A tale of 2 letters

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaixGioiaAmor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PaixGioiaAmor

Guest
A common theme on these message boards is often that people should write letters to the appropriate people when they see things that they disagree with or perceive to be abuses. Often, letters are sent to bishops, pastors, or lay members of pastoral staffs within a diocese or the parishes. I write this after having just read such a letter addressed to me as the director of music. The experience makes me think back to another letter I received at my last parish, and it makes me think about all the talk on these boards about such letters.

With these things in mind, I’ve decided to tell you about the two letters: the one I received at my last parish, and the one that I received in yesterday’s mail.

A few years ago at my last parish I received a letter one day. It was addressed to myself and the pastor. There was no return address, and the address to the parish was cut out of the Sunday bulletin and pasted on the front of the envelope. In one (long) paragraph, the writer had typed that he (she?) was very angry about what they viewed as some disturbing trends in our worship. It seems that much of the music being sung at mass they did not know. Also, they did not agree with the style and types of music being played and used. The final blow was the rather personal criticism of the cantor who, admittedly, sometimes struggled while singing her part. The letter was unsigned. Would anyone like to venture a guess what happened to that letter? Suffice it to say, I only thought about it while I was reading it. I did save it, but not because it carried any weight with me. To the contrary; it amused me. The points of the letter were flatly ignored. The pastor thought it was funny.

Contrast that experience with the letter that sits on my desk in front of me right now as I type this. A parishioner has written me, again with some constructive criticism. She has noted that she views me as a person with talent and as someone who obviously cares about my job, but at the same time says she disagrees with some of the decisions I have made. Most of her complaints are not about “abuses”; rather, they are about her personal tastes where there legitamately are options (I.E. she would like to sing a hymn at the preparation of the altar and gifts more, instead of having instrumental music). None the less, her letter is thoughtful, concise, and well written; It helps me guage the opinion of the congregation in matters where there is room for opinion. I will be writing her back and inviting her to come and meet with me so that we can get to know each other better and I can listen to any of her other concerns.

I offer this “tale of 2 letters” as sort of an instruction to those who would write such letters. If you want to get the attention of the people you are trying to speak to, you should go about it the right way.
 
Thanks for your post. It is always helpful to hear first hand what is a good approach.

Lux
 
You do not mention it specifically in your posting, but I assume that the second letter cited was signed and a return address provided.
It is normal to reject letters which are not signed. A person is indeed entitled to an opinion, but the hearing of the opinion must be earned by a certain level of openness and honesty. If you want to write to someone with a complaint or criticism, sign the letter and provide a return address.
The scripture says: Come let us reason together.

Matthew
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
A common theme on these message boards is often that people should write letters to the appropriate people when they see things that they disagree with or perceive to be abuses. Often, letters are sent to bishops, pastors, or lay members of pastoral staffs within a diocese or the parishes. I write this after having just read such a letter addressed to me as the director of music. The experience makes me think back to another letter I received at my last parish, and it makes me think about all the talk on these boards about such letters.

With these things in mind, I’ve decided to tell you about the two letters: the one I received at my last parish, and the one that I received in yesterday’s mail.

A few years ago at my last parish I received a letter one day. It was addressed to myself and the pastor. There was no return address, and the address to the parish was cut out of the Sunday bulletin and pasted on the front of the envelope. In one (long) paragraph, the writer had typed that he (she?) was very angry about what they viewed as some disturbing trends in our worship. It seems that much of the music being sung at mass they did not know. Also, they did not agree with the style and types of music being played and used. The final blow was the rather personal criticism of the cantor who, admittedly, sometimes struggled while singing her part. The letter was unsigned. Would anyone like to venture a guess what happened to that letter? Suffice it to say, I only thought about it while I was reading it. I did save it, but not because it carried any weight with me. To the contrary; it amused me. The points of the letter were flatly ignored. The pastor thought it was funny.

