Dear Patricia:

Many people are confused by the Pieta Book. We must remember that the advice given by Mutter Vogel is a "private revelation." As such we have no obligation to believe it, and we certainly are not bound by it.

One of the problems of private revelation is that even if they are genuine and approved by the Church, they must still be interpreted. Oftentimes it is in the interpretation that the visionary himself or others may go off the mark. 

We must also remember that when the Church approves a private revelation she is only saying that it appears the private revelation is supernatural (that is, from God) and it is worthy as an aid to our devotion. The approbation of the Church does not apply to every dotted "i" revealed in the Private Revelation.

An imprimatur is similar. It merely says that nothing contained in the book is contrary to the faith, it is not an endorsement of the ideas in the book. It is possible for something to not be contrary to the Faith, but still not prudent or beneficial. St. Paul says this in the Bible.

Another aspect we need to consider is the language style of the time. In times past the style of language was such that to the 21st century ear it may sound definitive and absolute, when in fact it is not. This is the mistake the Ultra-Traditionalists make about the Tridentine Mass. They see the Pope making statements of hyperbole that were rather common for the era and presume the Pope was making an infallible statement. He was not.

Here we have something similar. To NEVER criticize a priest is a hyperbole. We certainly should give the priest the benefit of the doubt, offer him respect that is due to the priesthood (even if he himself is not respectable), and never be critical (in the sense of grumbling and petty and critical for the sake of being critical).

But, this does not apply to taking notice of a priest who is abusing the liturgy, teaching heresy or some other form of heterodoxy, committing crimes, etc.

In fact, according to Canon Law, we have a right and even a duty to speak out at times. Canon 212.2 and 212.3 are examples of this right:

§2 Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

So, we cannot take the private revelation of Mutter Vogel in an absolute manner. I think her message is more toward the gossipy, petty criticalness that is so often present among any group of human beings.

It is certainly the case that in every parish there is at least one group of people that have nothing good to say about the pastor. They do nothing but criticize. This is obviously not pleasing to God.

The Bible has a phrase, "love covers a multitude of sins." When we love someone we do not take notice of every single little quirk and sin in the person's life. We are all sinners, none of us can survive such a close scrutiny. We should love our priests and pray for, instead of criticize them for every little imperfection they may have.

But, on the big stuff, like violating canon law, liturgical law, heresy or otherwise failing to teach the faith properly (which canon law says we have a right to expect), committing crimes such as embezzlement of Church funds or sex abuse, these things we have a DUTY to point out and deal with for the good of the Church in a way that is appropriate. Even so, we must always do it with due respect for the priesthood.

I know some priests who teach that the Catholic Church no longer requires us to attend Sunday Mass. I know other priests who teach that masturbation is okay, or that living together without marriage is okay, getting married without an annulment of a previous marriage is okay, and on and on and on. These are things that we have a duty to criticize and depending on the circumstances to report to the bishop.

As for the validity of the Mass, the unworthiness of the Priest has NOTHING to do with it. The Church is worthy and the Church steps in to provide whatever is lacking in the priest.  As long as the priest does what the Church intends, and the elements of the Eucharist are valid, the Mass is valid.

The Mass is valid if the proper elements are present: minister, intent, matter, and form.

The proper minister is a validly ordained priest.

The proper intent means that the priest does what the Church does. The priest may not even believe in the Real Presence. It doesn't matter. As long as he does what the Church does in the Mass, the Mass is valid. Any lacking of faith in the priest is fulfilled by the faith of the Church.

About the only way a priest could offer an intention that would invalidate the Mass is that while he is going through the motions he says to himself, "I am not convecting the Eucharist, this is all a lie, and I am deliberately fooling the people." It would be VERY rare for any priest to do that. I would think the only priest who might do that is one who is possessed by Satan, or who is a hidden Satanist.

Even if that happened, the people would not know it and could not know it. God would give a grace to the people anyway.

Matter refers to the proper matter of the bread and wine. These elements must be prepared in the way prescribed by Canon Law.

Form refers to the words of the consecration. However, contrary to the scrupulous, even if the words of consecration are not said properly it does not invalidate the Mass automatically. While messing around with the words of consecration may be illicit as long as the essential message of "This is my Body"and "This is . . . my Blood" then the consecration will be valid.

It is extremely rare to experience an invalid Mass no matter how many liturgical abuses are present, no matter what the faith of the priest, no matter how unworthy the priest is.

What I am about to say is terrible, but I say it to bring home the point in a dramatic way. If the priest molested an altar boy in the sacristy five minutes before Mass, the Mass is still valid. The Mass is simply not dependent upon the impeccability of the priest. The Mass is holy because the Church is holy, not the priest.

I hope this helps to clear things up a little. 

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary