are required
to suspend from ministry any priest against whom a
credible allegation is lodged, pending the outcome of
the ecclesiastical and civil investigations, and to
announce publicly the allegation received in order to
invite other possible victims or others who may have
information to come forward. It is not true that these
steps are taken for vindictive reasons. Indeed, in the
sad cases referred to in the article, both Fr. Brad
Barber and Fr. Laurent Demets acknowledged their guilt.
Fr. Demets' offense was far less serious than that of
Fr. Barber, which was so grave as to make it very
unlikely that he could ever return to priestly ministry.
--Fr. Barber is a priest of the diocese of Corpus
Christi, TX and the bishop of that diocese has the
responsibility of determining Fr. Barber's future in the
priesthood.
--In the case of Fr. Laurent Demets FSSP, the civil
investigation of the state of Arkansas was limited by
the degree to which the victim and witnesses were
willing to cooperate, and therefore concluded that
"because the allegations were not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, the allegation has been
determined unsubstantiated" for purposes of civil
law. The diocesan investigation reached the opposite
conclusion because Fr. Demets admitted having slapped
the child, so the allegation was "substantiated"
for purposes of ecclesiastical law.
By the way, Fr. Demets seems still not to understand—or
at a minimum, does not accept—the misconduct policies of
the Church in the United States, about which he
apparently still feels no remorse about violating. His
response to me on February 2, 2012 upon learning of the
final disposition of his case was as follows:
This is very well interesting, but I respectfully remind
you that all this story was about.... a slap, which
would make all this story very funny if it would not be
ridiculous. What you call misconduct was a correction
of a priest (a father) toward one of his young
parishioners. The person you call a victim was a rude
adolescent who needed a correction and who happened to
act better after. As we say in French, a good slap is
often better than a long speech. That's it! A little
bit of common good sense would certainly not hurt anyone
and would certainly be more charitable than this whole
farce. May the light of Our Lord that shines among all
the Nations bring more clarity and charity in the Church
on this day of the Purification.
Third:
Out of these facts and other incidents involving routine
clergy transfers and a young priest who needed
professional help, Mr. Züreck weaves a conspiracy to
"snuff out" Latin Masses in the Diocese of Little Rock.
This is probably why he fails to mention that through
my initiative we now have Mass in the Extraordinary
Form in Northwest Arkansas. I sent Fr. Greg Hart to
receive training during the summer of 2010 and he has
been offering Mass in the Extraordinary Form for over a
year now in Tontitown, AR. Moreover, when I was
informed by the FSSP that Fr. Demets would not be
returning to Arkansas even in the event of an expected
positive outcome of the investigations, nor would they
be replacing him with another FSSP priest in Cherokee
Village and Mountain Home, I took the initiative
to ask another priest of the Diocese of Little Rock to
prepare himself to take on this apostolate. He is
presently in training under Fr. Charles Ryan FSSP and my
hope is to be able to assign him in June to serve the
Latin Mass apostolate in Cherokee Village and Mountain
Home, AR. His ministry there will be only on weekends
because he has another assignment in Little Rock during
the week. And by the way, Mr. Zürbeck also fails to
note that I myself celebrated the Sacrament of
Confirmation in Latin in the Extraordinary Form at St.
Patrick parish in North Little Rock last year.
In any event, my purpose here is not to defend myself
point by point against the allegations of Mr. Zürbeck,
but simply to indicate that there is no conspiracy in
Arkansas against the Latin Mass and that there are in
fact honorable reasons why I was forced to take each of
the steps to which he ascribes such unworthy motives. I
am responsible for protecting the flock entrusted to my
care and for implementing the safe environment policies
of the Church.
I do ask the readers of The Remnant to pray for
me as I deal with difficult situations that arise in the
life of the Church and to pray for all who are suffering
the consequences of the failures of some of our
priests. The man who wrote me about the article "The
Little Rock vs. the Big Rock" concluded his letter
as follows: "All of us who profess the Catholic faith
have received direct orders from Our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ with his words, 'I give you a new
commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved
you.' (John 13:34). He made absolutely no exception to
this whatsoever for any bishop." I agree with this
wholeheartedly, and I might add, he also made no
exception for guest columnists who publish articles in
The Remnant.
