Within his essay, author Michael Davies summarizes a 1981 article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. This article was written by an anonymous priest and discusses "the plight of the papist priest;" that is, the priest who is obedient to the pope and the magisterium (holy teaching authority) of the Church. Sadly, twenty-eight years later, you may find yourself recognizing many of these conditions as unfortunately present here in the American Catholic church. (However, it should be noted that under Pope Benedict XVI there is greater hope.)
1) Many American dioceses are ruled by bishops who are either Modernists or who submit to Modernist control of their diocese;
2) Modernists have a "lock-tight" control of the diocesan bureaucracy;
3) Priests who are loyal to the Pope have been reduced to a minority of one-eighth of the diocesan clergy;
4) These priests are isolated, ridiculed and have no hope of advancement;
5) Most seminaries are totally Modernist, and the students who are ordained from them are totally-programmed Modernists;
6) Modernist influence is particularly dominant in the fields of liturgy, catechetics, and the diocesan press;
7) The situation is certain to worsen;
8) Many American dioceses are already totally alienated from the Holy See;
9) Given the present process of consultation prior to episcopal appointments, there is no prospect of orthodox priests being promoted to the episcopate.
Further, the author Davies quotes states the following:
About half the clergy comprise the swing area: a vast mushy no-man's land where the priests will flip-flop wherever and whenever convenience dictates. At present this means conforming to the radical Modernist leadership. For some of these men, a nostalgia for Rome surfaces now and then, but is quickly submerged. Theirs is the tired refrain: "But this is what the bishop wants, and we took a vow of obedience to our bishop."Therefore what we really have is disobedience to tradition, disobedience to clear Catholic Church teaching, and in its place a false obedience to sadly misled bishops who in turn mislead the faithful with the cooperation of their priests.
In our particular case, we have the lowering in status of our churches to "just buildings," as easily dispensable as old candy wrappers. In their stead, we face the prospect of what we already see in existence throughout our own and other dioceses: new, modern[ist] structures that are antiseptic, cold, round or semi-circular so as to promote the elevation of "community" above all things.* Said structures are typically lacking in ornamentation worthy of God, but replete with CatholicChurchSupply.com type furnishings. Such generic "auditorium"-like sanctuaries are often without statues and side altars, absent truly beautiful teaching art, yet manage to find space for the addition of un-catholic devices such as audio visual equipment and plenty of room beside the altar for rock bands and grand pianos. Worst of all is the removal Our Lord and Savior in the tabernacle to a side altar, separate chapel, or God knows where.
We know from historical precedent that the first thing "reformers" do is to destroy church architecture and furnishings. They destroy art and statuary, they desecrate holy things, they even torch buildings. All this and more has been done, and always in the name of progress, of Reformation. They know, perhaps intuitively, that the easiest way to change people's religion and how they worship is to change where they worship.
Yes, these structures are more recognizably non-denominational protestant in character than Catholic. And when we change church architecture so dramatically, we change the focus of the mass and the focus of our prayer, not to mention Catholic tradition and identity generally. When we change the focus of the mass, we succeed in changing the mass and, consequently, our very Faith.
To be continued.