Cameras for fixing liturgical abuses

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Lilburne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Lilburne

Guest
Fr Peter Kennedy in Queensland, Australia, has been dismissed by his Archbishop as administrator of a parish. He spoke about it on a TV program, the transcript of which is at abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2514401.htm . Some extracts:

"TONY JONES: Peter, let’s - for the national audience who aren’t so familiar with your case, just tell us what you’re accused of and why you were sacked. At least give us a couple of the incidents or the things that have been alleged against you.

PETER KENNEDY: Well, the people that came in were not part of our community at all, and they came in uninvited and arrogantly took photographs of our books and our literature and they sent them off to Rome. Now these people are ultra orthodox Catholics and then without any sort of any - any trial, if you like, or any sort of juridical process, I was just accused of breaking, basically just innovating, if you like, liturgical changes."

Someone suggested that he should have tried a “sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy”. To which he responded:
"PETER KENNEDY: And Tony, we tried that. We kept under the radar all these years, but this ultra orthodox crowd have been going to lots of parishes you see, and seeing it in their right to write to Rome and never exported our side. "

An article about this is at news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25151991-5007191,00.html and includes:
"… After complaining to Archbishop Bathersby and being told more evidence was needed, Mr Stokes used a mobile phone to film a baptism – later shown on YouTube – …
“Frustrated by the slow response of Archbishop Bathersby to his complaint, Mr Stokes compiled all his evidence on to a CD-rom and sent five copies to Rome – one to each of the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops, the Congregation of Clergy, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Doctrine for Divine Worship, as well as one to Pope Benedict XVI. …”. (Daryl Passmore, Courier Mail, 8 March 2009).

Do people see this as an appropriate or worthwhile way to improve the way liturgical ceremonies are conducted?
 
I think it is very appropriate for the extreme circumstances presented in this case. A priest who was putting Bhudda statues on the altar, baptizing with his own invalid formula, and many other abuses needed to be stopped.

This man went through the proper channels and reported it to the Bishop, who did nothing and said he needed “more evidence.” The Bishop should not have put the burden of more evidence on the layman who reported the abuses. His own diocesan offices could have easily investigated, but did not. So, yes, I think video evidence was quite appropriate in this case. And, since the Bishop still did not act when he had the “more evidence” he requested, it was appropriate to send it to Rome.

I do not think it is appropriate in every case. Certainly the chain of command must be respected and the benefit of the doubt given (did I misunderstand Father?). But, there can be no misunderstanding regarding the things this priest was doing. And, he was confronted, then the Bishop was notified and no action was taken.

Video evidence certainly eliminates a “he said/she said” situation. If the priest has nothing to hide, they should not mind being videotaped. Mass is a public act.
 
I have to say that I would hope that I would have the same courage as he does to report the abuses to the proper Church authorities, but something bothers me about him. He seems to go from Church to Church looking for things to go wrong. When someone thinks they know better than the Church, that can turn ugly. I pray that is not what he’s doing and I have misunderstood. As far as the St. Mary’s incident with the Buddha statue…:eek:…I can’t believe that something was not done about that sooner. A Buddha has no place in a Catholic Church!
 
John_Lilburne said:
Fr Peter Kennedy in Queensland, Australia, has been dismissed by his Archbishop as administrator of a parish. He spoke about it on a TV program, the transcript of which is at abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2514401.htm . Some extracts:

"TONY JONES: Peter, let’s - for the national audience who aren’t so familiar with your case, just tell us what you’re accused of and why you were sacked. At least give us a couple of the incidents or the things that have been alleged against you.

PETER KENNEDY: Well, the people that came in were not part of our community at all, and they came in uninvited and arrogantly took photographs of our books and our literature and they sent them off to Rome. Now these people are ultra orthodox Catholics and then without any sort of any - any trial, if you like, or any sort of juridical process, I was just accused of breaking, basically just innovating, if you like, liturgical changes."

Someone suggested that he should have tried a “sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy”. To which he responded:
"PETER KENNEDY: And Tony, we tried that. We kept under the radar all these years, but this ultra orthodox crowd have been going to lots of parishes you see, and seeing it in their right to write to Rome and never exported our side. "

An article about this is at news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25151991-5007191,00.html and includes:
"… After complaining to Archbishop Bathersby and being told more evidence was needed, Mr Stokes used a mobile phone to film a baptism – later shown on YouTube – …
“Frustrated by the slow response of Archbishop Bathersby to his complaint, Mr Stokes compiled all his evidence on to a CD-rom and sent five copies to Rome – one to each of the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops, the Congregation of Clergy, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Doctrine for Divine Worship, as well as one to Pope Benedict XVI. …”. (Daryl Passmore, Courier Mail, 8 March 2009).

Do people see this as an appropriate or worthwhile way to improve the way liturgical ceremonies are conducted?
Click to expand...
Well a picture is worth a thousand words! IF Fr. is doing things correctly all he has to do is is reference the pictures proving that he is following the proper liturgical books. Only of your doing something wrong should you fear pictures or documentation.

However this is a sacred act so some care must be taken.
 
Read the entire article. It’s clear that Mr. Stokes observed some horrible things including an invalid baptism and a statue of Buddha placed on the Altar of Sacrifice.