Sincerely in Christ Jesus,
+Anthony B. Taylor
Bishop of Little Rock
February 2, 2012
Ray Zürbeck Responds to
Bishop Taylor
“Secrets are dangerous and the truth
usually gets out anyway, and if we haven't been
sufficiently transparent, people will begin to smell a
cover-up.”
...Bishop Anthony Taylor, 15 August 2009,
“Christ’s forgiveness is available to all
those who sin”
I read Bishop Taylor’s response to my article with some
mixed emotions. While it was refreshing to be assured
by a prelate that “there is no conspiracy in Arkansas
against the Latin Mass,” I began to smell a cover-up
about halfway through. By the end of his response it
was clear that he’s digging himself deeper into the
hole.
Beginning with a long description of his Facebook page:
I’m sure he’s correct, and I admit to being old, cranky,
and not very savvy when it comes to technology. But
whatever occurred with his Facebook account, some basic
facts require further attention:
- One
of the first things Bishop Taylor did when he arrived in
Arkansas was to discontinue a newly-founded Latin Mass
community in Berryville. This was post Summorum
Pontificum.
- After
leaving the people of Northwest Arkansas without a Latin
Mass, Bishop Taylor publicly replied negatively to
requests from the faithful that it be restored. Since
his Facebook page is a “public page” we can consider his
letter to the petitioners to be a public refusal.
- Shortly
after that, a young priest who began offering the
Extraordinary Form of the Mass at odd hours during the
week was admonished several times and then finally sent
to St. Luke Institute. Since his return he no longer
offers Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
These are facts that cannot be ignored. There are too
many people involved for the Bishop to deny it, and he
doesn’t even attempt to in his response. His response
seems misleading on several other points:
- Bishop
Taylor states in his response: “Ever
since the Dallas Charter was adopted by the USCCB,
bishops are required to suspend from ministry any priest
against whom a credible allegation is lodged, pending
the outcome of the ecclesiastical and civil
investigations, and to announce publicly the allegation
received in order to invite other possible victims or
others who may have information to come forward.”
This is not true. To quote from the January issue of
the Una Voce Arkansas Ozarks newsletter, “Nowhere in the
Dallas Charter or in subsequent documents from the USCCB
are bishops required to send out press releases to all
surrounding media outlets the minute they receive a
complaint about a priest and before it can even be
investigated by a proper authority.”
- In
his response, Bishop Taylor states the following: “Indeed,
in the sad cases referred to in the article, both Fr.
Brad Barber and Fr. Laurent Demets acknowledged their
guilt.”
On the contrary, Father Brad Barber has never
acknowledged guilt. I will say nothing further on this
case, which is still open, other than that the Bishop
acted without taking into consideration the possibility
of innocence. And Father Barber continues to insist on
his innocence.
- Bishop
Taylor claims to have taken the initiative to ask a
priest, Father Greg Hart, to begin offering the Mass in
Northwest Arkansas. Then he takes me to task for not
having mentioned this in my article. Well, I did not
mention this in my article because it was not relevant.
This was not Bishop Taylor’s initiative; it was the
initiative of the people who are now attending the Mass
in Tontitown. And it was not something Bishop Taylor
instituted willingly; it was under obedience, after
numerous lay people took the initiative and wrote to
Rome. Bishop Taylor is to be commended for his
obedience, and applauded for not going into schism over
this, but to claim to have taken the initiative is
laughable, to say the least. Are we expected to believe
that he publicly refused these petitioners, and then
suddenly, on his own initiative, sent Father Hart to
study the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and then set up
a permanent Latin Mass presence in Tontitown?
