1. The Church and the Traditionalists

With the advent of the papacy of Leo, a perceptible feeling of relief was noted in the traditionalist world. An obvious sign was the Mass celebrated by Cardinal Burke in St. Peter’s last year  on the occasion of the Summorum Pontificumpilgrimage. Everywhere we see new masses starting and new apostolates of the (ex-)Ecclesia Dei institutes being founded. I detect a new clarity and forcefulness in statements by known sympathizers with traditionalism: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Zen,  to name but a few. These bold declarations are not at all restricted to the Traditional Mass but also deal forcefully with topics such as last year’s LGBT pilgrimage to St. Peter’s Basilica, the synodal path, the management  of the pope’s first consistory. etc.   The new Pope has received in audience all kinds of traditionalist personalities previously persona non grata in the Vatican. Some of these have spoken of their hope of relaxation of the Vatican’s war against traditionalism.

Yet Traditionis Custodes (“TC”) remains in place and that policy’s creators and enforcers are still ensconced in their positions at the Vatican. One of these, Cardinal Roche, with the concurrence of Pope Leo, was scheduled to present a paper at the pope’s first consistory, crudely reconfirming the policy of TC. In the United States,  bishops of dioceses as Chicago, Washington, Detroit, Charlotte, who have adopted radical anti-traditionalist measures, remain unchallenged, their cruel persecution continues unabated.  Indeed, the more extreme bishops have expanded the campaign to attack elements of Catholic liturgical tradition still present in the Novus Ordo: kneeling to receive communion, celebration of the Mass ad orientem, eucharistic veneration, etc.  This is regardless of the liturgical texts,  official policies and developments of the last 50 years – for them nothing less than a return to the situation of 1970 will suffice. 

The state of traditionalism at this moment has been well described as being  a holding pattern or  limbo. It remains unclear what action, if any, Pope Leo will take to alleviate the disabilities imposed on the traditionalists.  It’s a cruel disappointment for those who had expected a new pontiff to take a fresh look at their situation. To me, however, it seemed unlikely that a new pope would suddenly reverse any major policy of  Francis. And that pope had worked hard over the years to fill the College of Cardinals only with those aligned with his policies. The progressive forces also hold an overwhelming preponderance in the other levels of the Catholic Church establishment. 

There are other disappointments for the traditionalists. Over the last year there has been a recrudescence of attacks on traditionalism, not just from progressives, the establishment and conservative Catholics but even from within traditionalism itself.  In my history of American traditionalism, I noted that invective and infighting also proliferated in previous periods of uncertainty and distress within the conservative and traditionalist movements – for example, in the years 1997-2005.

Another unhappy consequence of the events of the last year has been a renewed, unhealthy focus, in extreme detail,  on the Vatican and the pope. Commentators speculate on subtle turns of phrase in the discourses of the Pope Leo, or on the background of his curial or episcopal appointments. I read of an Indian priest visiting Germany who was amazed at the attention paid there to the goings-on in the Vatican. Germany is the Church of the ”synodal path,” but the same is true of U.S. traditionalists!

2. The FSSPX Consecrations

Indeed, we now have a concrete example of Pope Leo’s attitude to the traditionalist world. The FSSPX on 2/2/2026 stated declared that they will consecrate new bishops for their fraternity, after having received from Rome unsatisfactory responses to their previous requests to discuss the matter. According to them, Pope Leo and the Vatican essentially refused to “dialogue” at all. Moreover, after the disclosure of Cardinal Roche’s scheduled address at the consistory, they do not see forthcoming any change to the treatment of the Traditional Mass. Accordingly, the “state of emergency” which justifies their current situation (and the new consecrations ) continues.

Of course, immediately after this announcement, the Vatican  stated that the “dialogue” would continue. This reaction resembles very much the way Pope Leo handled previous potential confrontations as described in Part 1 of this article (like the Senator Durbin incident).  Now Pope Leo has delegated Cardinal “Tucho” Fernandez to lead these negotiations.  I can’t think of anyone in the Vatican (except perhaps Cardinals Roche and Viola) ideologically more alien to his dialogue partner.  Beyond that issue, Cardinal Fernandez had at the time of his appointment to his present position fully disclosed to Francis (and the public) his reluctance  to assume it because of his admitted lack of administrative ability (as evidenced by his prior failures dealing with sexual abusers). And this is the man assigned to lead such sensitive negotiations? In my mind, this raises again the question whether Pope Leo  (a) understands what is going in the Church and the world; and (b) has the good judgment and character to govern the Church successfully. 

Whether anything will come of these negotiations I do not know. The FSSPX always has had to fight against the temptation of becoming a separatist cult. I did not appreciate the sallies in their latest letter against non-FSSPX traditionalists. Nor did I feel that, after TC, the FSSPX showed the leadership that their founder would have displayed in such a situation. Perhaps they were reluctant to jeopardize their semi-recognition by Francis? In any case it is extremely important for the whole of Traditionalism that the FSSPX remain intact. In many locations the FSSPX will remain the only resource for the TLM. And the very existence of the FSSPX has been a restraining influence on the powers within the Church seeking to eliminate traditionalism.

3. A Traditionalist “Ordinariate”?

In this time of uncertainty, it is not surprising that voices in the traditionalist camp have proposed (to themselves?) an “ordinariate” for traditionalists. This would involve the assignment of one or more bishops to exercise authority over a segregated community of traditionalists. I find this initiative utterly misguided. First, the proposal is unsound tactically. It would be worth addressing if the Vatican were offering it as a compromise. For traditionalists to suggest it themselves appears like begging for a favor. Second, any commitment to such a structure on the part of the Vatican would be worthless. A review of past Vatican negotiations with Una Voce and the FSSPX shows how utterly untrustworthy and underhanded the Vatican can be.  Third, the FSSPX have been requesting the ordination and recognition of bishops – in a sense, constituting themselves as an “ordinariate,” for many years. As of today, they have achieved nothing since the lifting of excommunications on bishops under Pope Benedict. Fourth, the experiences of the currently existing “ordinariate” of the ex-Anglicans or of the personal prelature of Opus Dei are not at all favorable precedents for the success of  traditionalist ordinariate. I would anticipate that, if such a structure were ever adopted,  endless discussions would ensue regarding the form of the liturgy,  the status of individual priests and parishes,  the relationships with the local bishops, the ownership of property etc. I very much doubt, for example, any traditionalist ordinariate would be permitted to function in Chicago, Detroit or Charlotte! All this would distract the Traditionalists from their main task: restoring and promoting the fulness of Catholic faith 

I think, however, the main problem with the ordinariate proposal lies not in defective tactics or a lack of understanding of ecclesiastical politics but in the fundamental nature of the traditionalist cause. For traditionalism is not – or not only – simply a desire for the traditional form of  Catholic worship. It is indeed that – but it’s also a movement to restore the fulness of the Catholic faith – in liturgy, morality, philosophy, theology, education, and even in art, music and manners. I of course applaud those who wish to give back to Catholic worship the beauty and reverence it should have – but that is just one aspect of traditionalism. And think that for the young people today who are living the rediscovered faith, founding new families  and raising children it may not even be the main reason for their engagement. 

For traditionalism is above all a spiritual movement of reform like the Gregorian reform of the 11^th century,  the rise of the mendicant orders in the 13th,  the Counter Reformation and the 19^th century Oxford/Tractarian movement. Traditionalists are not practicing and sacrificing for a “preference” but for a faith they believe to be true and a liturgy and associated practices that clearly and correctly express and preserve that faith. These principles are universal in their nature – they require traditionalists to strive to evangelize the whole Church and even the whole world. Such a movement can never willingly return to a “ghetto,” to use the favorite word of 1950-1965 vintage Catholic progressives. 

To try and negotiate limitations in order to curry favor with ecclesiastical authority undercuts the entire rationale for being a traditionalist in the first place. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has accordingly called not for an ordinariate, but for a return to universal recognition and availability of the TLM just as what  existed under Summorum Pontificum. We know given the current state of the papacy and hierarchy this goal may seem irrational, even quixotic – but has the situation of living as a traditionalist ever been any different? 

We received this update from the Committee to Save Most Holy Redeemer. The source of our report

“The doors of our historic church and crypt remain closed to the faithful, with one recent exception: the Funeral Mass of Sacristan +Robert Keck on January 17. Parishioners embraced the opportunity to honor Mr. Keck for his many years of service to Most Holy Redeemer, and to attend the Mass for him inside the church. 

