COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Bishop Michael Sheridan has apologized for remarks by his assistant that Roman Catholics shouldn’t attend Protestant worship services because they could "confuse" some Catholics.
Sheridan’s executive assistant, Peter Howard, also told The Gazette of Colorado Springs this week that Catholic participation in Protestant services denigrates the Catholic faith. He made similar comments in an Oct. 7 article in the diocesan newspaper.
In a letter regarding Howard’s comments to The Gazette, Sheridan said Howard is free to express his views but said he doesn’t agree with them.
"
Nevertheless, I am deeply sorry for any hurt or insult that has been experienced, and I humbly ask that all men and women of good will accept my apology," wrote Sheridan, who last year suggested that those who vote for Catholic politicians who contradict church positions should refrain from taking Communion.
Some of the diocese’s 130,000 Catholics attend both Protestant and Catholic services. New Life Church, a large church led by National Association of Evangelical president Ted Haggard, is believed to attract thousands of Catholics every weekend. Howard’s column in the diocesan newspaper, entitled "Why Not Attend New Life?" was meant to address that.
"
Such ‘active participation’ in a Protestant liturgical service, therefore, acts contrary to our faith which professes fundamentally different beliefs in critical ecclesiological and theological areas," Howard wrote.
The Rev. Karl Useldinger, diocesan chancellor and judicial vicar, said the Catholic church allows its adherents to participate in other Christian services as long as they don’t take part in another church’s sacraments and continue to attend Catholic Mass.
Michael Ciletti, deacon for St. Francis of Assisi Parish, said Howard was "dead wrong" in his column.
"
I think to have a column like that sends the wrong kind of message," he said. "I think it’s an insult."
Not an insult, but a statement of fact. While it is true canonically Catholic can attend Protestant services as long as they don’t participate in Communion, it is a matter of prudence of doing so and making sure that it does not pose a problem to their Catholic faith. Of course with their services also on Sunday they would have to make sure they also attend Mass. This might be necessary for those in a mixed marriage, but not really recommend for others. Mix one part poor catechesis and one part lively entertainment style Protestant worship services and you get an ex-Catholic. A recipe that has worked well for denominations that are often made up of a large part of ex-Catholics.
The About page for New Life Church shows a guitarist sitting down surrounded by guitar effects so I guess it means that they have "sound doctrine."
72 comments
I’m sorry, but I disagree with the fact that we must all agree (no pun intended) to be unified. If we wait for everyone to be on exactly the same page, we will be waiting until the end of the world. It’s this type of attitude that is divisive: the attitude that says “you must agree with my way of thinking for us to be unified.” Like I said, I am orthodox in my faith, and believe in obedience to the Magesterium. But I also believe that charity is above all. “Timothy” is on a journey in his faith that may be a slightly different path than some of us, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be unified in the truths that matter most. How do we expect to strengthen other Catholics and bring Protestants into the Church? St. Francis de Sales said, “Flies are more attracted to one ounce of honey than a barrel full of vinegar.” I’m afraid that I am a little sickened by the amount a vinegar I see coming from some of my conservative contemporaries. We must be careful that what we are calling unity of Faith has to do with the basic and fundamental truths of the Church, not the less significant differences in how we can worship our Lord and love our neighbor. Although these differences hold some importance, we must be careful not to let them derail us from charity… and even unity.
Another word about unity… what husband and wife do you know who AGREE on everything? And yet, can’t they still be truly one? Just something to think about…
Agreement in essentials is unity. Disagreeing about essentials and willfully maintaining that disagreement is not unity.
I may disagree with my wife about the color of the kitchen or the best thing for dinner but we are agreed in essentials – our faith, our openess to life, the way our kids are raised.
In the same way maintaining unity in essentials in the Church – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the infallibility of the Pope, opposition to abortion, the male priesthood, the virgin birth of Jesus, the Immaculate conception, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc. – is required for true unity. You can’t say “I am Catholic” and dismiss these things. By doing so you are saying you don’t want unity.
We aren’t talking about musical styles at Mass or the way we deal with social justice issues. There is plenty of room for accomodation and discussion on these topics but on others, there isn’t.
