R
ringil
Guest
Some personalities do “tough love” and some don’t. Correct doctrine can always be accommpanied by loving kindness.
But then again. I’m no Corapi fan.
- Status
But then again. I’m no Corapi fan.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I must say that I applaud Bishop Morlino for this stance. He is definitely doing the right thing. Why be a Catholic if you can’t accept all of the Church’s rules?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Exactly.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
This whole thing makes me so sad. I live in this diocese. It was on our FRONT page newspaper on Sunday. It gives the catholic church a bad name in an already really anti-christian/catholic city.
Not to mention that I returned to the catholic church two years ago and landed in the middle of this big mess. It is SO confusing to newcomers to see this kind of thing with “liberal” priests and “conservative” priests. It’s a wonder I stayed, but thank God for His work in individuals’ lives in spite of church/diocese politics. I stay as far away from all this as possible.
Please pray for the catholic church here and elsewhere. It is getting similar to Protestant churches with all the in-fighting and disagreements and splits.
Not to mention that I returned to the catholic church two years ago and landed in the middle of this big mess. It is SO confusing to newcomers to see this kind of thing with “liberal” priests and “conservative” priests. It’s a wonder I stayed, but thank God for His work in individuals’ lives in spite of church/diocese politics. I stay as far away from all this as possible.
Please pray for the catholic church here and elsewhere. It is getting similar to Protestant churches with all the in-fighting and disagreements and splits.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
The Church may have been established by Christ, but it is run by men. There have always been, and there will always be, clerics who are more liberal or more conservative, and the same with the laity. As a result, there will always be politics where these people of diverse perspectives interact.
Whose idea was it to have a school in the first place? I don’t know, but some person or group of people had to lobby for it, convince enough people it was a good idea so as to get approval, convince donors to contribute, and parents to send their students there. Meanwhile, the people who opposed the school, and instead wanted a cemetery, or garden, or grotto, or just didn’t want the big old tree cut down, had to be considered. For some of these steps, the pastor could simply accomplish them by fiat. But a wise pastor is going to read parish politics carefully; if there is very limited support for a school, he’s not going to take out huge loans, offend some parishioners, and expend countless hours of his own and others’ time on a project that’s going to fail.
Politics is simply the overall process of managing people’s egos and ideals. It’s not something to be feared, it’s a necessary part of running a parish.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I like the terms orthodox and heterodox much better than conservative and liberal when speaking of a person’s faithfulness to Church doctrine.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Agreed. One is either in line with Church teaching, or one is not. However, there are a wide range of choices available in terms of things like music, vestments, male vs. female altar servers, etc. which can fall into the traditional or non-traditional category. And, as long as it falls within the rubrics and is allowed by the Bishop, that is fine and dandy. One can obviously have personal preference, but that doesn’t necessarily make the other direction wrong.
In addition, looking at the two letters posted which were written by the Bishop, I actually found the first one to be the more forceful of the two even though the second introduced the possibility of Canonical actions.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I don’t know about others, but I wasn’t speaking about faithfulness to Church doctrine. On a great many subjects where there is more than one view on a matter, one can characterize these viewpoints as more liberal or more conservative.
D
Dirt
Guest
It is time to clean house. 50 years of “spirit of Vatican II” theology has left many Parishes and Diocese lacking in orthodoxy. The emphasis on greater laity control within Parishes has lead to a Protestantizing of Parish structure to the point where the Priest finds Himself asking permission to be a Priest! This must stop and stop now. Our Holy Father is leading by example and Thanks be to God some Bishops are following suit. Those who object and leave were not with us to begin with. They need our Prayers to return to the True Faith. And the reformers need our Prayers for the strength to continue the housecleaning. We are talking about eternal Souls, not feelings. The Church, Her Bishops and Priests are responsible to lead us on the path of Salvation, not the path of “feel good”!
I for one applaud Bishop Morlino and Pray that His example will catch fire across the entire US. Stand your ground Bishop Morlino, our Prayers are with you.
Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy, Ch 4
“[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.”
Scripture from drbo.org/index.htm
I for one applaud Bishop Morlino and Pray that His example will catch fire across the entire US. Stand your ground Bishop Morlino, our Prayers are with you.
Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy, Ch 4
“[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.”