“The Committee had not expected this service to be held at Most Holy Redeemer, after receiving a late December letter from Timothy Cardinal Dolan in which His Eminence stated that the church had to be shuttered by the parish administrator due to safety concerns. The Committee’s request for a Mass on the 173rd anniversary of the church’s consecration was also denied for safety reasons.

“These decisions were difficult to accept, as services continued to be held last summer for several weeks after a small chunk of plaster fell from the ceiling above the sacristy. Now they are even more so. 

“As reported by EV Grieve, NYC Department of Buildings issued a violation on January 13th for failure to maintain the premises, citing cosmetic (not structural) issues. Photos and details are included in the article. 

“Parishioners have repeatedly been told in public meetings that funds from the sale of Nativity Church, whose demolition many of us still mourn, are more than adequate to take care of properly maintaining Most Holy Redeemer. 

“It can take time to assess conditions and plan repairs, but no work has been observed, no plans or permits have been filed, and parishioners have received no updates on the status of any assessments that may have taken place. The parish council and finance committee have not been called to meet, and the faithful whose parents raised funds for the renovation for the 150th Anniversary of the church in the 1990s have been completely cut out of the decision-making process. 

“This is an all-too-familiar and very concerning pattern. Since 2000, the number of parishes in the Catholic Archdiocese of New York has decreased from 412 to 287 as a result of parish mergers. Parish mergers have led to the closing of churches, rectories, convents and schools, leading to the sale of parish property to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — but this path is not inevitable. “

The Committee is organizing a public event in a few weeks:

Register on Eventbrite for a Screening and Panel Discussion of Foreclosing on Faith, Saturday Feb. 21 at 6 pm at Maryhouse 55 East 3rd Street.

Join us for a screening of a documentary highlighting the power of the faithful, followed by a panel discussion and Q & A with documentarian Viktoria Somogyi and attorney Brody Hale, who has guided parishes nationwide to defend their canonical rights and save their churches! Please register!

The event is free, but donations to help us and other Catholics who are fighting to keep our churches open are welcome. You can donate via check on the evening of the event, or via PayPal Giving Fund. Visit Save Rome of the West for more information, including resources to help keep your church open!

From the sponsors of this Mass:

“The Higher Word Orchestra and Choir will be playing Mozart’s Requiem in its entirety to accompany Mass celebrated in the Tridentine Rite. It is rare to hear the Requiem performed with a full orchestra and choir alongside the liturgy, as Mozart envisioned.

“Alex Klucik, who died in an accident at age 19, was a uniquely virtuous young man devoted to the Eucharist and the Rosary, and his family is launching a Catholic fraternal residence in NYC in his honor. This Requiem Mass will be an opportunity to pray for Alex’s soul and also raise awareness about his life and the legacy being built through this housing project.

“Attending the Mass is Free and open to all. You are requested to register for this event by clicking going to this website to secure your spot. Tickets to the Post-Mass reception can be purchased separately at that same link. The reception includes a full dinner and drinks.”

On February 1 a remarkable concert took place at St. Mary’s church in Norwalk CT. Performers from the Juilliard school presented 17th century music: first of Italy, then of Bohemia (at the time part of the Holy Roman Empire). Charles Weaver, the music director at St. Mary’s and a teacher at the Juilliard, led the concert and performed on the theorbo and guitar. The other performers were mainly his students:

Marisa Karchin and Elizabeth Weaver, sopranos

Lydia Becker and Ryan Cheng, baroque violins

Nathan Francisco, baroque cello

Amanda Beranek, triple harp

Highlight of the evening was a performance of the Loutna Česká (the Czech Lute) composed in 1653 by Adam Michna. It is an early song cycle of religious poetry – MIchna both wrote the text and composed the music. Only recently have all parts of the score been rediscovered. This is the second performance of the work in its restored form in the United States. It was performed in the Czech language.

Loutna Česká is an extraodinary work of baroque poetry, audacious in its bold images. The text was matched by the complexity of the music. Now Adam Michna was Catholic, and worked with the Jesuits in restoring Catholicism in Bohemia, Let us remember that in 1648, five years before the Loutna Česká appeared, the horrific Thirty Years’ War had ended. It had begun and ended in Bohemia, devastating much of the country. Prague was the capital of lands of the Bohemian crown (which included more than just Bohemia) and functioned as a kind of subordinate capital of the Habsburg domains, most of which were in turn a part of the Holy Roman Empire. Thanks to the efforts of Michna and others, the glorious age of the Bohemian Baroque -in art, architecture and music – began in those years of recovery from the trials of war. We can see its world-famous legacy even today in Prague and elsewhere in Czechia.

