Parish rallies behind priest
In today’s (Friday) Metro section of the Austin American-Statesman, a story ran about St. Theresa’s parish in Austin and a priestly transfer currently in progress. After a five-year term as pastor, Fr. Gregory Romanski is being transferred to St. Martin de Porres Parish. Many parishioners disagree and wish for Fr. Greg to remain Pastor. As stated in the article, the people involved with the rebuttal- calling themselves “Austin Catholics”- have started a letter-writing drive to Rome, namely the Congregation for the Clergy, to appeal the transfer.
Fr. Greg has hired a canon lawyer to help with the appeal. The lawyer, Msgr. Vincent Bertrand, spoke to a crowd and the newspaper included some of the comments:

Some bishops [want priests] to say, ‘Yes, bishop; yes, bishop,’ It’s not like that anymore. We’re living in the year 2004.

The relationship between most bishops and their priests is much deeper than a “yes, bishop; yes, bishop.” The bishop is the shepherd of the flock- both the lay faithful as well as his clergy. Moreover, they are his clergy, something the man submitted to through Holy Orders. In either case, the bishop has to look over all within his diocese. While disagreements occur, he must do what he feel his best, through the guidance of people helping him on the diocesan level and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While the relationship is not usually a “yes-man” type, when conflict occurs, the bishop is the victor.
Overall, the story was fairly well written.
The paper-version of the article included a URL for Austin Catholics, austincatholics.org. The site, pretty simple in design, includes scanned copies of many of the documents related to the situation. They’re all pretty interesting.
Of particular note, the letter signed by various members of the parish community following the bishop’s response to the petition.

…We feel compelled to let you know that because you have chosen not to communicate with the hundreds of Austin Catholics who have expressed serious concerns regarding one of your recent decisions, we find ourselves forced to share our views with a much larger audience.

This letter strikes me. It’s rather combative and assuming. My first tip to any Catholic wishing to write to their bishop about anything: this is not how to do it. Charity, compassion, prayfulness. These are all things that should be included in any form of communication. In my humble opinion, I don’t believe these were included as much as they could have been in the formation of this letter. As someone who has worked with letter-writing campaigns, I understand the “rush” that comes over the group. That rush must be calmed with insight by the Spirit.
The letter seems very assuming- mentioning veil of secrecy and a chosen lack of communication and interest.
The bishop responded a few days later. As many of you know, I am a fan of Bishop Aymond. I’ve worked with him on multiple projects and spoke with him many times on both business and personal matters. In all of my dealings with him, I have never felt brushed off by him or felt anything but open communication. That being said, he is very ethical. If he feels that it is not his place to discuss a subject, he respects what is proper and ethical. If I became a seminarian and the bishop decided to transfer me from the University of Dallas to another minor seminary anywhere else, it is not his place to tell my friends why he transferred me. If a superintendent transfers a teacher to a different campus, it is not the superintendent’s place to discuss the reasons with students.
As far as open dialogue, there is a split in this country between “American Catholicism” and actual Catholicism. Spirituality is not based on the rule of the people. Religion, faith, matters of truth are not determined by the popular vote. I think many Americans forget that. Should the U.S. Bishops allow American Catholics to take a vote to determine whether they are to kneel or stand when taking communion? No. It is not a matter of getting what the people want.
I really don’t understand at times why this seems to be such a hard concept. If I had a problem with a priest at a parish I was at, I would submit letters to the bishop requesting action. If nothing happened, I would suck it up. If a priest I dearly love is transferred, I would probably not be happy; however, I would have to accept- and believe- that the transfer would make the Diocese stronger.
I don’t know Fr. Greg but I’ll take on faith that he’s a good priest and that all the things that the “Austin Catholics” group is saying is true. I’ll also take on faith that he has done great things for the parish. Perhaps, he’s done “too good” of a job. How could he do too good of a job? Possibly, he has made so many improvements that worked so well that the bishop, seeing a need in another parish, wanted to see the priest improve this other parish just as much.
I have one final comment regarding this situation. The organized group is calling itself “Austin Catholics”. I’m an Austin Catholic and I’m nowhere close to being aligned to this group much less a member of it. I feel that a name means something and giving a group a name that doesn’t fully represent it correctly is something that I can’t respect. Call it “Committee to Retain Fr. Greg” or “We Love Fr. Greg” or “People at St. Theresa’s Parish Who Really Want Fr. Greg To Stay Really Really Badly” or “Austin Catholics Who Want Fr. Greg to Stay” or even “Some Austin Catholics” or “A Few Good Catholics” or anything else. Calling the group “Austin Catholics” seems to include a much much larger group than it ever will. It is just a pet peeve that instantly drops credibility with me.

Perhaps I don’t have the experience or the training needed to write up a blueprint on how to reform the educational process in this country. However, I do have some experience and I do have some training so I feel like I’m qualified to say something about blueprinting education reform.
I found a section of the blueprint as posted on reformk12.com:

Lack of Choice: Why is it that in any other area of our lives we don’t tolerate the government telling us what to do or what to choose, yet when people propose giving parents real choice (for example in the form of vouchers, or even permitting parents to homeschool), the response is, “Nooooo, that will destroy public education!”

First, I do not believe that private school vouchers would destroy public education. Equally so, I do not believe that private school vouchers would improve public education. Even though I’m Catholic, I can not support school vouchers. There is nothing wrong with public education that would be solved by diverting money and students elsewhere. You want your child to have a good Catholic education? That’s completely your option. Go for it. You can’t afford it? Talk to your pastor, apply for scholarships, ask for sponsorship. If I ever make millions, I’ll donate a chunk to help pay for scholarships to Catholic schools. I don’t believe that tax dollars should go towards that purpose. They’re called public schools because they are operated by the state. They’re called private schools because they are operated by private individuals. They’re called parochial schools because they are operated by a church parish.
Public schools need improvement and competition does help spur that in many cases.
Does that limit the method of competition to public/private? No. Create choice programs within districts. Allows parents and students to choose what junior high and high schools they attend. Many will choose based on old traditions but many will choose on what would be the best school. Keep elementary schools, for the most part, as neighborhood schools. What about raising low-performing schools? Keep an open flow of teachers. Move underperforming teachers out; move proven teachers in. Not only that, move proven teachers in and put them in a position to help mentor young, fresh teachers on what works and what doesn’t. Make low-performing schools into magnet programs. Create programs with specialized function and purpose to help draw in students interested in certain fields. Create programs that are unique and will draw the interest of the general public. Create programs in all schools that would invite, welcome and encourage input, interaction and support from local businesses and industry.
I am the product of public education done right, in my opinion. I went to one of the poorest elementary schools in the city. Looking at the latest campus accountability data table (2002), the school is still 85.1% economically disadvantaged. At the time, I wasn’t one of the economically disadvantaged students; I didn’t know the difference though. I made real connections with students of every race and socioeconomic bracket. My kindergarten teacher, a Ms. Georgie Walton, noticed early that I had a high ability for learning and had already, thanks to my mother, been taught how to read. She did something- now I assume she talked to the principal, Mrs. Diane Taylor and whomever else. The school decided to place me half of the day in Mrs. Rose Partridge’s 1st grade classroom (when they conducted reading assignments) and I would spend the rest of the day with my kindergarten classmates- after all, socially, I wasn’t ready to leave kindergarten. Later in the year, we had a transfer student, a girl, who was advanced as well. The school noticed it and did pretty much the same thing with her except she was down in the 1st grade class longer.
My first grade teacher, Mrs. Gail Anderson, who is now the school’s principal, read my file and noticed my advanced ability as well. She kept me in the classroom; however, she gave me assignments much beyond the scope of the class. I ended up completely the first-grade, the second-grade and about a third of the third-grade material during that school year. Also, I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. I don’t remember exactly what my scores were but they were almost all in the 99th percentile for my grade level. The school noticed this, called myself and my parents in for a meeting. At the meeting, it was felt that I had all the skills needed to begin the third-grade in the following fall. My handwriting, however, needed improvement so I should attend a couple of summer school where I was given some additional instruction on handwriting (although I don’t think it ever stuck).
My third grade year was uneventful and I have no difficulty in completely the coursework.
As the school I was attending only went through third grade, I left and started attending a relatively new math-science-technology magnet elementary school. The school was located in a former high school on the Eastside of town. The district had been under court order to desegregate so they closed most of the schools on the Eastside (read: black) side of town and bused those kids to other locations. The school was in a poverty-stricken area of town. Across the street was one of “the projects”- public housing for those who couldn’t afford it. Since it was a magnet school, students from all over town attended lowered the economically-disadvantaged rate up to 46.4% (again, using 2002 numbers).
Even though it was on the wrong side of the tracks and had all the local children- as well as magnet students- in the same classrooms together, parents used to wait in line starting at 4 am to try to get their students a place on campus. In any case, the school- through Federal Magnet Assistance- had over 300 computers on campus, two state-of-the-art project rooms, a greenhouse, a hydroponics lab, a riverwater testing lab, an aviation/space lab. In addition, the teachers knew their material, they knew how to aim higher and higher, they pushed students- both the rich boy who was the son of the most wealthy man in the city as well as the poor boy who couldn’t afford school supplies. No excuses were made for either of them. The student that needed pencils- pencils were found somewhere for him. They both succeeded. The school has since won various awards, including the first presentation of The Ronald P. Simpson Award, giving it the title as “The Best Magnet School in America”. Previous to that, it had been a Magnet School of Distinction and a Magnet School of Merit.
After seeing the success of the elementary magnet program, the Wichita Falls ISD started a junior high magnet- making Kirby Junior High into the Kirby Math-Science Center. The school, again with the assistance of Federal Magnet funds, had computers in every classroom, a video-editing lab and studio, a greenhouse, an aerospace technology program as well as whatever I can’t think of at the time. The school also offered Pre-AP courses, at the time, in Algebra I and II. Since, they expanded to include other courses. While at Kirby, most of the teachers knew what they were doing. I learned the basics while reaching for the stars, literally, in the space shuttle simulator that one of the teachers had created from a converted Air Force F-14 cockpit simulator (see- this is where creating programs that catch the attention of surrounding businesses and industry helps).
The school won the third presentation of the Ronald P. Simpson Award. It had previously been named a Magnet School of Merit award winner.
Of course, after seeing both an elementary and junior high magnet program work- it was time to branch out to high school. The district selected another school in a low socioeconomic area to be converted. Hirschi High School was redesignated as a magnet school. Now, this is when I believe Dr. Huffines, the late Director of Federal Funds for the WFISD, really had fun. The school started with four magnet programs: multimedia, medical, aviation and engineering. The school continued to run the district’s automotive career center as well. Again, using Federal Magnet Funds, they converted part of the building into a multimedia lab; they converted an old upstairs gym (without need after the completion of a field house a few years before) into the largest Tech Plaza in the country that contained a fully digital video studio and editing suite complete with blue screen. A set of classrooms were converted to a medical classroom that had a complete simulation of a hospital room as well as medical dummies for students to work on. The aviation program was given a handful of computers with flight simulators as well as a pilot to serve as an instructor and the ability to use an aircraft at the local airpark. The engineering program was given a small portion of the building where they worked on various projects that served the school well. While I was at Hirschi, they built all of the pyros used at pep rallies and football games, t-shirt guns, a run-through tunnel and other various spirit-related things. One of the cool things- they created a device to help the local law enforcement determine the speed that an accident victim was traveling based on skid marks. I don’t know what they created but apparently it saved a huge amount of time for the officers using the devices.
Meanwhile, in the year before I attended, the district heard wind somehow of the International Baccalaureate program and was accepted to the program with the Class of 2002. The school, with my class, started offering Pre-IB and then IB coursework.
This high school, also, was very negatively seen by the community at large. The school was painted with the image that it once rightly held as the “gang school” in town with the drug problem. The problem had ended in the early 90s but community perception did not change. The school, in a process driven by students and administrators, worked on spirit-related projects, image-related projects as well as a media campaign designed to improve the school’s image. The hands-on work that I was able to put into the projects has given me the largest benefit of any progressive educational technique.
Now back to the issue of choice. What didn’t I tell you about this setup? Initially, the school magnet programs worked like how many across the country do. Students in the district attend whatever school that they are supposed to according to neighborhood outlines. If they wish to attend a magnet school, they apply and are then accepted or denied. My elementary school and junior high experience was like that.
Now, the school district, under court pressure, adapted a different technique. First off, all secondary schools were upgraded to magnet status and, by the decision of the campus with school board approval, were given a field to specialize electives. Visual and Performing Arts programs developed, Communication programs developed, etc. Secondly, all 6th grade students (rather their parents) return a form requesting a junior high campus to attend. All 8th grade students return a form requesting a high school campus to attend. Geographical zones do not exist for secondary schools. Initially, the process was to ensure racial balance and so they would deny some students their first choice based on that (only eight students in two years). After a few years, they realized that the process racially balanced itself and so they lifted that restriction.
Secondary school education in WFISD is based on choice.
Elementary schools are still neighborhood schools with a request required to transfer to a magnet school. Since my elementary school days, the district has expanded the magnet program to include a number of campuses.
In any case, that is how public schooling should be done in my opinion. I had doors opened to me every time I thought to knock. The teachers cared and put forth effort I would only dream of on a college campus. I will, in the future, describe certain aspects in more detail but in short, I feel that public education is not the bane of education of this country. It is sick but it has potential that can not be ignored.

Hello, my name is Brandon and I’m addicted to books.
I have a bedroom covered with books- almost every corner has a book or two or four or six stacked up. All kinds of books as well. Campbell’s Biology to Sources of Chinese Tradition (as well as the Japanese and Koren counterparts) to the red Worship hymnal (volume 3) to the Liturgy of the Hours and Christian Prayer. Not to mention various philosophy texts, random other textbooks from the past few years, an occasional novel here and there.
That isn’t so bad. My problem is I’ll read about halfway through a book, set it down and not pick it up again for months. I read the first half of The Hobbit back in December/January. I didn’t pick it up again until three days ago. I started Theology of the Body before Christmas break- haven’t touched it in months. There are some, like The Spirit of the Liturgy, that I’ve read cover-to-cover in a week.
So, I have piles of half-read books throughout my room. I really should curb that and mull through some of these books that were good, just never completed. Now, I run off to the rest of my classes.

I’m studying for my BIO 213 exam tomorrow while watching the Democratic National Convention on PBS. I saw on the news segments of a speech given by former Governor Ann Richards (D-TX). In short, she went on, in her usual attacking manner, about how we can not stand to let Bush appoint a Supreme Court Justice, a justice that would probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, I’m watching Ron Reagan giving a so-far pro-stem cell research speech at the DNC.
He just mentioned that “fetuses are not created and it is all done in the lab” and that some people would oppose this because they claim that life at all stages, even if this “form that would never become a person, never be implanted into a mother’s womb, should be protected.
As far as stem-cell research, I do not know enough about it. I’ve heard there are methods that do not create embryonic stem cells. I simply need to know more before I say, with any foundation, where I stand on it. The creation of embryonic stem-cells, being the creation of an embryo for the exclusive use of stem-cells, is something that I believe is wrong.
As far as Ann Richards speech soundbite about abortion, it is simply disgusting. Not nearly as disgusted as when I read this article from the NY Times Magazine. It is not a women’s right to choose. It’s simply not a right. It does not exist. A women’s right to choose exists on whether she should or should not have sex. Sexual intercourse is procreative.. This is true according to thelogy. This is true according to nature. This is true according to evolution. In the context of being human, sexual intercourse is regarded as more because it is supposed to be an expression between husband and wife, an expression of love that has the potential to be fully manifested by the creation of new life. Our society does not, as a whole, hold that to be the philosophy of sex; however, that does not change the nature of sex. The point: the women’s right to choose exists in the bedroom. Have sex or don’t. That’s your choice.
Something that Ron Reagan did say that I can not refute: The theology of a few can not dictate [something] to us all. That statement gets in the way of what I would like to see change in our society, but it is a valid point. That’s why it is our duty to find other ways, not just theology, to prove our points. I digress.
So yes, the democrats disappoint me.
Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act has left children behind. My largest complaint with the law is that it gives no incentives to teachers and schools to push further. If you don’t reach the benchmark, well you’re screwed. If you meet the standard, good for you. If you reach for the stars, well um, good for you but we’re not going to pat you on the back or anything for it.
The No Child Left Behind Act pushes districts, schools and teachers to teach what the law prescribes and not anything further or not anything in more detail. In the end, it will give teachers more requirements that they must follow and take away the ability for genuine education.
Since Bush took office, public universities in 49 states have increased tuition. The cost of education is increasing. Yet, Pell Grant limits remain frozen. No Child Left Behind until they try to break out and go to college.
The economy is still floating. Nothing positive I can say there. On the large scale, cutting taxes (reducing income) while spending more and more on homeland security and war (increased spending) just doesn’t seem like a sound policy. If someone can honestly explain to me how spending more than you’re taking in is a good idea, please do. Then tell me what I did wrong last year when I tried that. All I ended up with was high credit card bills that will cost me more in the end.
The Bush campaign- so far- has been terrorism. I haven’t heard anything else besides Bush claiming that he would be the strong leader we need to get us through this so-called war on terrorism.
So yes, the republicans disappoint me.
What am I to do? With the direction I believe this country should take, my hands are tied. Both parties would take this country in different directions. I know many argue that certain issues are trump-issues, that being I would have to vote one way because of this one issue. I’m simply not ready to reduce my concerns and conflicts down to a simple single issue decision.
And, again I ask, what am I to do?