Scripture from drbo.org/index.htm
S
superamazingman
Guest
I’m glad you stayed. These next couple years, I think we’ll see more of these things, as we really try to bring the church back around from after all the crazyness after the council.
A
Alan55
Guest
“Conservative” and “liberal” are terms that suggest that both sides have legitimate positions that include them in the spectrum of orthodoxy. “Orthodox” and “heterodox” are terms that judge that only one side is in possession of the truth and should be thought of as a true member of the Church. It isn’t a matter of which set of terms you prefer.
A
Alan55
Guest
That “crazy” council was a duly constituted ecumenical council of the world’s bishops together with the Pope, not some book club.
S
Skeptic92
Guest
The teachings of the Council are sound, some of what happened after the Council are not so theologically or canonically sound. In charity it is best to assume that this is what the previous poster meant.
Back on topic:
Whatever the Bishop decides if the members of the Parish keep dissenting, let us pray that it is the right one.
J
jwinch2
Guest
There was no claim that the council itself was crazy in the post you responded to. Rather, that stuff which happened afterwards was crazy. You are correct in that it was valid council, which in fact, was overwhelmingly voted for by the Bishops. However, there is no denying that there has been a wealth of nutty behavior by many who used the council as justification for their actions.
S
superamazingman
Guest
Note my choice of words: The time after the council was crazy, not the council itself. But it wasn’t the clearest phrasing either, so I don’t blame you for reading it that way.
S
superamazingman
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
Why do we always have to translate everything into left vs right, liberal vs conservative, orthodox vs heterodox and whatever other labels we can think of ? Why can’t we on CAF every address something the way that the bishop is doing in this letter? He’s not using labels.
I bet you I can summarize the problem in one post, because I’ve been there. First, as Father said, whenever you have a change of administration in a parish, it’s always going to be a time of great stress. That’s a human dynamic. It happens in other institutions as well, not just parishes.
Second, a society of apostolic life was assigned to these two parishes. Even though they are not religious, they are an institute with a particular charism. If you have lived in a parish run by another community with a different charism or run by diocesan priests and a new community with a different charism walks in, it’s going to rattle people
I was once assigned as superior to a house attached to a parish. We had eight brothers. Only one brother was a priest. Up to that time, the parish had been administered by diocesan priests. The first shock wave came when the one priest said that he had to change the time for confessions, because it conflicted with community recreation. The second shock came when they realized that the priest was not following the Roman calendar, but was following the Franciscan calendar. I remember someone being very upset because the mass on Catholic radio mentioned one saint and the parish mass did not mention that particular saint. It must have been one of those days when you have a Franciscan saint and another saint. If you’re a Franciscan, using the Franciscan missal, guess which saint you’re getting. Eventually the brothers left and the bishop closed the parish.
Third, people have a sense of entitlement. The same mess would occur if it were the other way around. Let’s say that the Society of Christ the King left the parish and the Jesuits came in. Then it would be the Trads who would scream bloody murder.
The issue is simple. The bishop has to discern if the priests have violated any law. Every bishop who invites either a religious community or a society of apostolic life to take over one of his parishes knows that they’re going to do things their way. That’s part of the contract. No superior ever accepts a contract to run a parish, if his community’s charism cannot be freely exercised. Bishops promise superiors that they will have the freedom to live and work according to their charism… It’s the only way that a superior will place his men there.
In this case, the bishop is not going to factor in whether they changed the mass from English to Latin and replaced the Glory and Praise Hymnal with a Benedictine Hymnal. This is allowed by law. The people may not like it. The bishop may not like it. But if it’s allowed by law and the bishop guaranteed that the Society could live and work according to its charism, he has to protect the right of the Society to do so. Failure to do so jeopardizes his credibility and is unjust to the Society.
This is not about left and right. This is about human dynamics. There was a change in the parish that some people find very radical and they have responded in a radical manner. This does not make one group bad and the other saints. Those who glee at the discomfort of another are also guilty of sin.
I don’t see the bishop threatening anyone. He has simply mentioned that the law allows for this and that he does not want to give canonical warnings. “I do this now in sincere hopes of avoiding the issuance of Canonical warnings.” He is not threatening with sanctions. It’s rather funny, because he’s warning them that they may set themselves up for a Canonical warning. He’s not saying “I’m warning you, you’re going to be penalized.” That’s not what he says at all. The media has it wrong and so do some posters here.