If you claim to be Catholic and have issues with dogmas of the Church you should approach the problem with the question “Why does the Church teach this and what is keeping me from believing it?” Not “The Church is wrong and should adopt my way of thinking.”
Either the Church is infallible or it isn’t. If it isn’t, there isn’t any reason to be a part of it and in fact, everyone should do whatever he can to expose it for a fraud and tear it down.
Since Timothy has decided to hide behind the “everyone is name calling and not answering my assertions” charge. And since it appears that some think that Timothy is a sweet sounding voice in the midst of a bunch of uncharitable mean people, I have made a list of Timothy’s assertions and noted who responded to them and also pointed out that Timothy seems to be the one involved in character assasination and the spreading of unsubstantiated rumors and accusations.
Catholics are leaving the Church because of changes Bishop Sheridan has forced on the parishes – Proof? Do you have any evidence that the number of Catholics abandoning the Church for others is greater now than before Bishop Sheridan arrived?
Bishop Sheridan is forcing things into the Mass that aren’t in the GIRM – all of the things that you mentioned about the Mass that can be found in his pastoral letter are straight from the documents. One thing to keep in mind is a principle repeated in many documents including the GIRM – “no one, not even a priest, may add, subtract or change anything in the Mass.”
Bishop Sheridan is forcing unhealthy forms of clericalism – Proof?
Bishop Sheridan is forcing priests not to be dramatic in their prayers – Proof?
Bishop Sheridan is forcing priests to not sing new musical settings to the Eucharistic Prayers – Proof?
Bishop Sheridan has forced the elimination of blessings for children – See my first comment on the GIRM.
Bishop Sheridan is forcing musicians to quit accompanying prayers with musical underscoring – In the GIRM.
Bishop Sheridan has told people not to talk to each other before Mass – Crash
Bishop Sheridan has told people to stop holding hands during the Our Father – Crash
Bishop Sheridan has thrown FINANCIAL and POLITICAL support behind a new all-male Gregorian chant choir – Athanasius, Guido
Bishop Sheridan and Peter Howard are trying to bring back the Church of their childhoods – Crash
Bishop Sheridan is seen by the other bishops as a right-wing fanatic and is mostly irrelevant to them – Proof?
Bishop Sheridan told Peter to make his comments on attending New Life and then hung him out to dry. – Proof?
Catholics are rediscovering pre-Vatican II superstitions and want magic, not faith – Proof? What superstitions and magic are you referring to?
Peter and the bishop want to put priests on a pedestal for adoration and keep the laity “in their place” – Proof?
Bishop Sheridan said that “This is the priest’s show” when shown plans for renovating the Cathedral – Proof? It seems a little odd that this occured since the renovation plans were complete and work had already started when the new bishop arrived.
Jesus’ resurrection is a myth – This is a direct contradiction of the infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Church.
Mary Magdalene was turned into a prostitute by revisionist Catholics to keep women from having an important role in the early Church – PB&J
Murdering thousands of Cathars in France – PB&J
Burning Joan of Arc – PB&J
Condemning Aquinas when he became “enlightened” – PB&J
Galileo – Athanasius, PB&J
Hans Kung – He still isn’t considered a theologian in good standing for a reason. Check with the Pope on this
Paul VI and the contraception commissions – PB&J
Covering up or possibly causing the murder of JPI – PB&J
Peter Howard has resigned – Proof?
Nazareth didn’t exist when Jesus was born – There are archeologists who are saying this but it doesn’t seem to be an undisputed fact. Archeologists were pretty uniform in their belief that Troy never existed until recently. They can be wrong.
Bishop Sheridan has broken laws and promises to get rid of women in leadership positions – Proof?
If you had to choose between the Church and an undeniable fact, which would you choose? – PB&J
From this list a few things are clear. Most of Timothy’s accusations are unsubstantiated or irrelevant to the issue of the Truth of the Faith.
He also claims that no one is responding to his accusations. First, most of them had been responded to and he has chosen to ignore the responses. Second, there isn’t really a way to respond to the dozen plus unsubstantiated accusations that he has tossed into the discussion concerning the bishop and Peter. When he provides some verifiable source for these claims, then they can be discussed.
