Why was today's live-streamed 10 a.m. Mass blacked out? Below is the sermon given by Father Starbuck at the 7:30 Mass. He also gave it at the 10 a.m. Mass which was to be live-streamed on You Tube.
However, a layperson attempting to take over the chapel banged on the confessional door and demanded that Father Starbuck "desist" from repeating this sermon.
Father did give the sermon, however for unexplained reasons, the sermon was not videotaped and live-streamed as the 10 a.m. Mass always is. Here is the sermon that the laypersons attempting to take over the chapel do not want you to see.
19 December 2021
I had a sermon prepared for this morning. However,there are some matters of business that do not allow ofdeferral. Therefore, I will present that sermon at a later time.
I have always tried to be truthful and to do the rightthing. And sometimes I have paid a price for that. Butplease know this about me: I will always try to be
honest with you and to fulfill my commitment to youas a public servant and as a priest. I want to begin by
saying that these past five weeks of my life have beenlike no others. My vocation is not a job. It demands my every moment, and my every commitment, but this is especially so these past few weeks. And this on top
of so much recent loss. I have given 15 years now ofmy life to this parish (a quarter of my life), and I washoping to spend the remainder of my years here. I still hope that is possible. Over these years, I have rolled with the punches, & endured intricate/delicate, indeed,often complex situations. I have held my own. But when Fr. Perez died, there was only one person here who would rightfully have pastoral seniority to succeed
him; and, like it or not, that is me. But shortly after Fr. Perez’s death, a lay board rose up asserting its legal authority to appoint the next “pastor” of this parish. Iwant to be clear in stating that (w/o pointing a finger at them) this is Lutheranism pure and simple. Laypeople could never have the ecclesial power or jurisdiction to appoint or create a pastor. That they may have a legal right is not the same as having a divine right. And while there are fine people on this board who engender
my complete respect, the cohesion and leadership of this lay incorporation has been problematic. Nor do I see it being able to work. I did make it clear that I will not serve under another “pastor.” At the same time, I have wanted to facilitate the transition that the church
is undergoing at least through the end of the year. That has been my desire.
I do not take my marching orders from laypeople. And I cannot, as a priest, answer to competing voices on a lay board.
And moreover, as a priest, my credibility, leadership,and moral responsibility could be jeopardized if a
situation not yet addressed in this parish is allowed to continue. My continuous requests for the vetting of
priests serving in this parish have not & are not being met. We have had a couple of “priests” coming through here whose ordination I found questionable
(based on information that later became available), and we have had at least one priest who had no business being here. Yes, mistakes were made (albeit, not on
my part), and we should have learned from them. Five years ago, I proposed to Fr. Perez the following specific requirements of any priest serving in this parish. And they are the following:
1. A criminal background check with ID, performed by a reputable third party, meeting state compliancy.
Also, the background check that I am requesting is not just a clearance check. It must consist of a positive trace of the person’s history.
3. A chronological work history.
4. Proof of ordination. And I want to know the ordaining bishop, seminary, and formational contacts. And just for your information, as a Dominican I
underwent thorough background checks and continuous vetting over a period of seven years. And I lived under a virtual microscope 24 hours a day during
that time. Moreover, my background is not hidden. My formation and ordination can be found on the Internet. They are public.
Of note, a request that I made of Fr. Perez last summer got dragged out, & and was never completed. And if I
do not say something now, this situation will never be addressed. Let me ask a question. If you hired someone to work on your house, would you not want
references? Or if you sent your children to a day care center, would you not want references? This is the house of God. Can we be any less responsible?
So here is what I am asking: A priest is a public person. Let me repeat that: A priest is a public person. Therefore, with due respect to all parties involved & a presumption of good will on the part of
all, I am asking that the vetting of Fr. Wiest be completed, and that the results of that vetting process, including proof of ordination be made public. The
problem is that there is no public life of any Fr.Michael Wiest (I know this in part, not just because it cannot be found on the internet, but because I actually had a professional investigator call me one day to inform me of this. He was completely puzzled.) there is no public life of any Fr. Michael Wiest who was
born in Chicago, ordained in Italy, and who served in any parish or diocese during these past 30 or so years.
There is no public record of ministry. There is norecord of pastoral assignments. In short, there is no
such public person. And the fact that there is no such public person does not just amount to an absence of information, it amounts to a fact that demands explanation. It is a problem. And for this reason many in this parish question his ordination. For his own benefit we need to answer this question. And we need to know the credentials of any priest serving in
this parish. That is not asking too much.
Finally, while I do not acknowledge the ecclesial authority of a lay board, if one is to exist, it must be cohesive, charitable, and committed to the principles of the Catholic faith. And if the parishioners of this church are unhappy with this arrangement, perhaps they need to consider another option, perhaps the appointment of a new board which they feel represents
them. But with all due respect, I just do not see this lay board being able to resolve effectively the problems this parish faces, or to find a clear path
forward. And FYI, this lay board represents the interests of the
school (PPA) and not of the church.
Additionally, I do know that the board is considering (interviewing) priests who celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. I want to say that it has been our position that this Missal is theologically inadequate (if not modernistic). Fr. Perez vehemently rejected the 1962 Roman Missal. Moreover, it is likely to be problematic to our public celebration of Mass in this
church. May I remind you of some of the problems of this Missal (?):
Revised rite of Holy Week. The famous writer Evelyn Waugh considered the revision of Holy Week to be an extremely disappointing loss. The
introduction of red on Good Friday and Communion of the faithful were arbitrary and capricious, and miss the
fundamental (essential) point of the liturgy (i.e., the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified). It omits Second Confiteor.
It omits numerous octaves, and accordingly significant vigils.
It omits significant feasts, such as January 1: (the Feast of the Circuмcision). The theological
significance: Christ is the fulfillment of the law!
It introduces the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker (as a concession to the tenets of socialism)
It omits Commemorations.
The Passion Narrative during Holy Week is considered to be the Gospel reading. A theological fiction.
Feasts of important saints are haphazardly &arbitrarily moved, making it confusing even to a priest to follow this new ordo.
Feasts of historically momentous saints are suppressed.
St. Joseph is introduced to the Canon. Notably: This is the only change to the Canon since the time of St. Gregory the Great. Why such an introduction? And if
this is admitted, then any change can be made to the Canon of the Mass. And the theological significance: St. Joseph was not a martyr, an exception to the list of those saints who appear in the Canon.
It is inadequate to argue that there are no doctrinal problems with this Missal, as does the SSPX. It is a deviation from the lex orandi, it is theologically
inadequate, & it is misguided in numerous respects.
And even if you believe that the 1962 Roman Missal is okay, how could we serve the needs of this parish in
requiring people to attend daily Mass with two missals, perhaps not knowing which priest is celebrating that
day, not to mention the cost to those with less money?
And finally, finding a priest who observes and understands tradition in the same way as Fr. Perez and myself is a virtually impossible task. You will likely
either encounter a sedevacantist or a modernist (who says: “Yes I celebrate the traditional ‘extraordinary form of the Roman rite’ in Latin.”, as if there could be such thing). So I advise a great note of caution in introducing any priest to this parish.
These are my concerns. You may respond as you see fitting & appropriate. However we proceed going forward, I call for civility & charity, for listening and
understanding, and for a prayerful and thoughtful approach from all parties involved.
Finally, while it is not my custom, I am willing to make a transcript of these words available in a PDF file
for circulation, so that my words are clear for everyone’s understanding, for those who are absent, and for the public record. I do not have the time to
send this out as a response to every email inquiry. But if someone could assist me in making it available, I am
glad to provide a PDF file for circulation.