Contrast that experience with the letter that sits on my desk in front of me right now as I type this. A parishioner has written me, again with some constructive criticism. She has noted that she views me as a person with talent and as someone who obviously cares about my job, but at the same time says she disagrees with some of the decisions I have made. Most of her complaints are not about “abuses”; rather, they are about her personal tastes where there legitamately are options (I.E. she would like to sing a hymn at the preparation of the altar and gifts more, instead of having instrumental music). None the less, her letter is thoughtful, concise, and well written; It helps me guage the opinion of the congregation in matters where there is room for opinion. I will be writing her back and inviting her to come and meet with me so that we can get to know each other better and I can listen to any of her other concerns.

I offer this “tale of 2 letters” as sort of an instruction to those who would write such letters. If you want to get the attention of the people you are trying to speak to, you should go about it the right way.
Click to expand...
When I was leader of our group, I would receive complaints from parishioners, who didn’t have the courage to come and talk to me, but rather, sent some one else to complain, often, a child.

Mostly, people came up to thank our group for the good job we were doing. Sometimes people would request certain songs, that weren’t really appropriate for Mass, i.e. “Angels Among Us,” by Alabama.

I found in my experience, those who didn’t like our style of music, didn’t like anything lay people did in the parish. They of course, did nothing themselves.

So, now that I’m not in the music ministry anymore, when I hear a person complain about the music, or some other ministry, I gently suggest to them, that the parish is always looking for new people to do the work, why don’t you volunteer and make it better? You can almost hear the sound of crickets chirping in that moment of silence. 😉

God Bless
Jim
 
You make a good point and it is scriptural,
“A mild answer calms wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”
Proverbs 15:1

I have found that by speaking kindly and getting involved it has helped to stop many of the abuses in my parish.

No longer does the parish coordinator try and do a homily, no longer does she try and make her own dissenting opinions so well known. She seems to have calmed down and actually has defended the faith a couple times.

It takes prayer, involvement and perseverence.
In 10 years I might not be embarrassed to invite people to Church with me. As of now we have plenty of abuse, but nothing like before, it is getting better and if you kindly work with people they might not react in anger but actually consider what you say.

Thank you for the advice and the post illustrates how different approaches can help change hearts and open them.

In Christ
Scylla
 
I agree, a letter should always be signed, and bear a return address.

If addressing a question of abuse, it should reference the correct document(s) and offer constructive ways to remove the abuse, For example, if the concern was the use of glass vessels at Mass, an offer to organize a bake sale or such to help raise funds for proper vessels would be a wonderful addition.

If the question is music, perhaps a look at the Indroit and Antiphons for an upcoming Mass and sugest possible hymns for that day.
 
the website of Catholics United for the Faith cuf.org has lay witness protocol on how, when, where and to whom one should address such complaints.
 
Interesting posts…I have an opinion and will offer it because I’d like to present a differing point of view to first letter.

I can completely agree with the second letter because it was “well written.” I also agree with your response on what your actions are in following up with it. Someone took the time to write it and you took the time to read it. Same with the first one.

Looking at what you’ve written about the first letter I would like to offer this…some can write very well and get their point across easily even when the content is not all praise. Then again, some cannot.

Per your post, you decided to ignore the points from the first letter. I think it’s great that you could tell that there were points indeed that were made. I don’t have to imagine how tough it was initially to read the criticism as well since it seems some of it was personally directed at another. Nonetheless, I believe it would have been an excellent opportunity for your pastor to address. Perhaps he has since; perhaps he has in the past. He could have addressed it in the bulletin maybe even in a homily. I believe a chance to bring someone closer into the fold might have been possible. On what basis?

Perhaps your pastor could have used the letter as a reminder to his parishioners that he is available to discuss any concerns that might weigh heavily on any parishioner.

Anonymously written as it was, the author’s letter might have come from some brother or sister that did not feel a person to person approach would be well received or even possible. Does this make it cowardice? No. It is a sign from someone who probably didn’t have enough self-esteem to speak to either one of you in person.

Should the points in the content be ignored? No. Should they be considered for a time however briefly it is? Sure, why not? Criticism helps each one of grow and there is always that part of us struggling to remain Christlike in these situations. I imagine that if you had received a return address you would have written an initial response and NOT mailed the letter. Then I imagine you would have written a very nice letter that might have served to help the author think twice before mailing another such letter…?