There are no warnings, except that they have been warned that they may warned. There are some very clear statements by the bishop. The people who complain have not produced any evidence of wrongdoing. The Society is a society of apostolic life with its own charism. Parishioners have three choices when this happens: 1) leave the parish, 2) accept the community and its charism, or 3) bite the bullet if the community leaves and the diocese has not close the parish, because it cannot replace the priests. It’s strange how people do not realize when they are cornering themselves.
Let’s call it what it is. It’s a change that has triggered a very radical response, but there has been no violation of law. One can debate the merits of change until the cows come home. The fact is that any institute that take over a diocesan parish is going to bring its charism and its way of doing things.
It’s not like someone said that priests are acting like masters instead of servants. They’re acting like what they are, members of a community with a particular charism. Some laymen take issue with that charism. OK, so they take issue with it. Let’s not polarize the issue. Polarizing never leads to charity or clarity.
If people take issue, they must prove wrongdoing or admit that it’s a difference in preferences or even in spirituality, not a legal problem.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I bet you I can summarize the problem in one post, because I’ve been there. First, as Father said, whenever you have a change of administration in a parish, it’s always going to be a time of great stress. That’s a human dynamic. It happens in other institutions as well, not just parishes.
Second, a society of apostolic life was assigned to these two parishes. Even though they are not religious, they are an institute with a particular charism. If you have lived in a parish run by another community with a different charism or run by diocesan priests and a new community with a different charism walks in, it’s going to rattle people
I was once assigned as superior to a house attached to a parish. We had eight brothers. Only one brother was a priest. Up to that time, the parish had been administered by diocesan priests. The first shock wave came when the one priest said that he had to change the time for confessions, because it conflicted with community recreation. The second shock came when they realized that the priest was not following the Roman calendar, but was following the Franciscan calendar. I remember someone being very upset because the mass on Catholic radio mentioned one saint and the parish mass did not mention that particular saint. It must have been one of those days when you have a Franciscan saint and another saint. If you’re a Franciscan, using the Franciscan missal, guess which saint you’re getting. Eventually the brothers left and the bishop closed the parish.
Third, people have a sense of entitlement. The same mess would occur if it were the other way around. Let’s say that the Society of Christ the King left the parish and the Jesuits came in. Then it would be the Trads who would scream bloody murder.
The issue is simple. The bishop has to discern if the priests have violated any law. Every bishop who invites either a religious community or a society of apostolic life to take over one of his parishes knows that they’re going to do things their way. That’s part of the contract. No superior ever accepts a contract to run a parish, if his community’s charism cannot be freely exercised. Bishops promise superiors that they will have the freedom to live and work according to their charism… It’s the only way that a superior will place his men there.
In this case, the bishop is not going to factor in whether they changed the mass from English to Latin and replaced the Glory and Praise Hymnal with a Benedictine Hymnal. This is allowed by law. The people may not like it. The bishop may not like it. But if it’s allowed by law and the bishop guaranteed that the Society could live and work according to its charism, he has to protect the right of the Society to do so. Failure to do so jeopardizes his credibility and is unjust to the Society.
This is not about left and right. This is about human dynamics. There was a change in the parish that some people find very radical and they have responded in a radical manner. This does not make one group bad and the other saints. Those who glee at the discomfort of another are also guilty of sin.
I don’t see the bishop threatening anyone. He has simply mentioned that the law allows for this and that he does not want to give canonical warnings. “I do this now in sincere hopes of avoiding the issuance of Canonical warnings.” He is not threatening with sanctions. It’s rather funny, because he’s warning them that they may set themselves up for a Canonical warning. He’s not saying “I’m warning you, you’re going to be penalized.” That’s not what he says at all. The media has it wrong and so do some posters here.
There are no warnings, except that they have been warned that they may warned. There are some very clear statements by the bishop. The people who complain have not produced any evidence of wrongdoing. The Society is a society of apostolic life with its own charism. Parishioners have three choices when this happens: 1) leave the parish, 2) accept the community and its charism, or 3) bite the bullet if the community leaves and the diocese has not close the parish, because it cannot replace the priests. It’s strange how people do not realize when they are cornering themselves.
Let’s call it what it is. It’s a change that has triggered a very radical response, but there has been no violation of law. One can debate the merits of change until the cows come home. The fact is that any institute that take over a diocesan parish is going to bring its charism and its way of doing things.