SAVE MOST HOLY REDEEMER invites you to a documentary screening with a talk by the director/producer, other speakers, and a panel discussion.

This event will take place at Maryhouse, 55 East 3rd Street, New York, NY on Saturday Feb. 21 from 6 to 8 pm.

Released in 2017, Foreclosing on Faith documents dramatic struggles that were then taking place in Cleveland, Boston, and New York which pitted faithful Catholics against bishops over church closures.

The event will include a screening of Foreclosing on Faith and a talk by the film’s co-producer and co-director, Viktoria Somogyi. Another speaker will be Brody Hale, a lawyer who has for more than a decade made it his personal mission to help Catholics fighting to keep their churches from being shuttered, sold, and demolished or put to profane use.

There will be a panel discussion and a question-answer opportunity.

Follow this link for more information about this event and to reserve a spot.

SAVE MOST HOLY REDEEMER is a group of parishioners and friends of Most Holy Redeemer Church on 3rd Street between Avenues A and B in the East Village of Manhattan. In August of 2025, we were told that our beautiful, 174-year old church was being closed. With the guidance of our lawyer, Brody Hale, we have petitioned Rome for redress. We are a small but dedicated group of people who are volunteering our time to save our church. For more information about Most Holy Redeemer Church and to sign our open letter to the cardinal, click here.

The funeral of Monsignor Joseph Pekar will be held at Saints Cyril and Methodius on Tuesday, February 10th at 11 a.m. This will be a Solemn Requiem Mass in the presence of Bishop Caggiano.

Burial will follow at Saint Michael’s Cemetery in Stratford. In keeping with Monsignor’s wishes, there will not be a visitation.

Following the burial, you are invited back to church for a reception in the church hall. If you will be attending please contact the church office by Friday (stscyrilandmethodius@institute-christ-king.org) so that we can get an accurate count. If you are able to help with the reception, volunteers are welcome!

A Solemn Mass was offered at Noon yesterday for the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin at St. Mary Church Norwalk, for the Regina Pacis Academy community.

(Above) Bernini’s grandiose tomb of Pope Alexander VII in St. Peter’s, Rome (1670-77). The image of the praying pontiff is surrounded by representations of the virtues and attributes that should characterize a pope: charity, truth, justice and prudence. Reaching up from below is death brandishing his hourglass – a stark reminder of reality.

1. Pope Leo XIV

After more than eight months, a degree of clarity has emerged regarding the personality and intentions of Pope Leo XIV.

In terms of style,  Pope Leo breaks with his predecessor in many respects. Instead of Pope Francis’s confrontational, vindictive personality, Pope Leo has striven to project an image of calm and serenity. Instead of dictatorial centralization of all authority in the pope, Leo has at least held out the possibility of a more consultative style of leadership. Leo’s discourse also frequently reverts to traditional Catholic concepts. Pope Leo has reached out to those who, under Francis,  had been marginalized or worse.  Selected elements of papal and liturgical tradition have been restored – for example, the announced return of the pope to the Vatican apartments. Some administrative measures of Pope Francis have been reversed and some of that pope’s lower-level enforcers have been reassigned.  

Yet, the elements of continuity with the prior pontificate are even stronger. Leo has retained in office almost all the main figures of the era of Pope Francis.  Men such as Fernandez, Roche and Parolin continue to assert their progressive theological, liturgical, and political ideas as before. The pope’s first encyclical was dominated by the thought of Francis. The pope’s first consistory was guided by leading associates of Pope Francis. The pope‘s own rhetoric at times can be distinctly Bergoglian in character.  The same can be said of the style of his media interactions. The pope’s appointments to episcopal and Vatican positions have been reliably center-left or left.

Thus,  two tendencies coexist in the early pontificate of Leo:  (a) a desire for unity within the Church, involving more or less subtle abandonment or adjustment of aspects of his predecessor’s leadership style; and (b) a commitment to the substantive elements of the papacy of Pope Francis. Yet Leo is not necessarily merely repackaging of the pontificate of Pope Francis – continuing the Bergoglian administration, but in a kinder, gentler way. Pope Francis was not just a “dictator pope,” but an almost fanatical ideologue as well. His leadership style reflected the substance of his beliefs. With Pope Leo, there is a disconnect between much of the outer form (which a friend of mine characterized as “Ratzingerian”) and the continuing Bergoglian content (and personnel). The result of this divergence will be ongoing uncertainty as to how Pope Leo  will decide any particular issue. 

Moreover, although we may have attained some clarity regarding Pope Leo’s personality, attitude to Church politics and “ideology,” there’s much more to being a pope than that.  In earlier ages,  men did not see the pope as a charismatic “religious genius”( put pejoratively, a guru or oracle). The Christian people hoped that each pope possessed the virtues necessary to govern the Church (and in those times the Church’s secular domains as well). Whether Pope Leo has these virtues is something we still do not know.

First, If Leo is to govern, he must be able to perceive reality. I would submit that a career in the higher administration of the Catholic Church, which is where Leo spent more than half his ecclesiastical career, is extremely ill suited to obtaining an objective view of the world. Leaders of the Church as a rule live in a bubble. They discourse among themselves in a stylized ecclesiastical cant. The advisors they do consult – the members of the religious orders, the Catholic “scholars” and “journalists,” the friendly secular and Catholic media – speak to them basically in  the same language.  For Leo to be effective as a governor of the Church, he will have to step outside the fantasy world of the Catholic hierarchy.  The fact that Leo has been speaking with various people who had been ostracized by Francis – among them, Cardinals Zen, Mueller, and Burke – indicates that there’s at least the possibility of his hearing other views.

Second,  knowledge, once gained, has to be transformed into deeds. To do this, a ruler must exercise the virtues associated with leading and governing. Does Pope Leo have good judgment? Can he make decisions, especially between overtly antagonistic forces? Does Leo have insight into human nature – can he judge the personalities and merits of those he works with –  and appoints? Does he have the ability to stand up to criticism, especially from the secular media and members of the Vatican clique? All of Leo’s predecessors since 1958 have been deficient in some or all of these characteristics.

Pope Leo seems to want to restore order and unity to the Church. But I fear that Leo’s current approach will lead not to the pacification of the Church, but to an unending series of clashes. Such was the fate of the so-called “restoration” of John Paul II’s papacy – in its actual practice, that is, as opposed to the image that the pope presented to the media.  For Pope John Paul II sought to conserve the substance of the Vatican II, while stabilizing the Church and reemphasizing compliance, at least on paper, with the requirements of Christian morality. But such an essentially political approach, which seeks primarily to establish a truce among competing interests, necessarily leaves underlying problems in place. Indeed, such a policy almost demands the concealment of real issues.

In contrast with John Paul II,  Pope Leo will not have much time before he has to face outright confrontations between the antagonistic forces within the Church. For progressive Catholicism, whose hegemony over the Church was consolidated by Pope Francis, under no circumstances will retreat into the background. These forces are aggressive and feel empowered to push their agenda forward. Although still somewhat unsure about the exact character of Leo, they seek to portray him as a sympathizer with their own cause.

We already have seen opening skirmishes in the emerging struggle. Cardinal Cupich, who is reported to have friendly relations with Leo, last year sought to give a “lifetime achievement” award to Senator Dick Durbin. Given Durbin’s record on abortion, that constituted a calculated slap in the face of the pro-life movement. It was reported that this act was going to be formally disavowed by the USCCB (according to The Pillar, with the knowledge  of the Vatican). At the end, the honoree withdrew himself from consideration for the award, obviously as a negotiated deal to avoid an embarrassing public clash. But afterwards,  Pope Leo spoke favorably of the policies of both Cupich and Durbin. That was followed by Leo bestowing on Cupich a mainly ceremonial honor. Thus, this confrontation ended in something like a draw. 

We might say the same of the outcome of the commission on the female diaconate. The commission voted against  the ordination of women as deacons  – but supported further study of the matter. This is at least the second Vatican panel on female deacons to reach a negative result – to say nothing of prior pronouncements by the Church . Yet the issue remains unresolved. And the strident advocacy for female deacons by senior representatives of the establishment Church has not at all diminished.  

Here are some other major controversies as to which action has been deferred up till now:

The German synodal path is just now reaching a preliminary conclusion, leading to a proposed “synodal conference.” Will Pope Leo acquiesce in these decisions? Some “conservative” German bishops already have withdrawn from the deliberations.

The question of the Traditional Mass remains completely up in the air. Indeed, we hear today (2/2/2026) that the FSSPX has decided to ordain additional bishops, after an unsatisfactory “dialogue” with Rome over the last months. That move clearly shows their assessment of Pope Leo.  He seems to have been unwilling or unable to negotiate regarding this step, which could well return the FSSPX to the situation after 1988.

Conflicts involving Opus Dei continue concerning the ownership of their main shrine in Spain, and the implementation of Pope Francis’s drastic restructuring of the “Work.” The same holds true of measures Pope Francis took against the Communion and Liberation movement in Italy or the visitation that was ordered for the Fraternity of Saint Peter.

The problem of sexual abuse continues to fester; in particular,  the case of one of the most notorious examples, Fr. Marko Rupnik, remains unresolved.

The situation of the Church in China is gravely unsatisfactory.

A problem at the highest level is the budgetary crisis at the Vatican itself, a crisis Pope Leo doesn’t want to acknowledge.  

Finally, we have the endless, ongoing  “garden variety” problems of the Church: the decrease in the practice and knowledge of the faith; the decrease in ordinations and commitments to religious life;  the decrease of Catholic parishes, schools, monasteries and institutions of higher learning.

All of this is putting the institutional Church under extreme stress. I believe Leo does wish to restore peace and unity to the Church. Yet on all of the above matters, his decisions – or failure to decide –  will leave an important party dissatisfied. And if that important party is on the left or in the clerical establishment, in or outside of the Vatican, it will be able in short order to bring the secular media into action on its side. Pope Benedict experienced the consequences of such media campaigns – both during and after his papacy.  Leo’s reign may well be fraught with risk, tension and turmoil. 

On Friday, January 30, Msgr. Joseph Pekar departed this world. He had served as the pastor of Saints Cyril and Methodius parish  in Bridgeport CT between 1971 and 2017. This parish was founded in 1905 for Slovak immigrants.  By the time of Msgr. Pekar’s pastorate, the original congregation was leaving the neighborhood. For decades Msgr. Pekar soldiered on in the midst of surroundings of fearful, almost surrealistic urban decline. Yet the parish survived. Thanks to Msgr. Pekar, the beautiful decoration and furnishings of this church were preserved intact. In the 1990s the Traditional Latin Mass returned. What had been thought to be a dying parish revived!  As the story of Saints Cyril and Methodius demonstrates, when a parish is losing its original parishioners,  the immediate response should never be consolidation and closing. 

When the time came for Msgr. Pekar to retire in 2017,  he was able to hand his parish over to the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest.  Since then, Saints Cyril and Methodius has flourished as a center for the beautiful celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Bridgeport diocese. Its young congregation continues to grow. 

We have seen it again and again –  the seemingly quixotic actions of individual priests and laity,  in very dark times and often in obscure or endangered chapels or parishes, preserved the forms of Catholic tradition in art and music – and even the Traditional Mass itself. Later these early initiatives often blossomed into flourishing institutions. The parish of Saints Cyril and Methodius and all Traditionalist Catholics of Connecticut are grateful to Msgr. Pekar for leading and preserving this parish through so many challenging decades to its current success.

Canon Francis X. Altiere, current pastor of Saints Cyril and Methodius had this to say about the circumstances of Msgr. Pekar’s death in email to parishioners, dated January 30th:

“Having just now returned from Stamford Hospital with our parish trustee T.R. Rowe for the purpose of visiting Monsignor Pekar, I am writing with sadness to share with you the news that Monsignor has now been called into eternity. He had been anointed within the last few days and received visits from several longstanding parishioners; he had passed away not long before we arrived today, and so I recited the prayers for the commendation of a soul and blessed the body.

Better than anything I could say, Bishop’s Caggiano’s words upon learning of Monsignor Pekar’s death are the perfect summation of his legacy: “Monsignor was a wonderful priest who was committed to serve his people during times of great challenge for Bridgeport. He remained with his people with little regard for his own safety. It was heroic service.””