The notion of following courtroom rules of evidence in a public discussion like this one is a little daunting, if not ridiculous. I doubt that others who weigh in here are asked to conclusively prove every statement and opinion.
If Peter Howard doesn’t have the decency to resign, I’ll apologize for being incorrect, but it’s too soon for that. Let’s be patient for another day or two. To Ian, I’m still baffled about the fuss over what I heard and from whom I heard it. I don’t understand the importance. Are you looking for someone to “get?”
If you all want to believe that Aquinas did not have a crisis of faith, stop work on the third volume of his Summa, and describe all his previous thought as so much “chaff,” and was not called a heretic by the Bishop of Paris, in spite of what history books say, then go ahead and believe that. Or do your own research.
It seems redundant to debate what can be found in objective history books. Mary Magdalene was named a prostitute for the first time by Pope Gregory the Great in 591; look it up. Dan Brown didn’t invent the idea of Mary as perhaps the chief apostle, he heard it from the books buried in the Egyptian desert and discovered in 1945, books the fledgling Church had ordered burned.
Same thing with Paul VI assigning a team of scientists and theologians to study the pill, then firing them when they came back with the wrong answer, assigning another team, firing them when they returned the same answer, and finally appointing a committee who figured out what he wanted to hear. If you don’t want to believe that particular bit of documented history, it’s ok with me. Just don’t tell me that I can’t be Catholic if I believe it.
To pb&j: Thanks for the web site for the biography of Galileo. It confirms what I knew, though it does come across as having been written by a biased apologist. I’ll quote the pertinent part for the others:
“…a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
It is this kind of “grave and deplorable” error that I fear is returning as the Church under JPII and Benedict XVI battles scientific progress.
Also to pb&j: I didn’t find the site for the Nazareth tourist bureau as helpful. There is much debate among scholars as to the existence of Nazareth in the first century. Impartial archeologists have found nothing there from that era except funereal remnants. Franciscan pseudo-archeologists with a vested interest in supporting Scripture claim to have found 1st-Century evidence, but haven’t persuaded the others.
Another simple history lesson:
The Albigensian Crusade was a Crusade against the people of the Languedoc region of France, considered heretics for reviving a 1st Century BCE through 1st Century CE form of Gnosticism. The crusade began in 1208 and is also known as the Cathar Crusade. Like all crusades it was a war, declared by the Pope, (Innocent III), backed by the Church with promises of remission of sins and a guranteed place in heaven. As the story is told by those who live in the region today, a general sent word to the Pope that some of the residents were Catholic and some were Cathar and he couldn’t tell who he should kill. The Pope responded, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
To AAU: thanks again, good person.
Perhaps there is common ground on which we can all agree though. It is the epic story of a man sent by God. He was born of a virgin, conceived by supernatural means. His birth, celebrated by his followers on December 25, was attended by shepherds and Magi. As an infant, he escaped attempts to kill him. He demonstrated his precocious wisdom while yet a child. He received a divine commission at his baptism and traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame. He is worshipped as Good Shepherd and as the Way, the Truth and the Light, as Redeemer, Savior and “the Messiah.” He was referred to as a lamb. He was hailed as a king but then, after celebrating a last supper, was executed and buried in a rock tomb. He rose after three days, a day celebrated by his followers around the time of the return of spring. He later ascended into heaven. His followers hold their services on Sunday instead of the Jewish Sabbath. Rituals include the Eucharist and six other familiar sacraments.
If you find this story appealing, you should look further into it. I have just described a 6th-Century BCE myth about a god/man named Mithra. Mithraism was a well-known and popular religion during the first and second centuries CE.
Concerning the burden of proof for claims made here:
I am not saying that we have to use courtroom form in a discussion forum but when you accuse the bishop of criminal activity and make false claims about the financial support he has supposedly given schismatic choirs, then you raise your own bar on the burden of proof for the other things you are claiming.
Concerning the history of Church atrocities:
No one is denying that members of the Church have done evil things. This proves nothing about the validity of the Church’s teaching. If you need a refresher course in the difference between impecability and infalibility there are several apologetic works on the topic.
Concerning fact Vs. Church teaching:
What I will say now in answer to your question concerning absolute fact contradicting the Church is that if there ever is an indisputed fact that contradicts dogmatic Church teaching, I will be the first to leave and try to tear it down.
You seem to already believe that this has happened. Have the honesty and the courage to do what should be done – leave and expose it for the hypocritical man-made institution that you believe it to be.
Aquinas had a crisis of Faith? He stopped believing in God or the Church? NO!! He realized that he could never do justice to the greatness of God through his writings! He humbly realized that perhaps he had become proud of his accomplishments and hadn’t given enough credit to God for his works. As to whether or not a bishop called him a heretic – I don’t know if he did but it doesn’t matter whether he did or not. The bishop is not the Church. Many bishops, unfortunately, do things that are wrong. Don’t we all? The Church declared Thomas Aquinas to be a saint, not a heretic.
Who is denying that ecclesiastical authorities did wrong in the case of Galileo? Not I. I am denying that the Church did wrong. I am also not saying that Galileo did no wrong. He wanted the Church to declare Copernicanism true, which it could not, especialy with the erroneous evidence that Galileo presented.
Timothy, just out of curiosity, if a diocesan official had given an interview in the Gazette and said that abortion was morally licit, would you be hoping he had the decency to resign?
You guys are world-class spin doctors. Clearly it is time for me to get out of your way. I bid you farewell and wish you every blessing. May your absolute certainty continue to protect you from the agony of doubt. As for me, I will continue to doubt, to wonder, to question, and to keep myself open to new truths. If that leads me away from the Church, so be it. If the Church is as genuinely interested in teaching the truth as you say, it will eventually find me again.
Respond one last time if you must, but I won’t be back to read it.
Timothy has repeatedly declined to respond to the issues at hand and instead keeps throwing out historical crimes committed by members of the Church. Supposedly he won’t be coming back to read this so let’s recap for everyone else who may read this thread.
1) Timothy has made unsubstantiated claims about our bishop being involved in criminal activities, forcing various changes on parishes and Peter Howard resigning. When asked for proof, he has refused to respond.
2) He has made demonstrably false claims about funding non-existent schismatic choirs that he has refused to respond to when given evidence refuting his claim.
2)He obviously doesn’t really believe in Jesus beyond a nice myth stolen from Mithras worshippers.
3) He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between impecability and infallibility.
4) People of his mindset are in positions of authoritity throughout our diocese.
5) He thinks Peter Howard should resign for making statements about the problems with attending Protestant services but won’t respond to my question asking if he would be hoping for the same thing if a diocesan official publicly came out in support of abortion.
Based on all these things, do you really want people like this – people who have no qualms about throwing around accusations of criminal activity and who don’t even believe the basic tenants of the Catholic faith – in charge in our diocese or any diocese for that matter? And if you were the bishop in this diocese, would you be letting people like this tell you how to run the diocese?
Dear AAU,
I think that your sympathies are misplaced. Timothy is not the victim here. On one hand we have a person that despises our bishop and Peter Howard, believes his ties to the Catholic church are �tribal� rather than through a common faith, and wants Peter fired being too Catholic. On the other hand we have a young man and his family that lives a Catholic life, supports his church and believes in the teaching authority of the magisterium. In one case heterodox theology in the diocese is being rewarded and in the second, orthodox beliefs are punished. If Peter Howard is removed from his position and banished, it will be a scandalous injustice. It reminds me of the entrance antiphon from a week ago Sunday.
Ps 38:16-23.
Come quickly to help me my Lord and salvation. I am very near falling: my pain is with me always. I acknowledge my guilt and grieve over my sin. Buy many are my foes without cause, a multitude of enemies without reason. Repaying me evil for good, harassing me for pursuing good. Lord, I wait for you; O Lord, my God, answer me. For I fear they will gloat, exult over me when I stumble.
Timothy,
You are but one of many cafteria Catholics that are whining… The cafeteria is closed…
The Baltimore Catechism No. 1 clearly states that to attend non-Catholic worship services and to actively participate is a sin against Faith.
My prayers are with Bishop Sheridan as he struggles to bring the apostates of his diocese back to the Catholic faith.