There are always reasons to offer a prayer for someone other than ourselves. The first letter certainly ranks at the top of my list as one. I have come far enough in my ableness to write a letter that sending anything anonymously would never cross my mind. Nor would I ever send anything to anyone without first listing or suggesting some well thought solutions.

Because of the role you play in your parish, I hope that should you ever receive another anonymous letter that you will find a way to use it as a teaching moment for anyone that might be in need of some brotherly role modeling. Just a note: I was a regional trainer and despite the many tears that flowed because someone thought my training was lousy or that I had too much material or that I just wasn’t getting the point across, or that he or she found it to be the best training ever; the name free surveys I had to read after every training session were humbling to say the least. I’ve come a long way baby…🙂

By the way did you notice that the points you mentioned coming from the first letter mirror much of the threads on these forums? 😛
 
Dear Paix:

Thank you for your insightful comments. This thread brought up a difficulty I have been struggling with for several months. I agree with you that normally a letter to someone in authority addressing a concern should be signed and have a return address…I have never liked people who didn’t have the courage to sign their names. HOWEVER, I am in a very difficult situation. I stumbled across some very negative information about someone who is currently seeking a position of authority in the diocese. It is information that I am almost certain is unknown. It casts this person is a VERY negative light, although it is not proof of anything positively immoral or illegal. I have been agonizing over what to do with it. If I were the bishop, I would want to have this information. However, this person has been very manipulative. If I share this information and divulge my name, it is possible that I could be retaliated against, or my reputation ruined. If I were to just send it, it is information that speaks for itself. But I fear it might not even be read if it is unsigned. What makes this particularly difficult is that I don’t have much experience with church organizations, and what experience I do have has been mostly negative…I am caught on the horns of a dilemma between what I believe is a duty (I honestly believe this person is capable of harming others, based on the information I have), and my desire to stay out of it and protect myself against possible negative consequences. I would certainly appreciate anyone’s comments.
 
If someone took the time to write a letter to me, I really wouldn’t care whether it was signed or unsigned. Grammar and tone are not really a big concern of mine either. The contents of the letter would be considered regardless. I would not try to guess why it wasn’t signed; there are too many reasons. In our dioceses, any correspondence is addressed.
I make it a point to sign any correspondence, because I would have to feel pretty strongly about a topic to make that effort. Besides, I am open to discussion and changing my mind on anything other than the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, I would never say never as far as not signing a letter, especially if I felt like signing it might cause bad feelings or reactions.
Even with complaints, I try to practice what I preach to my children, keep your words sweet because you don’t know when you’ll have to eat them.
 
Abigail said:
Dear Paix:

Thank you for your insightful comments. This thread brought up a difficulty I have been struggling with for several months. I agree with you that normally a letter to someone in authority addressing a concern should be signed and have a return address…I have never liked people who didn’t have the courage to sign their names. HOWEVER, I am in a very difficult situation. I stumbled across some very negative information about someone who is currently seeking a position of authority in the diocese. It is information that I am almost certain is unknown. It casts this person is a VERY negative light, although it is not proof of anything positively immoral or illegal. I have been agonizing over what to do with it. If I were the bishop, I would want to have this information. However, this person has been very manipulative. If I share this information and divulge my name, it is possible that I could be retaliated against, or my reputation ruined. If I were to just send it, it is information that speaks for itself. But I fear it might not even be read if it is unsigned. What makes this particularly difficult is that I don’t have much experience with church organizations, and what experience I do have has been mostly negative…I am caught on the horns of a dilemma between what I believe is a duty (I honestly believe this person is capable of harming others, based on the information I have), and my desire to stay out of it and protect myself against possible negative consequences. I would certainly appreciate anyone’s comments.
Click to expand...
You do not give enough information as to what you mean by “information that casts this person in a negative light”; did you come across a criminal conviction? Did someone tell you they saw something? Or did someone who knew someone whose friend’s cousin overheard something tell you about it?

You don’t give enough information to give you advice.
 
Pax,
We always go by the rules, if we can’t sign it-we can’t send it.

Thanks for sharing that with us but I still would have looked into the annony letter or at least to SEE if I were doing anything that is contrary to the rules of the mass.