It’s not like someone said that priests are acting like masters instead of servants. They’re acting like what they are, members of a community with a particular charism. Some laymen take issue with that charism. OK, so they take issue with it. Let’s not polarize the issue. Polarizing never leads to charity or clarity.
If people take issue, they must prove wrongdoing or admit that it’s a difference in preferences or even in spirituality, not a legal problem.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Just a question, then:
If that “community’s charism” includes lay preaching during Mass (in substitute for any priest or deacon), the faithful of that parish need just accept it, because “the superiors” sign a contract with the bishop to
?
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
The answer is very simple. The community’s charism is never going to contradict the Church. The charism is given to the community by the Holy Spirit through the founder and approved by the Church. The example that you give, would not be part of any community’s charism, because it’s contrary to Church law.
I will give you one that is not. I mentioned the parish that we took over. The parish administrator was a priest. His associates and his superior were not priests. The priest could not be installed as pastor, because you cannot have a pastor and a superior in one house. There is room there for conflict of interest. If he’s an administrator, he takes his marching orders from the superior, except in matters of diocesan policy. Those come from the chancery.
The bishop knows that brotherhood is the charism of this community. He welcomes the community with its charism. If he demands that the superior be a priest so that he can also be a pastor, the major superior cannot agree to that, because he cannot guarantee that it’s always going to happen.
If the bishop agrees to the arrangement that the major superior can provide, the faithful of the parish have to accept that. The bishop has the authority to make contracts and to make decisions over his parishes, as long as they do not violate the law. Bringing in a community with a charism that is new to the faithful is not against the law. However, expecting the community to adapt its charism to the parish, is contrary to the law. It violates the rights of the community. The diocese must take the community as it is or not take it at all.
In this case, the Society has its charism. The bishop welcomed it. The parishioners have to accept the bishop’s decision. It was his right to make that decision. Unless they can prove that the Society has violated the law, is a transition problem and probably miscommunication. The bishop has said that there are allegations, but no proofs. What can the man do?
Even if there were proofs, they are a society of apostolic life. They have their own superior. The bishop has to take the matter up with them and then their superior. He cannot discipline them. The most he can do is tell the superior that he would like him to transfer Fr. X. The superior can discipline according to the constitutions. Once the bishop erects a community in his diocese, whether they’re a religious order, secular order or society of apostolic right, he cannot suppress it. Only the Holy See has the power to suppress.
Does that clarify things?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
The answer is very simple. The community’s charism is never going to contradict the Church. The charism is given to the community by the Holy Spirit through the founder and approved by the Church. The example that you give, would not be part of any community’s charism, because it’s contrary to Church law.
I will give you one that is not. I mentioned the parish that we took over. The parish administrator was a priest. His associates and his superior were not priests. The priest could not be installed as pastor, because you cannot have a pastor and a superior in one house. There is room there for conflict of interest. If he’s an administrator, he takes his marching orders from the superior, except in matters of diocesan policy. Those come from the chancery.
The bishop knows that brotherhood is the charism of this community. He welcomes the community with its charism. If he demands that the superior be a priest so that he can also be a pastor, the major superior cannot agree to that, because he cannot guarantee that it’s always going to happen.
If the bishop agrees to the arrangement that the major superior can provide, the faithful of the parish have to accept that. The bishop has the authority to make contracts and to make decisions over his parishes, as long as they do not violate the law. Bringing in a community with a charism that is new to the faithful is not against the law. However, expecting the community to adapt its charism to the parish, is contrary to the law. It violates the rights of the community. The diocese must take the community as it is or not take it at all.
In this case, the Society has its charism. The bishop welcomed it. The parishioners have to accept the bishop’s decision. It was his right to make that decision. Unless they can prove that the Society has violated the law, is a transition problem and probably miscommunication. The bishop has said that there are allegations, but no proofs. What can the man do?
Even if there were proofs, they are a society of apostolic life. They have their own superior. The bishop has to take the matter up with them and then their superior. He cannot discipline them. The most he can do is tell the superior that he would like him to transfer Fr. X. The superior can discipline according to the constitutions. Once the bishop erects a community in his diocese, whether they’re a religious order, secular order or society of apostolic life, he cannot suppress it. Only the Holy See has the power to suppress.
Does that clarify things?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status