Bishop removes Saginaw priest Fr. Edwin Dwyer from all assignments

  • Thread starter Thread starter otrrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

otrrl

Guest
Secondary sources are saying that temporary administrator Bp. Hurley of the diocese of Saginaw has removed Fr. Edwin Dwyer from his assignments as student chaplain at Saginaw Valley State University and from Bay City Michigan Our Lady of Peace parish.

There was what appears to have been an impromptu “town hall” meeting on Jan 21 (which I didn’t know anything about) at the parish apparently to complain of a few more traditional elements the priest was trying to introduce back into the Mass – incense, bells, candles.

His reported deassignment from the college and the parish is what I’d call hitting a nail with a sledge hammer. No crime, no sexual abuse, no mismanagement of money, no nothing, just yanked out for mysterious reasons. The bishop apparently released a letter on this subject, but it is not on the diocesan website.

Fr. Dwyer was making statements, explanations during the week liturgies. I didn’t know if these were ordinary explanations of “changes” he wanted to make, or if he was editorializing to some critics in the parish. Amidst all the OTHER shocking revelations in the Church in the last several months, donations to the parish have fallen off a couple thousand dollars per week. I have no idea if there is any connection of all these things, but this is a Covington-like heavy handed action, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.
And, being a personnel issue, the Bishop is under no obligation to give anyone a reason.
 
There’s more to this story, I’ll bet. I have seen priests come and go from many parishes and some use incense, bells and candles and some do not, and nobody gets removed from their ministry over it.
 
Here is the only primary source I could find. The first mention of this is under “Clergy Appointments”, but it doesn’t go into the details of why Fr. Dwyer is being reassigned. The following section is also relevant given how people are trying to make this a matter of traditional liturgy (emphasis added):
It is clear to me that there is a need to make available on a regular basis to the people of the diocese in a central location a more traditional celebration of the Liturgy (greater use of Latin and practices that have often been identified with traditional forms of the liturgy). It is not a matter of reversing the challenges and opportunities made possible by the Second Vatican Council. Traditional practices can enrich our liturgies. It may be useful to provide a central location that embodies traditional practices in a way beyond what many parishes find acceptable and enriching in their prayer life. The challenge is always to find the balance. This is an issue I hope to address without delay.
Click to expand...
So it doesn’t sound like Bishop Hurley is heavily opposed to traditional liturgy and punishing Dwyer for that, as some sites are making it seem.

The letter sent to the parish is at the end. From the sounds of it, Bishop Hurley asked Fr. Dwyer to step away while they look into and find solutions for concerns raised about division at the parish. Fr. Dwyer declined. However, Bishop Hurley started receiving various communications that made it clear people had been told an inaccurate account of what happened between the Bishop and priest. It sounds like this might be the primary cause of his removal. Whether it is because Fr. Dwyer contributed to that or to make the investigation easier is hard to say, though.

As far as I can tell, this is all Bishop Hurley has said about the matter. There’s really no indication that this was caused because of Fr. Dwyer’s traditional practices, except maybe that it caused problems at his parish.
 
Last edited:
Technically you are if course correct, and I am sure there is more to this story. So realize I am only responding to your comment. I believe we have reached a stage where Bishops must provide much more transparency than their canonical obligations may require.
 
This isn’t Canonical though, it is a personnel matter.
You wouldn’t want your boss talking publically about your disciplinary measures. Why, if it involves no abuse or anything illegal, do you think anyone should know about this incident?
 
Man, even the title is misleading, given what information we have at least. Even if I don’t expect any more from CM, it’s still disappointing.
 
Based on the letter the bishop posted on the diocesan website, it appears that his liturgy changes were the sole reason he was removed. I remember when his video about the liturgy went viral a few months ago some people commented that he would probably be punished for introducing tradition back into the liturgy. Striking how quickly those predictions have come true.
 
tafan2 said:
I believe we have reached a stage where Bishops must provide much more transparency than their canonical obligations may require.
Click to expand...
I go to the EF myself sometimes, I am sympathetic to tradition.
However be careful before we pick up the chant of the secular media about the bishops and demand “transparency” to the pro abortion TV and newspaper. This is comparable to bringing rattlesnakes into your house because you see an occasional mouse.

In my city the newspaper is obsessed, a few articles each week urging laity to be suspicious of the bishop, and demand “accountability”, provided by the media, of course.
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree. My point was more directed to the parishioners having accurate information.
 
I strongly suspect there is more to this story than a priest introducing some traditional aspects to his mass.

I have seen a few priests do this in my time never with a problem- and that’s with more liberal leaning Bishops.
 
Weserthy said:
Based on the letter the bishop posted on the diocesan website, it appears that his liturgy changes were the sole reason he was removed.
Click to expand...
Did we even read the same document? Bishop Hurley never said that Fr. Dwyer is being reassigned over introduction of traditional practice. In fact, Bishop Hurley stated that traditional practice has value. The two reasons he brought up were:
  1. That there were complaints from parishioners of division.
  2. Based on emails and phone calls the Bishop received, it was clear that some people had false information about what happened during his meetings with Fr. Dwyer.
While the first reason is likely due in part to Fr. Dwyer’s introduction of traditional practice (though there could be more to the story), it still does not show that tradition was the “sole reason” for removal. And of course the second reason is completely removed from it, given that it shows Fr. Dwyer might be using his position to disrupt the investigation into the first matter or might knowingly be letting rumors go unchecked.

Of course, we don’t have the full story, but what we do have doesn’t at all indicate that Fr. Dwyer was dismissed over traditional practice, and we should avoid uncharitably reading in motivations that only serve to feed preconceived narratives.
 
Let’s just say I’m not automatically taking the Bishop at his word. I’m not saying he’s lying, but I’m not going to assume there’s not some ulterior motive, either. Some bishops will pay lip service to tradition and then have an aneurism when a priest suggests saying mass ad orientum.

I did see there was a Facebook group organized in support of the priest to get people to turn out for his last mass, and it was reportedly standing room only, for what it’s worth.
 
Last edited:
Weserthy said:
I’m not automatically taking the Bishop at his word. I’m not saying he’s lying, but I’m not going to assume there’s not some ulterior motive, either.
Click to expand...
This is the typical attitude the media seeks to nurture among all Catholics, towards all the bishops. I don’t live in that diocese, I don’t know the facts about that bishop or priest.

But in my Diocese, the media does everything they can to make laity suspicious of the bishop, no matter what the issue. Even when you think the laity’s position would never be supported by the pro abortion media, for instance if a few people complain about the bishop not excommunicating a vile politician, the media spins this around to show the bishop is bad. And that the laity are FED UP.
 
Weserthy said:
Let’s just say I’m not automatically taking the Bishop at his word. I’m not saying he’s lying, but I’m not going to assume there’s not some ulterior motive, either.
Click to expand...
I think the words of Jesus in Luke 6:31 are relevant here:
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure none of us like not being taken at our word or being assumed to have ulterior motives. It would be one thing if Bishop Hurley has a demonstrable and unapologetic history of being untrustworthy on this matter, but as far as I can tell, he doesn’t.
 
Last June this priest wrote a short essay for uCatholic that is interesting, both in its own right, and in that it may be relevant to the generational dynamics going on here: " Young Catholic Women Want Better Representation… Of Men". [just google this title if interested in reading, since I can’t, apparently, post links]

Some Boomer age Catholics (understandably) hold on as viciously to the traditions and ideologies that have characterized the post-conciliar Church as many younger Catholics are (understandably) hungrily reaching back to the traditions and norms which characterized Christianity for 1500 years.

This priest is in his mid-thirties and, perhaps most significantly, has been doing campus ministry – which is the most dynamic and vibrant area of American Catholicism today.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand. Here in Greenwood, Indiana we have used incense, bells, on a rare occasion Latin for the Angus Dei. In our main church we have two candles on their own stands off the alter right and left. But in our original mission church which we use as a chapel now, the candles remain on the altar itself. To my knowledge, none of these uses is against the rubrics of the Mass. In fact, about a decade ago, a new young priest joined the parish and was very strong in “defending the current rubrics of the Mass”. He was the one that used more incense etc. Now, directly disobeying the Bishop is against the oath taken…that is a major infraction of Church law. Something has really gone astray here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top