I went to the PCL (i.e. the main library) on campus today and found a Pontificale Romanum from 1895. It is the liturgical book that contains all the different rites and celemonies usually reserved for the Bishop. The edition in the library, and online here, was promulgated by Popes Benedict XIV and Leo XIII.
It is completely in Latin so I only understand bits and pieces of it. In either case, it has been very interesting to see it in print so far. For a good number of the ceremonies, there are very highly-detailed illustrations picturing the ceremony. Also unlike the online version, it has the psalm tones.
There is one graphic that makes me laugh. On page 263, under “De Patenae et Calicis Consecratione”, illustrates the Bishop blessing the Paten and Chalice. All looks fine and dandy, then you notice one of the servers is looking over his shoulder looking very bored. It also has the Degredation rituals that Fr. Jim Tucker translated and posted awhile ago. (First Tonsure, Exorcists and Lectors, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Deacons, Priests and Bishops).
It just has really cool stuff in it. Like the Ordo ad Reconciliandum Apostatam, Schismaticum Vel Haereticum. As you may have guessed, that’s the Order of Reconciliation with Schismatics, Heretics, etc. Most of it, while I can’t translate word-for-word, I can pick up the meaning of. Like the following:

Pontifex apostatam,
schismaticum, vel haereticum reconciliare volens, paratus amictu,
stola, pluviali albo, et mitra simplici, sedet super faldistorium
ante foras Ecclesiae sibi paratum, coram quo genuflectit
reconciliandus, quem interrogat Pontifex de fide, dicens:
Credis duodecim Articulos Fidei?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem coeli et terrae?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum Dominum nostrum?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis quod conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis quod passus est sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis quod descendit ad inferos?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis quod tertia die resurrexit a mortuis?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis, quod ascendit ad coelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis?
Ille respondet: Credo
Pontifex interrogat: Credis quod venturus est judicare vivos, et mortuos?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis in Spiritum Sanctus?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, Sanctorum communionem?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis remissionem omnium peccatorum?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Pontifex interrogat: Credis carnis resurrectionem et vitam aeternam?
Ille respondet: Credo.
Deinde Pontifex surgit cum mitra, et super illum genuflexum dicit absolute, incipiens:
Exorcizo te, immunde spiritus, per Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et per Jesum Christum Filium ejus, et per Spiritum Sanctum, ut recedas ab hoc famulo Dei, quem Deus et Dominus noster ab erroribus et perceptionis tuis liberare, et ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare dignatur. Ipse tibi imperet, maledicte ac damnate, qui pro salute hominum passus, mortuus, et sepultus est, te atque omnes vires tuas superavit, ac resurgens coelos ascendit, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos, et saeculum per ignem.

The bulk of this, as is pretty obvious, is the Bishop questioning the person to be brought back into the Church. The form is pretty usual where the Bishop asks “Do you believe in XYZ?” with the person responding with “I believe.” The end, well, I don’t know what it says. It sounds like the person is genuflecting before the Bishop, with mitre, when the Bishop casts out any unclean spirits by means of the Almighty Father, by means of Jesus Christ and by means of the Holy Sprit. He further commands, either the person or the spirits- this is where my lack of Latin education fails me- to obey the Lord our God. You get the idea though. My goal is to some day be able to read it.
Anyhow, it is a really cool little book. I picked up a copy of The Rites and The Rites II that contains the modern version of many of the ceremonies. Perhaps I’ll compare a few of them before giving the books back.