Action needed to be taken.

But I think if one becomes a vigilante (I don’t think that is a bad word at all, I have been called that and did not mind in the least) they have to be either exceedingly tactful or a Joe Friday “just-the-facts” sorta person. They need to be totally beyond reproach and they had better be ferreting out honest to goodness abuses and not licit practices that offend their personal taste. If they are then there’s not going to be controversy.

Given some of Mr. Stokes’ comments, I’m not at all sure he is that sort of man.
 
Whatever the abuse(s) , I hate to think of cameras being used during Mass to conduct a “sting operation”…but I suppose there’s no ther way to adequately “document” these sorts of things.

My take on all of this, is that had restrictions been made and ENFORCED on liturgical changes, none of this would be happening…but then again, are we at a place where we need to “police” the clergy?

It’s no wonder there is a growing desire to return to preVatican II ways…

The thing that scares me is that more people don’t speak out and demand this sort of thing stop. We have become too complacent in “accepting” these crazy abuses.
 
There’s a substantial difference between the Buddha statue on the altar, and what sometimes gets reported here as “abuses,” such as one of the leser-used Eucharistic Prayers, or an optional Penetential Rite, when people don’t hear what they’re used to hearing, and think they’ve witnessed an “abuse.” A cadre of people at Mass ready to wield their cellphone cameras as a “GIRM Gotcha” team to capture what they feel are abuses seems to me to be an abuse itself, highly distracting to others, and raises questions as to their intention in even attending Mass.

This is not to deny that there are real abuses, or to defend such, but I would not like to encourage self-appointed liturgical photo policing in the assembly.
 
The follow video is from a different situation but again people recorded an abuse, this time committed by an Archbishop. Do I think people should record such things? Yes! Dont go looking for trouble but if you do see something by all means expose it.
youtube.com/watch?v=x_FDl1XX7js&NR=1
 
Mattapoisett64 said:
There’s a substantial difference between the Buddha statue on the altar, and what sometimes gets reported here as “abuses,” such as one of the leser-used Eucharistic Prayers, or an optional Penetential Rite, when people don’t hear what they’re used to hearing, and think they’ve witnessed an “abuse.” A cadre of people at Mass ready to wield their cellphone cameras as a “GIRM Gotcha” team to capture what they feel are abuses seems to me to be an abuse itself, highly distracting to others, and raises questions as to their intention in even attending Mass.

This is not to deny that there are real abuses, or to defend such, but I would not like to encourage self-appointed liturgical photo policing in the assembly.
Click to expand...
You are so right. A great many things listed as “abuses” are not abuses. Many would not even be considered irregularities. Many are licit options that some are not aware of and/or they do not care for. Labeling such options as “abuses” kills the credibility of the “GIRM gotcha teams.”
 
Here’s how to handle abuses, real or not:
  1. Talk to the pastor, asking him about what you saw or heard. It might not be an abuse.
  2. If, however, you know it is an abuse, and the pastor dose not correct it, than you write to the bishop
  3. If the bishop dose not take care of the situation, than you write to the Vatican.
And keep the letters short, to the point, kind, and without a shred of emotion or telling the proper authorities how to do their job.
 
Eucharisted said:
Here’s how to handle abuses, real or not:
  1. Talk to the pastor, asking him about what you saw or heard. It might not be an abuse.
  2. If, however, you know it is an abuse, and the pastor dose not correct it, than you write to the bishop
  3. If the bishop dose not take care of the situation, than you write to the Vatican.
And keep the letters short, to the point, kind, and without a shred of emotion or telling the proper authorities how to do their job.
Click to expand...
You had better two certain about two things – and most are not.
  1. That is truly is an abuse. That’s not always easy to ascertain. Just look at the comments on these and other forums.
  2. Where the authority lies for the given issue. If it lies with your own bishop and you write to the Holy See you’ll do nothing but waste peoples’ time and maybe engender hard feelings.
  3. You didn’t even mention the most efficacious way to handle real abuses. Prayer.
 
The Vatican has insisted that laypeople have the right to tell them about things in their parishes that trouble them, in the face of the way that some people and clerics say that it is wrong for them to do this. One thing that this priest did needed to be stopped immediately. Good for this man. If someone is invalidly baptized, they are denied the life of supernatural grace that comes through Christ. I find in incredible that a priest will do that to all the children in his parish that are presented for baptism. I have heard several cases when the priest used invalid words of baptism for years, one priest in Australia, the other in the United States. And both times the bishop had to make a public announcement about this so that everyone who had been invalidly baptized by the priest would come and receive the baptism they had been denied to them by the priest. I doubt that he was able to reach everyone so that they all could be baptized.
 
I think that the person who contacted the Vatican in this case did the Church a great service and I am saddened that the relevant authority, the local Bishop, declined to investigate the matter fully and immediately when the initial report was made to him. Would it not have been perfectly reasonable, upon seeing a Buddha statue in a church, to assume anyway that the Bishop was aware, as he ought to have been, and gone straight to Rome. This was not a case (as far as I understand it) of permitted liturgical choices but of invention and such things deserve to be uncovered and urgently reported to whatever competent authority is most likely to take immediate action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top