Bishop Morlino warns dissenters to stop — or else

[JReducation]

This is the comment I was referring to as sarcasm by Elizabeth502, not the situation being discussed.

“Wow. Yeah. Imagine. The nerve (in italics) of those priests to shock the parishioners with the offensiveness of daily confession times.”

Was she trying to drive home the point that the parishioners are being silly?

Really, if they moved confession to 5:30 am, that’s unreasonable. If they make confession available at 5:30 am and later in the day, there is nothing to complain about. It’s the priest who has to get up early, not the parishioners.

Given that it’s 5:30 in a state where winters are long and cold, I imagine that one priest gets up. There would not be a big demand for confessions on a dark cold January morning in Wisconsin.

If anyone can gripe, it would be the poor guy who is assigned to get up that week. People make issues where there are none.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Just an fyi, they aren’t really newly assigned anymore. 'bout two year and counting. This has just been going on THAT long.

That’s why I said that their major superior is a very patient man. Many major superiors would have told the bishop that they were truly sorry, but they are pulling their men. It wouldn’t be the bishop’s fault if they pulled. It would be the parishioners’ fault. The bishop would have to find priests for two parishes. The parishioners are putting him on the spot.

This is very important that people realize this. When you push a community as these folks are pushing, you’re putting your bishop on the spot. The bishop cannot stop the major superior from coming down hard on these folks. He has a right to defend his men. He can threaten them with many things, including pulling his men out without notice. Where are they going to find three priests?

I know of a religious community of men that did just this back in 1984. One morning, there was no priest for the 6:30 am mass. There was no brother to open the church. The religious superior had ordered his men to leave during the night. They locked the door and mailed the keys to the bishop. There was heck to pay, not by the religious, but by the parishioners. The bishop kept the place locked for about six months until he got an agreement from people to back down or produce real evidence of wrong doing. After six months of meetings, they had nothing to show the bishop. I was sad for the bishop and the superior. Both felt cornered by unreasonable people.

We have to learn to communicate our needs and accept that not all of our likes are going to be met.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Elizabeth502]

I cannot echo more the unreasonable sound of the parishioners’ objections. It would be one thing if something so radical had happened that suddenly there were no English Masses whatsoever. But that is apparently not what has happened. There is a Latin Mass available. Don’t like that? Don’t go to it; go to a different Mass: Problem Solved.

There are confessions 2x daily. How is that threatening to any parishioner? Same solution if you find confession availability distasteful: Don’t go. Neither our Lord nor the Church forces anyone to go to confession frequently. In fact, you’re technically never “forced” to go, even with known mortal sin on your soul. You “can” put it off indefinitely.

Change can be difficult for some people, but even if it were a change of diocesan personnel, without a community coming in, a subtle change of one person can alter a flavor of a parish dramatically. Happened to me a few years ago. I found the changes not to my liking, because the atmosphere of the parish changed from one of warmth (in my opinion) to one that appeared to lack life and enthusiasm. That was my subjective perception. My understanding was that that perception was shared by many others, but it would have been destructive for me to stay and complain about it. My choices were to attend cheerfully & try to adapt, or leave. After sincere attempts to adapt, it didn’t work for me, so I took a break from that parish and am now happily back there, after still new personnel came in.

We don’t always get what we want: liturgy-wise, personnel-wise, structure-wise. But the idea that the mere availability of a TLM Mass and the availability of daily confession is a “problem” for some parishioners is just bizarre to me. Sounds as if some people are rigid and want to construct – or hold onto – a narrow understanding of church and are unwilling to accept what Rome herself accepts.

 

[Dale_M]

I also highly doubt that the closing of the school is in any way substantially related to the new priests. The Bishop alluded to a history of problems with the school’s finances in his letter but didn’t go into specifics. If the school was financially sound and then suddenly had finance issues related to these priests it doesn’t make sense that the school should close. Schools routinely carry serious debt for years before they close so the idea that this school suddenly went from the black to the red and needs to close doesn’t pass the smell test.