Though I promised to leave this blog, I believe it is appropriate to make one last comment today on the occasion of the public revelation of Peter Howard’s October 31 resignation.
My prayers are with Bishop Sheridan as well. I’m not sure whether the apostates to whom Flabellum refers include the resigned Executive Assistant or the resigned Canon Lawyer & Chancellor or both. Since they were on opposite sides of the original Protestant services issue, it would seem that one or the other of them has to be outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. Perhaps Brian can sort it out with another quote from the Baltimore Catechism.
My prayers, however, are not about converting the loyal opposition but for my bishop himself personally as he struggles with his cowardice problem. You see, Mr. Howard resigned on October 31. But the local press, which knew about the resignation the entire time, was asked to hold back the news for two weeks. Why? So that the public would not learn about it until after Bishop Sheridan had already left for the annual bishops’ meeting in Washington DC. Wednesday’s Gazette story says he was unreachable on Tuesday. Apparently, the bishops are meeting in a hotel without telephones.
Michael Sheridan’s problems are not the fault of Peter Howard or Karl Useldinger; they are self-inflicted. What he is experiencing is not unusual for political and theological extremists. Eventually, things begin to collapse around them, just like what is happening to the President recently. With all the bad that is happening, however, he still had one more choice to make. He could have faced the press and the public, like he did a year and a half ago when he was on Nightline about his politics, and made his case with courage and conviction. Instead he hid.
So yes, keep him in your prayers, but not so that “apostates” will suddenly change their minds and agree with his politics. Pray that he is able someday to overcome his cowardice and face adversity like a man.
Hi Timonthy, I never did get your information on your sources.
I don’t agree at all with your point of view on the debate, but I do agree with you last conclusion. He seems to have really wanted to hide from all of this. Has the diocesan paper even reported on this?
Ian,
The Colorado Springs Gazette
KOAA-TV
KRDO-TV
KKTV 11
KVOR-AM morning news
How I came across the truth when it happened even though the rest of the world had to wait two weeks is of no consequence. It has no effect on the facts.
Nice cop-out, Timothy. I didn’t really expect someone who throws out unsubstantiated charges of criminal activity to be honest about much else.
You can call it dishonest, I call it protecting someone who confided in me when perhaps they shouldn’t have. Would you respect me if I violated that trust? Or is it your intention to place me in a Catch 22 situation so that you can criticize me either way?
As for unanswered questions, you have never indicated why you are obsessed more with the newsmaker than with the news. Why do you need to know so badly? What difference does it make? My previous unanswered question was, “Are you out to get someone?” If so, why? Will the problems in Sheridan’s administration somehow be lessened if you knew who I know on the inside?
As with the news of Howard’s resignation, the verification you seek about Bishop Sheridan’s falsehoods, broken promises and violations of employment contracts and related civil laws will eventually come out. But it will happen in court, not here, not just because one anonymous person browbeats another anonymous person for “proof.” If you choose not to believe me again, you are free to do that. It doesn’t bother me. Just consider my track record. Are you really willing to bet against me again?
I am simply asking for information that you publicly stated you were willing to send people.
So far your track record has been proclaiming the existence of a non-existent choir and announcing Peter’s resignation a week before it was public (I thought you were concerned about the violation of confidences?) You have repeatedly made claims without proof. You have refused to reveal sources that you publicly stated you were going to. You have made public denials about the Truth of the Faith and admitted that you believe you have more knowledge about what is True than the Church does. Yes, I’m willing to bet against that track record.
What I do with the sources is of no importance to you. You didn’t set any conditions on that before.
Timothy, I am also waiting for the information. You said that you would MAIL it to anyone who emailed you a name and address. I did so. I expect you to comply with your end of the agreement. If you did not wish to reveal the source or betray a confidence, then you should not have promissed this information. I would not have sent you my name and address if I you had not said you would send me the information. Did you have some motive for asking for names and addresses? Or did you simply think that we morons wouldn’t have the guts to actually reveal our secret identities? (Curses! Foiled again!)
Timothy, if it is any consolation, I promise not to harm your source in any way. I actually do keep my promises.