Article about Women leadership of parishes

[pnewton]

It sounds like it to me. From the diocesan website:

She will also be “working with a team of priests who will provide the sacramental ministries at St. Anthony,” while having decision-making authority in the parish itself.

and

For that reason, while canon 517 creates the possibility for a layperson to be given “a share” in the running of a parish, it also requires that there be a priest designated responsible for the pastoral care of the people. Whenever a deacon or layperson is appointed to such a role, “the bishop is to appoint some priest who, with the powers and faculties of a pastor [parish priest], will direct the pastoral care” of the people, canon law explains.

It may not sound like this is being done to you, but I would have to ask if you are in this parish or are you just “assuming” stuff. From the Catechism.

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

The default must be that this is accordance with canon law without direct and clear proof to the contrary. Otherwise, charity demands that the bishop understands canon law sufficiently to follow what is required. He seems to have covered it all on his website.

 

[abucs]

If I was in the parish and had a self proclaimed anti church Catholic feminist in charge I’d be organizing resistance against her and if worse comes to worse I’d be walking out to a new parish.

Community relations indeed. In my experience these people are metaphorical poison.

 

[tafan2]

I started the thread saying I was curious about the argument it was inline with Canon law. After reading the diocese’s explanation I am more skeptical. It mentions the first part of the Canon, and curiously leaves out the second half. And there is no indication that the second half is being followed. The “team of priests” is not pertinent. Also, the Canon in question is obviously for an exceptional situation where it is not possible for a priest to be appointed. Full transparency would suggest the diocese should explain why this is needed and for how long it is expected to be in place (even if the answer is indefinitely). What is left out does not inspire confidence.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, glad I don’t live there.

If I was in the parish and had a self proclaimed anti church Catholic feminist in charge I’d be organizing resistance against her and if worse comes to worse I’d be walking out to a new parish.

You are better off just walking out. This didn’t happen by accident. The priests themselves should be refusing this. If they don’t then the parish hasn’t got much hope.

After reading the diocese’s explanation I am more skeptical. It mentions the first part of the Canon, and curiously leaves out the second half. And there is no indication that the second half is being followed. The “team of priests” is not pertinent. Also, the Canon in question is obviously for an exceptional situation where it is not possible for a priest to be appointed.

That is a common tactic. It isn’t very honest at all.

 

[Cathoholic]

Bishop Frank Caggiano has named a woman to head the pastoral team of a Connecticut parish.

This is not a good situation.

In the past our priest has forewarned us of this situation being implimented.

He said what will also come of it is lay led “communion services” over the Mass using the same pretexts.

I’ll of course (as I am sure many if not all here are doing) continue praying for the Church.

God bless.

Cathoholic

The Pan-Amazonian synod in Oct. 2019 is where I suspect this and more things like this (deviating from the “classical position”) will be mainstreamed and/or enshrined.

ROME - At a press conference on the summit of bishops focusing on the Pan-Amazonian people and region set for October 2019, Vatican officials did not close the door to the possibility of opening up official ministries to women and married men.

“We don’t want to preclude anything,” said Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops at the conference June 8, though adding that “the Church is currently in its classical position,” concerning women’s and married men’s ordination.

The comments were made during the presentation of the preparatory document for the summit of bishops next year focusing on the Pan-Amazon region and its peoples, called “Amazonia: New paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology.” . . .

https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2...ng-questions-on-ordination-at-amazon-meeting/

 

[Cathoholic]

From the OP article . . .

. . . Bishop Frank Caggiano has established a new leadership model in a Connecticut parish, appointing a woman to serve as parish life coordinator. . . .

. . . grants Sauers decision-making authority over a team of priests . . .

. . . Caggiano said his decision to appoint Sauers comes after a period of discernment, which included two meetings . . .

. . . “Her responsibilities, as it is with any priest or deacon appointed as Administrator . . .”

 

[pnewton]

Well, in keeping with the Church’s much more clear teaching on charity, unless someone with expertise in canon law and knowledge of where this situation contradicts canon law, I still think it dead wrong to engage in armchair rash judgement, especially to the point of calling it dishonest. I do not see respect for the priesthood being supported by such comments, but rather attacked.

Ironic that those who do not think a priest has the right to give a layperson authority in administrative decisions have no problem, as a lay person, condemning him with insufficient knowledge of the situation, and without the expertise in canon law that he has available.

We can do nothing about anti-clericism (if this is even an example) we read about over the internet and filter through our own limited knowledge and understanding. We can work on the anti-clericism in our hearts that lead us to condemn priests and bishops in ignorance.

 

[tafan2]

Ironic that those who do not think a priest has the right to give a layperson authority in administrative decisions have no problem, as a lay person, condemning him with insufficient knowledge of the situation, and without the expertise in canon law that he has available

I suppose you are likely talking about me, which is fine. Would only point out that I have not condemned anyone. I have only expressed my skepticism and the reasons for that skepticism. I have been critical of the lack of clear explanation. Those who say this is normal and happens all the time with pastors delegating authority to lay people are obviously wrong to some extent, as the diocese feels the need to provide an explanation and the person is being appointed by the bishop, not a pastor. One of the primary reasons why people have become anti-clerical and don’t quite trust our bishops (which is very unfortunate) is a continual lack of transparency via half answers. If the diocese involved feels the need to explain how this is valid under canon law, then it behooves them to give a full explanation of why. This is not condemning anyone, it is certainly being critical. If we blindly go by the mantra, “we don’t know the whole story, so we should not question the decision”, things will continue to not work out so well.

 

[Joe_5859]

Do you have any articles you could link to about this?

 

[pnewton]

I have been critical of the lack of clear explanation.

How do you know this? Do you attend that parish? I know we have the right to criticize wrongs that we know. However, it is not possible to know what is happening across the world. Our limited scope must also limit the prudence of criticizing every action of every bishop world wide that we do not “agree” with. If a bishop did something wrong, there is recourse in his diocese to address that wrong.

I think the phrase that is a stumbling block is the idea of decision making authority belonging to a lay person, or more specifically,a woman lay person. However, there is no theological reason that such authority cannot exist over administrative issues. I have seen this a lot in parishes that do not have their own exclusive priest, so it is nothing new to me, though the ones I knew were men. This is not the first time the burden of authority has been shifted from priests. That is how deacons came to be in the first place. As long as the authority is administrative, that is scarcely something that undermines the authority of the priests, anymore that the creation of deacons undermined the authority of the apostles.

 

[tafan2]

How do you know this?

Because I read the diocese’s press release and it was not a clear explanation.

I think the phrase that is a stumbling block is the idea of decision making authority belonging to a lay person, or more specifically,a woman lay person.

You will not find one of my posts addressing the gender of the lay person. So you really have no basis for thinking this way. Do you have a right to criticize me for this when you do not know it to be the case?

However, there is no theological reason that such authority cannot exist over administrative issues.

I have not brought theology into the discussion one time. I have only questioned if it is in line with canon law.

As long as the authority is administrative, that is scarcely something that undermines the authority of the priests

In general, this statement is not always true. In this case, we do not know, that’s the problem.

However, it is not possible to know what is happening across the world. Our limited scope must also limit the prudence of criticizing every action of every bishop world wide that we do not “agree” with.

This part of your post I do agree with. I have posted my concerns and that will be the end of it, barring further information from the diocese (or perhaps the media). Feel free to have the last word, just please refrain for guessing what my “stumbling blocks are”, I have been fairly specific.