I am unfamiliar with the situation, however a news article from a month ago indicated that the school has been financially troubled for years and nearly went under back in 2010. An emergency fundraising campaign managed to keep the school open.

Here is some information on the current financial situation.

Enrollment at the 77-year-old school, 345 N. Court St., has dropped from 116 during the 2009-10 school year to 84 now.

The church’s operating loan has reached its maximum limit of $190,000, according to Ruiz. The church has an additional $90,000 in debts.

“Something has to change,” said Myron Tranel, a member of the church finance council. “We can’t keep digging the hole deeper.”

The article mentions that some attribute the financial problems to decreased support by parishioners who protest against their priests. However, the article also mentions that the successful 2010 fundraising campaign took place months after the priests arrived.

host.madison.com/wsj/lifestyles/faith-and-values/platteville-catholic-parish-officials-say-needed-to-keep-school-open/article_554b1dd6-79f5-11e1-b8fc-001a4bcf887a.html

I suspect the 2010 fundraiser was a one-time effort which couldn’t be sustained.

 

[AnneTeresa]

My point about the times of confession was just an example to show how the church had dramatic change–and to point that out to people who just decided the parishioners were totally unreasonable based on only reading the letters and/or the press.

It’s only an EXAMPLE-- the church probably had 1/2 hour of confession each Saturday like all the other churches around here, then it went to two times a day, an hour before every mass. It was just an example of how dramatic a change it would have been for those people, just like going from English to Latin was, and Latin to English was years ago. I was trying to point out how things might have seemed to them for consideration. I have nothing against frequent confession. sigh

There were other issues I’ve heard of–girls were no longer to be altar servers and I’m sure more on top of that which we don’t know about. How were the change handled? Were people taught the reasons behind the changes? Were there open discussions? We don’t know, but it would indicate that even if there were, there needed to be more. Also, don’t jump on me now about altar girl servers–I am ONLY pointing out that there were a number of dramatic changes that were apparently poorly transitioned into. I am not defending either side of that issue and that is not my point.

I support the bishop in this and the tone and content of the letters show he handled it well. I feel bad for the priests. I think that backbiting and gossip is wrong. Getting the press involved was devastating… and it is having repercussions for all of us who live in this diocese and have friends/colleagues who’ve read the slanted press articles.

I agree that people need to learn to adjust, but as the bishop’s letter stated, it could have been done differently (which probably would have alienated fewer people). And I also understand how some people might have a really hard time with dramatic changes–and that’s part of what priests and leaders have to deal with. Finally, as I pointed out earlier, the local press (which led to national press) is very warped and I saw a number of articles that made it sound like the bishop was wrong, the people were right, etc. IF (and we don’t know) this is the case that people just refuse to follow church doctrine, that is a different issue. But we DON’T know that. So shouldn’t we assume the best and hope for communication and reconciliation for all parties? At this point, the people who won’t let it go and work on reconciliation are clearly in the wrong and the bishops letter appeals to them to work at reconciliation (which I applaud).

I’m out of this thread. I’m tired of my comments being miscontrued and taken out of context. Some people here do not know how to examine both sides of an issue. None of us knows the whole story. So our part should be to pray.

I will continue to pray for this parish and my diocese and the catholic church which is so divided, as some voices on this thread illustrate.

 

[AnneTeresa]

That’s why I said that their major superior is a very patient man. Many major superiors would have told the bishop that they were truly sorry, but they are pulling their men. It wouldn’t be the bishop’s fault if they pulled. It would be the parishioners’ fault. The bishop would have to find priests for two parishes. The parishioners are putting him on the spot.

This is very important that people realize this. When you push a community as these folks are pushing, you’re putting your bishop on the spot. The bishop cannot stop the major superior from coming down hard on these folks. He has a right to defend his men. He can threaten them with many things, including pulling his men out without notice. Where are they going to find three priests?

