The recent suspension of Father William Leahy in Philadelphia for offering a Mass for his priest-brother and bride-to-be in the San Diego diocese is the latest in a series of suspensions and sudden transfers out of the Philadelphia archdiocese. The armchair liberals, of which Philadelphia has plenty, like to bring up the cases of Father Burton last January, Fathers Michael Garvin and Thomas Durkin two months earlier, and before that the sudden departure of a Dominican from La Salle College and a Jesuit from St. Joseph's. The details of the earlier cases are somewhat vague, but the three most recent incidents have been reported in the newspapers and even on nationwide television.

It is interesting that all three affairs involved the liturgy, which has never been a particularly live issue in Philadelphia. Fathers Garvin and Durkin were discovered to have said a Mass for a group of seminarians in the basement of St. Charles Seminary, which violated more than a dozen canon laws by including such things as unauthorized concelebration and the use of ordinary bread rolls. Father Burton said a Mass for students of a local girls; academy in a private home, without vestments and with more vernacular than was then permitted. Garvin and Durkin were suspended; Burton, a Jesuit, was sent to Baltimore.

The official chancery statements on the "bizarre" Mass in the seminary locker-room stressed the "arrogation of authority" and presumption of the concelebrants, insisting that the only issue was that of obedience. It was the attitude of the authorities, who described themselves as acting "speedily and paternally" in dismissing the seminarians who had been present, which annoyed many lay Catholics. Members of ICTHUS (Interested Catholics To Help Upgrade the Seminary)-the name was reportedly worked out at three o'clock one morning, which perhaps explains the missing (H) finally bought space in the Sunday *Bulletin* for an open letter to Cardinal Krol. In the Burton case a few weeks later, more than 60 lay people went so far as to picket the Archbishop's house.

The Cardinal is reported to be concerned about his image. An interviewer in a recent issue of *Philadelphia* magazine says Cardinal Krol "has developed a mild persecution complex." He would have had good reason to expect strong repercussions in the Father Leahy case. Since Leahy returned from Vatican II, where he worked in the general secretariat and helped prepare the daily news bulletin in all four sessions, he has been almost indefatigable in lecturing, attending meetings and organizing lay groups; his popularity did not diminish after he was abruptly dismissed from his teaching position at the seminary a year ago without any specific reason. At that time he also was ordered to cancel a commitment he had made to teach a course in ecumenical theology at nearby Crozer Baptist Seminary. This was Crozer's first course by a Catholic, and the catalogs and advertisements, complete with photographs, had already been sent out, but the archbishop refused to reconsider, even at the personal request of Crozer's president.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the latest suspension came directly from Rome and that Cardinal Krol insists that the situation is completely out of his hands. But the relegation of the case to Rome has put the archdiocese in an embarrassing position. The chancery, after the usual ecclesiastical silence, had begun its statement on the Garvin-Durkin affair by saying, "Recent rumors and publicized reports about occurrences at St. Charles Seminary did not originate with the seminary or diocesan authorities. Charity constrains us not to publish the faults or failings of others." In the Leahy case the chancery was forced to make the whole incident public--"The Holy See has ordered that the Rev. William K. Leahy be suspended from the exercise of all his priestly faculties and privileges, and also that notice of the suspension be published in the diocesan newspaper." The suspension was,reported on California television before Father Leahy was notified.

The result must have been anticipated: a letter to the Cardinal from 45 Protestants and Jews, a strong statement from the National Association for Pastoral Renewal, a letter from some 50 local priests, another petition from 250 Catholics, a dual petition circulated by the self-consciously impartial lay alliance which garnered 320 signatures for Father Leahy and 2 for the Holy Office, many individual letters, and unabated tensions.

It is, of course, difficult to know the precise role of Cardinal Krol in the whole business. Father John Leahy's application for laicization (first presented a year and a half before) and Father William Leahy's celebrating a Mass for the still unmarried-couple are obviously two separate cases; the latter type is not customarily sent the Holy Office. It is also clear that Cardinal Krol was acting together with Bishop Furey of San Diego and Archbishop Hallinan of John Leahy's home diocese of Atlanta.

But the muddiness of the case does not bother the growing liberal minority as it might have a year or two ago. As this minority gathers strength, it is less hostile to Cardinal Krol than to the anonymous and impersonal machine which seems to conduct Church affairs. Canon lawyers say that a lawyer can be of no help to anyone whose case is in the hands of the Holy Office, whose procedures are still kept secret; many Philadelphians, therefore, conclude that cases of clerical suspension should be tried in the country of the priest involved, so that he can have the opportunity to defend.himself. And, they add, requests for laicization could certainly be more equitably judged at home.

Communications between the liberal laity and the Philadelphia hierarchy are almost non-existent. A delegation hoping to discuss these possibilities with Cardinal Krol secured an appointment but then it was canceled, and am other delegation to the apostolic delegate had a tentative appointment, but it, too, was canceled. The delegate's schedule turned out to be more extensive than his secretary had realized--and he does not make any appointments more than two weeks in advance.

Nevertheless, the reaction to Father Leahy's problems is having its effect within the Archdiocese. Philadelphia Catholics have tended to think primarily in terms of local tensions and personalities; support from outside the Archdiocese and outside the Catholic Church has awakened a new feeling of solidarity with the Church universal and an awareness of greater issues. The old battles continue to be fought, but with greater perspective and maturity.