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.
ZMystiCat said:
As NCR noted, the Bishop did state in his general announcement that he was in favor of traditional elements. Specifically:
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)…Traditional practices can enrich our liturgies.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t really seem in about of it at all. This the most concerning part of his statement. He seems to want to drive traditional liturgies out of the typical parish and relegate them to one central location. In effect treating a traditional normal form of the mass the same as the EM form of the mass.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
Doesn’t really seem in about of it at all. This the most concerning part of his statement. He seems to want to drive traditional liturgies out of the typical parish and relegate them to one central location. In effect treating a traditional normal form of the mass the same as the EM form of the mass.
Click to expand...
We really don’t have the full context of his diocese, but given these recent events, I think it should be completely understandable why he’d want to have a parish dedicated to traditional practice over introducing it to established ones.

My diocese actually isn’t that different. There’s one parish that is very traditional, and anyone in the diocese who wants traditional practice can go there. From what I’ve heard, plenty of people travel to that parish rather than go to one closer to where they live. It’s serving a need, not being where traditional practice gets relegated. (Actually, the only TLM I’m aware of is offered at a different parish which is otherwise not as traditional.)
 
Last edited:
I’ve never been convinced that most people DON’T want traditional trappings at Liturgy. Where they are included, people seem to appreciate it. It seems to me that the bare bones praise and worship suburban style liturgy was forced on the laity…not a grass roots movement. It’s simply what people are now used to. But I could be wrong.
Every Orthodox parish in the world is what we would call “super traditional” and no one seems to mind.
 
Last edited:
You’re reaching for a preferred conclusion which isn’t supported by the available facts.

It’s one thing to state that people may have piled on and reacted to Fr’s removal without knowing everything that led to it. It’s quite another to infer gross negilgence or criminality.

Bias, indeed.
 
Last edited:
People jumping to conclusions on both sides then or am I reading things wrong?
 
Last edited:
Edmundus1581 said:
From what I can find the priest’s motives and changes are all sound.
Click to expand...
I agree. What we don’t know is how he went about implementing the changes, and how he responded when some people objected – no matter how proper the changes might have been.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
I’ve never been convinced that most people DON’T want traditional trappings at Liturgy. Where they are included, people seem to appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I think a challenge here is that it is hard for confirmation bias to not creep in. If someone likes traditional practice, they might seek out a parish with a lot of traditional practice. In doing so, they are surrounded by like-minded people and risk forgetting that, in the grand scheme of things, they make up a very small percentage of the Catholics in their diocese.

Personally, I tend to be mixed towards traditional practice. Some I love (e.g. incense, bells), and some I would much rather do without (e.g. Latin), but I’m pretty tolerant given that I don’t go to Mass over whether we say “Lord have mercy” or “Kyrie eleison.” With that said, though, I’m pretty sure part of my time in purgatory will be spent getting over the hatred I have for the guy who decided that reverent music requires boring, droning melodies with barely a sense of rhythm.
 
Last edited:
Im not reaching for any conclusion at all. Everything I stated in the post you quoted is either a conceded fact of the story or me offering a reason for my skepticism of the way it’s been reported by tradition-friendly sources.

The consequences suffered by the priest are way beyond a mere “lack of people skills”, they are indeed usually indicative of something much more serious like gross negligence or criminal acts. We only had the priest’s side of the story (although @ZMystiCat pointed out some clarification by the bishop) and a massive traddy echosphere repeating the same narrative of a poor tradition minded priest who’s being made a white martyr by the diocesan administrator.

It’s precisely because this priest is the kind of priest I personally would sympathize with (please, take a look at my posting history and see where I fall on the liturgical praxis spectrum) that I’m being exceptionally cautious. This is precisely the kind of story that I and others with my liturgical proclivities could easily get carried away with because it appears to vindicate “our side” in the liturgical wars. People like me are exactly the type of audience the Church Militant types are banking on clutching our pearls over. So yeah, I am in fact keeping my biases in check.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on the diocese and also what you mean by traditional. Our cathedral has 4 daily Masses and 7 Sunday Masses and all have some “traditional” elements- at least on Sundays. The cathedral sets the standard for its diocese (or at least should).
 
Last edited:
I know I have said it before but this priest has made a promise of obedience to his bishop. For me that is as far as it needs to go.
 
Last edited:
Yes and the bishop sets the tone for his diocese. When our archbishop celebrates Mass at the cathedral, there is polyphony, chant, incense, some Latin, etc… he thus sets the bar for his archdiocese. Other dioceses will have different expectations.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
we asked the priest to please make sure that the congregation is “taught” the chants (e.g., correct pronunciation of the Latin, repeating the “melody” and also finding it in the hymnal, etc.), rather than expected to just follow along and pick them up by osmosis. He said that the chants would be taught.

They weren’t taught. It sounded awful
Click to expand...
That’s too bad.

We have certain responses said in Latin. For a while we had cards with the responses in the pews, so all could sing along. We don’t have the cards anymore but the words are in the missals if needed and it is beautiful when are parish sings the responses in Latin. Most all know them by heart at this point.

Perhaps your parish will try again and teach everyone how to pronounce and sing the responses.
 
Last edited:
The Register called him a parochial administrator. I do nt believe that is the same as a pastor. What’s up with that?
 
Last edited:
It is best to pm @camoderator with questions about removed posts
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure why it was removed. It may be something that just happened when they combined the two threads. I will say I completely agree with the post.
 
Last edited:
Mi_Rose said:
I know I have said it before but this priest has made a promise of obedience to his bishop. For me that is as far as it needs to go.
Click to expand...
His own comments on FB to the parish reflect this:
Regarding my assignments**

Dear Parish Family,

I speak to you today in thanksgiving for the many blessings you have brought into my life these past 6 months. I also speak to you with a heavy heart.

On Wednesday, January 30th, His Excellency Bishop Walter Hurley, apostolic administrator of the Diocese of Saginaw revoked my appointment as chaplain of Saginaw Valley State University. The reason given in his decree of revocation is the following:

I have found it opportune to appoint another priest, Reverend Steve Gavit, as chaplain of Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), effective today.

On the same day, Bishop Hurley also revoked my appointment as parochial administrator at Our Lady of Peace Parish, effective this coming February 8th.

It is very important for all of you to know that it was not due to any allegation of misconduct of any nature on my part that Bishop Hurley decided to revoke my appointments as chaplain of SVSU and as Parochial Administrator of Our Lady of Peace Parish. My appointments have been revoked, I am not being removed for any wrongdoing.

At the same time, out of complete respect for the ecclesiastical authority currently governing our Diocese, Bishop Hurley the Apostolic Administrator, I cannot comment on the decisions taken, nor on any private conversations held between His Excellency and me.

I have been assigned residence at Holy Family Parish in Saginaw, MI. None of my faculties as a priest have been suspended, or restricted. I will be awaiting a new assignment in the meantime.

Our time together was short, but I appreciated it dearly. This was a shock to me, and I’m sure it is to most of you. But Scripture teaches us “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:20) I simply ask you to pray for me, my family, this parish, and His Excellency the apostolic administrator.

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Peace may the Good Lord bless and keep you all the days of your lives.

prayers,

Fr. Edwin C. Dwyer, JCL
Click to expand...
So he’s being obedient, as he should. I don’t think that means parishioners of OLOP can’t be upset about what’s transpired, though.
 
Good point.

It doesn’t look like too many people are happy to see this priest go. Sounds like there are some pretty upset parishioners there to support him, which is good.
 
Last edited:
Mi_Rose said:
The Register called him a parochial administrator. I do nt believe that is the same as a pastor. What’s up with that?
Click to expand...
Since the bishop himself is just a temporary administrator, he likely will leave the appointing of pastors to the next bishop.

Apart from that, sometimes bishops will appoint a priest as “parochial administrator” particularly when they have never been a pastor before. Per canon law, pastors cannot just be moved willy-nilly. Parochial administrators, on the other hand, can be moved for any reason or no reason at all. It’s a way for a bishop to give a priest an assignment of greater responsibility on a “trial run” before making it more official and long-term.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top