Restricting ourselves to the Traditional Catholic world, of course:

Should each and every American priest be a household name among American Catholics? Should every Trad priest be more or less a "celebrity", maintained on lists, placed in groups vs. other groups, etc.?

I realize it's OK for a priest to be a celebrity -- but is it required for EACH and EVERY priest?

Or is it OK for a priest to simply go on about the business of being a good priest (in the Trad context, this would include saying the Tridentine Mass, fighting Modernism, being against Vatican II with no apologies, etc.)

Is it OK for a priest to "adequately prove himself", "declare his position", etc. for the local Catholics he serves, and not worry about the national and international scenes?

For example: What purpose does it serve for Arizonans to know the position, history, reputation, etc. of a priest who says Mass in two chapels in Wisconsin, and never leaves the state? Would there be any point, besides curiosity?

(For those who are wondering: This is not a purely academic discussion; it is  motivated by current events and real persons. Nevertheless, there is no need to worry about who those real persons are.)

What happened at Cullman, Alabama ?  

I know Mother Angelica is there.  

What happened at Cullman, Alabama ?  

I know Mother Angelica is there.  

Cullman, Alabama the Christ the King Abbey insisted on not debating or discussing the crisis or any of the positions or controversies.  When its abbot passed away, Fr. Leonard, the young priests knew nothing about what was going on.  Then they made a deal with the diocese, closed their doors on the parishioners, and started to offer the new mass shortly thereafter.  A disaster.

Quote from: Matthew

maintained on lists, placed in groups vs. other groups, etc.?

Is this a rant because you noticed that a certain priest that tends to your chapel is not on the list of priests in the Priestly Union Marcel Lefebvre, and the priest that he works in conjunction with is?

If you dig deep enough, I'm sure there is a logical explanation for everything...

By the way, celebrity priests are the worse in my opinion, but my opinion isn't worth the two cents it's purported to be.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen was somewhat of a celebrity priest [archbishop] and many traditionalists think he was great.

Remember how important it is to be informed, whether it be the priest in Arizona or bishop in Timbuktu.  Just take a look at the history of Cullman, Alabama...

That is a good point; one that I thought of as well. Yes, I agree that a priest can't time-bubble himself and pretend he's running a 1950's parish, or even a 1980's SSPX chapel (before the SSPX crisis) -- in both cases, ignoring all current events, never speaking of what is actually going on out there, etc.

As great as the 50's were (in SOME ways -- just ask +Williamson about all the problems brewing in the 50's!) or the 80's in the SSPX, when there were no accordistas -- the fact is that those times are in the past. We're in the present day, when the SSPX crisis unfortunately exists, and countless priests are pro-Vatican II and pro-deal with unconverted Rome.

But how often should a priest talk about Vatican II and/or the SSPX crisis? Every week? Every other week? Once a month? Less often? Who gets to decide the standard?

What if a priest wishes to lay low (on the international scene) for X months, until he gets established? What if a priest only doesn't want to "fight", "be at war [with other Trad priests]", etc. because he's busy with another equally legitimate occupation? There are honorable, virtuous endeavors that take a lot of work and attention, you know.

Not wanting to fight fellow priests at the moment does not imply fifties-ism, wanting a cushy job, being a hireling, or cowardice -- it might merely imply a different priority at the moment.

And there's a huge gulf between being a national celebrity, fielding hundreds of e-mails and phone calls, and choosing out for yourself a small "manageable" flock that leaves you with plenty of leisure time. What if a priest had 2, or even 3 flocks in a given area? What if he didn't swear off the airport apostolate altogether, but instead picked ONE other geographic location to fly to on a regular basis? What if he chose to run a school, orphanage, nursing home, reform school, or, I don't know, a retreat center? Would that meet with certain people's approval? (I won't hold my breath).

Just some food for discussion and/or thought.

I suppose it depends on one's beliefs.  If one believes that NO orders are invalid, and that one should not receive the Sacraments from certain groups, then priests do have to have a certain degree of notoriety, if for no other reason than so the faithful know what to do and where to go.

Well, in a local area, word of mouth and "checking him out for yourself" would suffice, I should think.

Let me put it this way:

I've heard no less than 2 priests tell me things like, "Let him come and talk to me." or "let them come to my Masses, and see for themselves whether I'm _______". And FYI one of these priests was not former SSPX.

Whenever a priest says this, something inside me immediately sides with him. It seems SUCH A SMALL, FAIR THING TO ASK. Some kind of internal sense of decency, perhaps a bit old-fashioned, forces me to sympathize with what he's saying.

Why can't we say it to his face? Why can't we come check out for ourselves? Why can't we give a priest the benefit of the doubt for 2 days? Why can't a priest of 10, 15 or even 30 years get SOME benefit of the doubt from Traditional Catholics? What is it that we are so terrified of, that has brought us to this stage of paranoia? Is it really something that can steal one's faith like a bullet steals your life -- quickly, suddenly, and completely? Perhaps we're being over-paranoid in some of these cases?

The part of me that agrees with them is the same part of me that looks down on boyfriends breaking up with their girlfriends via "text" or e-mail. To such modern foolishness I would say, "Be a man, already!"

What ever happened to "benefit of the doubt", "charity", "vigilance", "prudence", and other concepts? Are they obsolete, just because a few Trads over the years weren't vigilant at all, and blindly let themselves be led back to the Conciliar Church? Who decided that from now on, paranoia and mistrust were the ONLY solution?

Now if we live 1,000 miles away from the priest, so we can't hope to meet him in person, then why the heck do we care? Is it because our best/only thing to work on is enjoy the play-by-play of trad priests fighting other trad priests, and to participate ourselves in the battle as much as possible? Do we really have nothing better to do?

hmm.

I think I see your point...