- Bishop
Taylor also claims to have taken the initiative for
finding a priest to send to the former FSSP apostolates
in Mountain Home and Cherokee Village. He seems to
chide me for not mentioning this in the article. First
of all, I knew nothing about this “initiative” at the
time I wrote this article. Second, this is not an
“initiative,” this is simply a bishop fulfilling his
responsibilities. Summorum Pontificum states
that wherever a stable group of people desiring to
worship in the Extraordinary Form exists, the bishop is
“strongly requested to satisfy their wishes.” Obviously
there are such stable groups in both Cherokee Village
and Mountain Home. The question is: Why is Bishop
Taylor taking over six months to do something about it?
- Bishop
Taylor claims that a priest is training to prepare
himself for this apostolate (Cherokee Village and
Mountain Home). In fact there’s no need for training.
There are already several capable priests in the
diocese, such as the young priest who used to offer the
Extraordinary Form of the Mass prior to being sent to
the Saint Luke Institute.
On each of these points His Excellency’s response is
less than accurate. It seems that Bishop Taylor would
like a public image, at least among Remnant subscribers,
in which he is carefully guarding his flock, teaching
and instructing the Catholic Faith, and beyond
critique. He is claiming to take “initiatives” that are
really nothing more than the bare minimum that was
required by Ecclesia Dei, prior to Summorum
Pontificum. But up until now, his actions seem to
indicate that he really never quite accepted Summorum
Pontificum: for example, it appears that he has been
forbidding diocesan priests to offer the Extraordinary
Form of the Mass unless he himself specifically
“authorizes” it. Is this true, Your Excellency?
Bishop Taylor states in his response: “…. there are
in fact honorable reasons why I was forced to take each
of the steps to which he ascribes such unworthy
motives.” Why are traditional Catholics in Arkansas
seeing a hidden motive, then? Well, the answer is
simple: People find it odd that within the Diocese of
Little Rock it seems that something weird happens to any
diocesan priest who, on his own initiative, begins
offering a Latin Mass.
Has Bishop Taylor finally accepted Summorum
Pontificum? We shall soon see. Currently he is
being petitioned from several locations within the state
of Arkansas in which there is no Latin Mass. How will
he respond? We are watching to see what “initiatives”
he will take. Summorum Pontificum states
clearly:
Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each
Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or
regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope
John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by
Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the
exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations,
with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no
need for permission from the Apostolic See or from
his Ordinary.…
Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art.
2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be
attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to
be admitted.
This means that any priest in the Diocese of Little Rock
can begin offering the Extraordinary Form of the Mass
and Bishop Taylor can do nothing to prevent it. Some
pastor could even replace an existing English or Spanish
Mass with a Latin Mass if he sees the need to do so.
We’re all watching now—so Bishop Taylor cannot transfer
him, send him to St. Luke’s, or jump to conclusions
about accusations that have been made against the
priest.
If Bishop Taylor can’t find a priest to satisfy the
requests coming from one of these groups of petitioners,
how will he handle it? We find the answer in
Summorum Pontificum:
Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such
requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do
so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia
Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.
Bishop Taylor is expected to embrace Summorum
Pontificum. Nothing else matters if he won’t fall
in line on something so basic and so fundamental as
complying with the Pope’s expressed will. Does he
understand the consequences of not doing so? Most
likely, like others his age, he’s recovering from a
seminary formation in which he became convinced that the
Latin Mass is something evil. We pray this isn’t the
case. There’s important work to be done, and our bishop
has many commendable qualities. Readers of The
Remnant share Bishop Taylor’s concern over
government intrusion into prohibited areas, for example,
and we’re grateful for his laudatory statement in his
January
25
letter
addressing
the failure of the Department of Health and Human
Services to respect religious rights: “we cannot-we will
not-comply with this unjust law…”
Amen, Your Excellency! This sounds like the call to
civil disobedience that we expect to hear from our
bishops under such circumstances. We share Bishop
Taylor’s concern for the poor and the immigrants, and we
yearn to see in our lifetime a Catholic America under
the banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe. We hope that if
not us or our children, then our grandchildren will see
this. We pray that Bishop Taylor will begin to see the
traditional Catholics in his flock as his most loyal
followers, and give them the spiritual nourishment
they’re requesting from him. |
VIDEOS