I know of a religious community of men that did just this back in 1984. One morning, there was no priest for the 6:30 am mass. There was no brother to open the church. The religious superior had ordered his men to leave during the night. They locked the door and mailed the keys to the bishop. There was heck to pay, not by the religious, but by the parishioners. The bishop kept the place locked for about six months until he got an agreement from people to back down or produce real evidence of wrong doing. After six months of meetings, they had nothing to show the bishop. I was sad for the bishop and the superior. Both felt cornered by unreasonable people.

We have to learn to communicate our needs and accept that not all of our likes are going to be met.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Ok, one more comment before I leave. This is very interesting about the priests being pulled out. We have a priest shortage in our diocese and I imagine one of the bishops primary goals is to increase vocations. Bringing these priests here helped fill a gap we have here. It is a sad situation all around when the people buck against the priests to this extent and the press gets involved rather than individuals learning to work it out.

 

[thomas_jd]

There are many factors intertwined in this issue. A school with an enrollment of less than
100 students cannot maintain itself. Operating costs are just excessive with those numbers. It is evident that the school was subsidized from the parish.
The Bishop owns the property, church and school. He delegates others to administer
the school and church. He works with what he has and often this is not sufficient to maintain either school or church.

Many parishioners view the church as their charge and the priests as visitors. This can be due to a revolving term for the priests, or long time attendance at the parish. A new pastors is told to move slowly, introduce change gradually , let the congregation become aware of his motives.

Sadly the holding back of the funds have upset balance at this church.Whether or not good stewardship required the continued support of the school is debateable if other methods of fundraising were not employed on a regular basis.
These are just observations and more info is needed to answer the issue.It is is certainly a sad time for the school and parish.

 

[Kerry77]

Sorry to chime in so late on this thread, I’m just catching up on this situation…

I have a question…what exactly did these priests do to throw these parishioners into such an uproar??

So far, I’ve figured out that they disbanded the EMHCs, banned altar girls, and did not submit themselves to the approval of the parish council regarding financial decisions. Those actions are concrete. But there seems to be a lot more to this story that is more vague…

There is something about funerals…what did they do there?
And homilies? Were there specific things that they spoke about?
And the Mass itself…a lack of joy or something? What specifically is that in reference to?

Is there anything else I am missing?

Thank you so much for anyone that can help me understand this better, with concrete examples.

 

[Kerry77]

There are many factors intertwined in this issue. A school with an enrollment of less than
100 students cannot maintain itself. Operating costs are just excessive with those numbers. It is evident that the school was subsidized from the parish.
The Bishop owns the property, church and school. He delegates others to administer
the school and church. He works with what he has and often this is not sufficient to maintain either school or church.

Many parishioners view the church as their charge and the priests as visitors. This can be due to a revolving term for the priests, or long time attendance at the parish. A new pastors is told to move slowly, introduce change gradually , let the congregation become aware of his motives.

Sadly the holding back of the funds have upset balance at this church.Whether or not good stewardship required the continued support of the school is debateable if other methods of fundraising were not employed on a regular basis.
These are just observations and more info is needed to answer the issue.It is is certainly a sad time for the school and parish.

I agree with you, Catholic school parents are often operating under a misconception that they own the school. They don’t seem to understand, or at least don’t want to understand, that in most cases the school and the building are under the complete ownership and control of the diocese. Not the pastor, not the principal…the bishop.

I will often see in the news, that when a Catholic school closes for whatever reason, usually enrollment, angry parents will threaten to leave the Church entirely as well. Which makes one wonder why they were there in the first place.

It seems such a dramatic drop in donations to the parish made keeping the school open an impossible feat. It is a shame the school got tangled into this mess, for the children’s sake anyway.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sorry to chime in so late on this thread, I’m just catching up on this situation…

I have a question…what exactly did these priests do to throw these parishioners into such an uproar??

So far, I’ve figured out that they disbanded the EMHCs, banned altar girls, and did not submit themselves to the approval of the parish council regarding financial decisions. Those actions are concrete. But there seems to be a lot more to this story that is more vague…

There is something about funerals…what did they do there?
And homilies? Were there specific things that they spoke about?
And the Mass itself…a lack of joy or something? What specifically is that in reference to?

Is there anything else I am missing?

Thank you so much for anyone that can help me understand this better, with concrete examples.

Talked about solid Catholic doctrine in their homilies and other teaching ventures.

Moved the tabernacle back to the middle.

Made the Extraordinary Form available for those who wished to attend it.

Restricted altar service to males. This particular bit is part of their charism; they place a very heavy emphasis on inspiring priestly vocation.

Mentioned the Last things–oh, who would have thought!–at funeral Masses.

Their priests wear Roman chasubles, among others. I haven’t read or heard of a complaint about that, but it is rare enough in the OF to be perhaps a bit odd at first, especially to older people who remember them from the “pre-Conciliar days.”

Heavily restricted the use of EMs.

I don’t know what a lack of joy means, frankly. Personally, I don’t go to Mass to feel like a little boy at the Willy Wonka factory. So unless there is outright hatred and evil faces being spewed from the sanctuary and nothing but the most Calvinistic homilies, I don’t know what “lack of joy” means.

That’s about it, as far as what was talked about in the letters from the bishop.

 

[superamazingman]

Sorry to chime in so late on this thread, I’m just catching up on this situation…

I have a question…what exactly did these priests do to throw these parishioners into such an uproar??

So far, I’ve figured out that they disbanded the EMHCs, banned altar girls, and did not submit themselves to the approval of the parish council regarding financial decisions. Those actions are concrete. But there seems to be a lot more to this story that is more vague…

There is something about funerals…what did they do there?

They don’t preach canonization homilies at funerals. The people don’t like that.

And homilies? Were there specific things that they spoke about?

The preach solid homiles, not touchy-feely “Jesus Loves You” homilies. The people don’t like that either.

And the Mass itself…a lack of joy or something? What specifically is that in reference to?

There’s no “pastoral” ad-libbing during Mass, and they celebrate the liturgy with the “the characteristic sobriety of the Roman Rite” (in the words of the bishop), ie, they celebrate the Mass with reverence, according to the rubrics. They really don’t like that.

Is there anything else I am missing?

That’s about it. They are just mad that their liberal pastor is gone, and that they have new Shepard now who care for their souls instead of their feelings.

Another thing to keep in mind: less than 40% of the parish doesn’t like these priests. That’s means the majority of them are in support of the priests! They are happy with them, and consider them a Godsend. That’s what the news doesn’t tell you.

 

[superamazingman]

I agree with you, Catholic school parents are often operating under a misconception that they own the school. They don’t seem to understand, or at least don’t want to understand, that in most cases the school and the building are under the complete ownership and control of the diocese. Not the pastor, not the principal…the bishop.

I will often see in the news, that when a Catholic school closes for whatever reason, usually enrollment, angry parents will threaten to leave the Church entirely as well. Which makes one wonder why they were there in the first place.

It seems such a dramatic drop in donations to the parish made keeping the school open an impossible feat. It is a shame the school got tangled into this mess, for the children’s sake anyway.

The worst part of this situation is their holding hostage of the school. They closed their own children’s school because they didn’t like these priests. Many of those kids will probably go to public school, and I dare say, their lives be changed, and probably not for the better.

Does anyone else find this absolutely sickening?

 

[Kerry77]

The worst part of this situation is their holding hostage of the school. They closed their own children’s school because they didn’t like these priests. Many of those kids will probably go to public school, and I dare say, their lives be changed, and probably not for the better.

Does anyone else find this absolutely sickening?

I recall reading that people tried to donate directly to the school to keep it open or something like that?

If this is true, this shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of most parish Catholic schools…these schools are not independent entities.

 

[Kerry77]

They don’t preach canonization homilies at funerals. The people don’t like that.

The preach solid homiles, not touchy-feely “Jesus Loves You” homilies. The people don’t like that either.