This is coming from someone who had to sing Gather Us In as a Communion Hymn; which is just downright gross. Could care less if it IS in the hymn book- someone has to have some sort of knowledge of what is approriate and what isn’t. I am sure that isn’t the case in your parish.
 
Everybody knows, or should know, that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar (assuming you want to catch flies :))

But, if an “obnoxious” letter makes valid points, are you excused from considering those valid points because you didn’t like the tone of the letter? No, you are not. It might be human nature to want to ignore those valid points, but that doesn’t make it right. Anybody in a position of responsibility has a duty to consider valid points no matter in what manner they are made. If, for example, somebody writes “you morons, you’re not supposed to sing Alleluias during Lent!” then you really should stop singing Alleluias during Lent, even if the letter-writer did not make his point charitably.
 
VociMike said:
Everybody knows, or should know, that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar (assuming you want to catch flies :))

But, if an “obnoxious” letter makes valid points, are you excused from considering those valid points because you didn’t like the tone of the letter? No, you are not. It might be human nature to want to ignore those valid points, but that doesn’t make it right. Anybody in a position of responsibility has a duty to consider valid points no matter in what manner they are made. If, for example, somebody writes “you morons, you’re not supposed to sing Alleluias during Lent!” then you really should stop singing Alleluias during Lent, even if the letter-writer did not make his point charitably.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a letter like the hypothetical one you mentioned pointing out a fact versus a letter about someone’s opinion.

“That stupid piano at mass makes me feel like I’m at a bar on
25th street” is not a constructive comment, nor is it pointing out a FACTUAL error.
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
There is a difference between a letter like the hypothetical one you mentioned pointing out a fact versus a letter about someone’s opinion.

“That stupid piano at mass makes me feel like I’m at a bar on
25th street” is not a constructive comment, nor is it pointing out a FACTUAL error.
Click to expand...
That’s why I began my reply with “IF an obnoxious letter makes valid points…”
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
“That stupid piano at mass makes me feel like I’m at a bar on
25th street” is not a constructive comment, nor is it pointing out a FACTUAL error.
Click to expand...
Hey, that sounds like something I have said before, but I always sign my letters.

Not that there was an error…just you would be in the wrong place (church not a bar).🙂
 
Abigail said:
Dear Paix:

Thank you for your insightful comments. This thread brought up a difficulty I have been struggling with for several months. I agree with you that normally a letter to someone in authority addressing a concern should be signed and have a return address…I have never liked people who didn’t have the courage to sign their names. HOWEVER, I am in a very difficult situation. I stumbled across some very negative information about someone who is currently seeking a position of authority in the diocese. It is information that I am almost certain is unknown. It casts this person is a VERY negative light, although it is not proof of anything positively immoral or illegal. I have been agonizing over what to do with it. If I were the bishop, I would want to have this information. However, this person has been very manipulative. If I share this information and divulge my name, it is possible that I could be retaliated against, or my reputation ruined. If I were to just send it, it is information that speaks for itself. But I fear it might not even be read if it is unsigned. What makes this particularly difficult is that I don’t have much experience with church organizations, and what experience I do have has been mostly negative…I am caught on the horns of a dilemma between what I believe is a duty (I honestly believe this person is capable of harming others, based on the information I have), and my desire to stay out of it and protect myself against possible negative consequences. I would certainly appreciate anyone’s comments.
Click to expand...
If this is something you ahve first-hand knowledge of (not something that someone else told you), something that you have observed, and you are truly in a postion where retaliation could occur (I would presume you are employed by either a parish or the diocese), and you truly feel that it needs to be brought to the attention of someone who can and will actually take it into account, then for a relatively small fee, you might want to contact an attorney to carry the message… Attorney client privilege means they cannot reveal your identity to anyone, and they are generally in a position to be able to transmit the information, and to assure that you are not the subject of retaliation.

I would expect that a Catholic attorney (no, that is not an oxymoron) would be willing to help you for a fee of under $250. If that sounds a lot, then reconsider how important the information is. I don’t care how poor a person is, if something is vital, it is still vital, and a way can be found. And most attorneys will deal with minor matters for little or no fee. If you truly cannot pay, let the attorney know; or be willing to work something out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top