There’s no “pastoral” ad-libbing during Mass, and they celebrate the liturgy with the “the characteristic sobriety of the Roman Rite” (in the words of the bishop), ie, they celebrate the Mass with reverence, according to the rubrics. They really don’t like that.

That’s about it. They are just mad that their liberal pastor is gone, and that they have new Shepard now who care for their souls instead of their feelings.

Another thing to keep in mind: less than 40% of the parish doesn’t like these priests. That’s means the majority of them are in support of the priests! They are happy with them, and consider them a Godsend. That’s what the news doesn’t tell you.

Well, forty percent is not insignificant. But yes, it does say something.

Ok, I get the funeral complaint. I don’t agree with it, but I can see that happening.

I still wonder about the homilies, what topics did they preach about that ticked people off so much…

Thanks for the response.

 

[Kerry77]

Talked about solid Catholic doctrine in their homilies and other teaching ventures.

Moved the tabernacle back to the middle.

Made the Extraordinary Form available for those who wished to attend it.

Restricted altar service to males. This particular bit is part of their charism; they place a very heavy emphasis on inspiring priestly vocation.

Mentioned the Last things–oh, who would have thought!–at funeral Masses.

Their priests wear Roman chasubles, among others. I haven’t read or heard of a complaint about that, but it is rare enough in the OF to be perhaps a bit odd at first, especially to older people who remember them from the “pre-Conciliar days.”

Heavily restricted the use of EMs.

I don’t know what a lack of joy means, frankly. Personally, I don’t go to Mass to feel like a little boy at the Willy Wonka factory. So unless there is outright hatred and evil faces being spewed from the sanctuary and nothing but the most Calvinistic homilies, I don’t know what “lack of joy” means.

That’s about it, as far as what was talked about in the letters from the bishop.

Were all of these things done very quickly? I guess it doesn’t matter really, but I can that doing all of these things at once could cause trouble.

Yes, I still don’t understand this “lack of joy” stuff. Maybe that is related to the homilies as well?

I think it’s so sad how so many [most] Catholics don’t understand what a funeral Mass is for. I can see how mentioning the Four Last Things, including obviously Hell, could be upsetting, but I don’t know how exactly they did that. Perhaps they just didn’t allow eulogies, or as someone else said, canonisations.

Thanks for your response, very helpful.

 

[JReducation]

Ok, one more comment before I leave. This is very interesting about the priests being pulled out. We have a priest shortage in our diocese and I imagine one of the bishops primary goals is to increase vocations. Bringing these priests here helped fill a gap we have here. It is a sad situation all around when the people buck against the priests to this extent and the press gets involved rather than individuals learning to work it out.

That’s what I was thinking. If they have two parishes to give over to extern priests it means that they don’t have enough diocesan priests. Dioceses do not hand parishes over to extern priests or to religious unless they have no one to put in them.

On the flip side, if the issue is giving the Society a black eye in the media, the major superior has every right to protect the Society. He can pounce an these people or he can pull his men. If he pounces on the laity, it’s going to get ugly, because the bishop won’t have grounds to defend the laity. Therefore, Rome will look the other way. On the other hand, if he does that, it may give the Society another black eye, so you may as well cut your losses and pull your men instead.

It would not surprise me if some people would say that they don’t care, because they want the three priests gone. The point that they may be missing is that this can also mean the closing of these two parishes, if there is no diocesan priest to take over.

Talked about solid Catholic doctrine in their homilies and other teaching ventures.

Moved the tabernacle back to the middle.

Made the Extraordinary Form available for those who wished to attend it.

Restricted altar service to males. This particular bit is part of their charism; they place a very heavy emphasis on inspiring priestly vocation.

Mentioned the Last things–oh, who would have thought!–at funeral Masses.

Their priests wear Roman chasubles, among others. I haven’t read or heard of a complaint about that, but it is rare enough in the OF to be perhaps a bit odd at first, especially to older people who remember them from the “pre-Conciliar days.”

Heavily restricted the use of EMs.

I don’t know what a lack of joy means, frankly. Personally, I don’t go to Mass to feel like a little boy at the Willy Wonka factory. So unless there is outright hatred and evil faces being spewed from the sanctuary and nothing but the most Calvinistic homilies, I don’t know what “lack of joy” means.

That’s about it, as far as what was talked about in the letters from the bishop.

They don’t preach canonization homilies at funerals. The people don’t like that.

The preach solid homiles, not touchy-feely “Jesus Loves You” homilies. The people don’t like that either.

There’s no “pastoral” ad-libbing during Mass, and they celebrate the liturgy with the “the characteristic sobriety of the Roman Rite” (in the words of the bishop), ie, they celebrate the Mass with reverence, according to the rubrics. They really don’t like that.

That’s about it. They are just mad that their liberal pastor is gone, and that they have new Shepard now who care for their souls instead of their feelings.

Another thing to keep in mind: less than 40% of the parish doesn’t like these priests. That’s means the majority of them are in support of the priests! They are happy with them, and consider them a Godsend. That’s what the news doesn’t tell you.

We have to be very careful and at times gentle in our tone, while at the same time being honest with the people involved. It is better to approach them with rational advice than with sarcasm. Sarcasm can backfire. It often makes people angrier and more entrenched in their position. If find that extreme traditionalists and extreme liberals often result to sarcasm and labels. The response they receive from their audience is rarely positive. It’s usually more opposition.

I thought I’d just add one more thought. I don’t know these three men at all. But there is something to be said about a joyful spirit in a parish. I believe this is a reason that people often prefer to have religious run their parishes. Religious communities bring a sense of family, because the community is a family. With that, there is a sense of joy that draws people. There are many diocesan priests who also trigger a sense of joy in their parishes, because they are very joyful people. I have a good friend who’s a diocesan priest and pastor. He has one of the most joyful parishes that I have ever seen. He’s a very joyful person. He rarely frowns and when there is a crisis, he rarely scowls or panics. He’s very rational and just deals with it one piece at a time. He has a full parish.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[superamazingman]

Well, forty percent is not insignificant. But yes, it does say something.

Ok, I get the funeral complaint. I don’t agree with it, but I can see that happening.

I still wonder about the homilies, what topics did they preach about that ticked people off so much…

Thanks for the response.

I forgot to mention, they’ve also preached (very lovingly) on topics such as birth control, abortion, and gay marriage. That probably really set them off.

 

[superamazingman]

Perhaps they just didn’t allow eulogies, or as someone else said, canonisations.

They probably didn’t, since it is particular law in our diocese that eulogies may not be given during the funeral Mass, or during the liturgical wake service that is sometimes given at the funeral home.

 

[superamazingman]

I thought I’d just add one more thought. I don’t know these three men at all. But there is something to be said about a joyful spirit in a parish. I believe this is a reason that people often prefer to have religious run their parishes. Religious communities bring a sense of family, because the community is a family. With that, there is a sense of joy that draws people. There are many diocesan priests who also trigger a sense of joy in their parishes, because they are very joyful people. I have a good friend who’s a diocesan priest and pastor. He has one of the most joyful parishes that I have ever seen. He’s a very joyful person. He rarely frowns and when there is a crisis, he rarely scowls or panics. He’s very rational and just deals with it one piece at a time. He has a full parish.

Just an FYI, I do know many of them, and they are very happy and joyful men, but they just take the liturgy seriously, as they should. I don’t know if you saw it in one of the articles, but one woman who met with them went into the meeting hating them (her words), and she came out disagreeing with them, but noting how friendly they were, and said that she had a feeling that they truly cared for her, and that she would be open to meeting with them again. If they can do that in one meeting to someone who hates them, that’s a huge testament to them.

 

[JReducation]

They probably didn’t, since it is particular law in our diocese that eulogies may not be given during the funeral Mass, or during the liturgical wake service that is sometimes given at the funeral home.

That’s not just law for your diocese. That’s law for the USA. Bishops and pastors can dispense from that rule, which is a different story. But they’re not encouraged to do so.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV