Can assoc. pastor overrule pastor on issues at assoc. pastor's mass?

[Digitonomy]

I was surprised in another thread to read this:

Brendan:

For example, a Bishop does not have the authority to force a celebrant to use females in altar service. And thus, even a pastor cannot force an associate pastor to use altar girls.

This was based on a Canonical prinicilple that being granted an option to do something does not empower a mandate to do something.

My question is, in what areas can a pastor force an associate pastor to do something in the associate’s celebration of the mass?

For instance, can he force there to be organ music at a mass, or require that a particular vestment be used, or a particular sacristan fill that role?

I had always assumed that the pastor was basically captain of the ship, and his rule was supreme at the parish unless there was a contrary canon or bishop’s rule on a topic. So while requiring a particular vestment would seem unlikely except for a real control freak, scheduling of the personnel to assist at the mass, and other decisions about how the mass is to be presented seem like powers the pastor would certainly have, and not be subject to quibbling by an associate pastor or a visiting priest.

 

[Phemie]

I was surprised in another thread to read this:

My question is, in what areas can a pastor force an associate pastor to do something in the associate’s celebration of the mass?

For instance, can he force there to be organ music at a mass, or require that a particular vestment be used, or a particular sacristan fill that role?

I had always assumed that the pastor was basically captain of the ship, and his rule was supreme at the parish unless there was a contrary canon or bishop’s rule on a topic. So while requiring a particular vestment would seem unlikely except for a real control freak, scheduling of the personnel to assist at the mass, and other decisions about how the mass is to be presented seem like powers the pastor would certainly have, and not be subject to quibbling by an associate pastor or a visiting priest.

I don’t know about anything else but I do know that the celebrant is free NOT to have female altar servers, even in parishes where they are normally part of that ministry. Like other things that go against the universal norm, Rome gives permission as long as someone who wants to stay with the universal norm is allowed to do so.

 

[Digitonomy]

Like other things that go against the universal norm, Rome gives permission as long as someone who wants to stay with the universal norm is allowed to do so.

So at a time when there was only a local indult for a Saturday evening anticipated mass, an associate pastor could have refused his pastor’s instruction to celebrate mass Saturday evening?

 

[Phemie]

So at a time when there was only a local indult for a Saturday evening anticipated mass, an associate pastor could have refused his pastor’s instruction to celebrate mass Saturday evening?

Hmmm, there’s a good question. I imagine he could have. Not sure how that one would have been interpreted though, Canon Law having been different back then.

The way Canon Law is worded today, a woman ‘may’ be admitted to service at the altar.

The CDW clarified what that meant in a letter dated July 27, 2001.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… but I do know that the celebrant is free NOT to have female altar servers,…

I have difficulty with this positiion.

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“107. The liturgical duties that are not proper to the priest or the deacon and are listed above (cf. nos. 100-106) may also be entrusted by a liturgical blessing or a temporary deputation to suitable lay persons chosen by the pastor or rector of the church.”

The positions listed above in nos. 100-106 are:
Altar servers in the absence of instituted acolytes (100)
Lectors in the absence of instituted lectors (101)
Psalmist (102)
Choir (103)
Cantor or choir director (104)
Sacristan (105a)
Commentator (105b)
Those who take up church collection (105c)
Ushers or greeters (105d)

So I would see the pastor or the rector of the church as deciding who does these roles.

It could be argued that this decision is restricted for the Masses of other priests, by the letter of 27 July 2001 on altar servers, which is at adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html . It includes “In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers …”.

The 2002 GIRM is more recent and it is a liturgical book. So it carries more weight, in my mind, than the letter.

 

[Digitonomy]

Phemie, I think you’re reading too much into the CDW’s letter. The relevant passage is

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not… require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar”

… it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors

It sounds to me that 1) The restriction mentioned is specifically on the bishop, who may not impose female altar servers on a parish, and 2) The letter specifically mentions the decision of the pastor as being important regarding whether female altar servers are pastorally appropriate.

It is by no means clear-cut, but I think the letter can be read that such a decision is for the pastor, not the bishop, without extending such decision-making power to the associate pastor, deacon, etc.

Such a reading has the advantage of not undermining the power of the pastor on the issues I mentioned at the top.

 

[Brendan]

It is by no means clear-cut, but I think the letter can be read that such a decision is for the pastor, not the bishop, without extending such decision-making power to the associate pastor, deacon, etc.

Such a reading has the advantage of not undermining the power of the pastor on the issues I mentioned at the top.

That position is a bit hard to justify, a pastor cannot have more control over the liturgy in a parish than the bishop himself.

The pastor recieves his authority in the parish from the bishop, and a bishop cannot grant more authority in a matter than he himself has.

 

[Brendan]

I
For instance, can he force there to be organ music at a mass, or require that a particular vestment be used, or a particular sacristan fill that role?.

An Associate cannot force a pastor to hire someone who plays the organ, but the Associate can state that instruments not be used at all.

He cannot force the pastor to buy certain vestments using parish money, but he could wear his own vestments if he so chose ( the same is true for the use of sacred vessels)

He could not have a particular sacristan scheduled but he could refuse the service of a sacristan he did not approve of.

 

[BellsAndSmells]

I don’t know about anything else but I do know that the celebrant is free NOT to have female altar servers, even in parishes where they are normally part of that ministry. Like other things that go against the universal norm, Rome gives permission as long as someone who wants to stay with the universal norm is allowed to do so.

The “universal norm” per the GIRM is both male and female altar servers.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As far as I know, only the pastor has a canonical right to his assignment for a set term. Associates can be rather quickly transferred at the bishop’s sole discretion. It behooves the associate to keep the pastor happy.

On the other hand the bishop in event of disagreement the bishop may transfer the associate and not send a replacement.

I have seen both occur.

 

[Joannm]

An Associate cannot force a pastor to hire someone who plays the organ, but the Associate can state that instruments not be used at all.

He cannot force the pastor to buy certain vestments using parish money, but he could wear his own vestments if he so chose ( the same is true for the use of sacred vessels)

He could not have a particular sacristan scheduled but he could refuse the service of a sacristan he did not approve of.

Things like this would cause great division in a parish. We have certain things we do in our parish. Even visiting priests are asked to follow the way we do things. If an associate didn’t like a particular sacristian, well I guess my pastor would just say. “OK then set everything up yourself.” If he didn’t like the choir, the pastor could not just tell the choir not to sing at their regular mass. If he doesn’ want female servers, and that is who is assigned to his mass, then he would have to do without servers or find his own. The pastor is the associate’s “boss” for lack of a better word. He has to follow what his boss tells him to do. To do other wise would give him the reputation around the diocese of being difficult and most likely would not get him a good assignment next time…or a parish out in the boondocks.

 

[Brendan]

The pastor is the associate’s “boss” for lack of a better word. He has to follow what his boss tells him to do. To do other wise would give him the reputation around the diocese of being difficult and most likely would not get him a good assignment next time…or a parish out in the boondocks.

The pastor cannot be the associate’s “boss” more than the bishop himself could be. The Vatican has decreed that the bishop cannot force a priest to accept the things mentioned, so neither could the pastor.

And who knows that parish in the “boondocks” might become a bastion for fidelity to the Magisterium

I personally know a priest who, as an associate pastor at a parish, insisted that the psalm be sung as written, without using the OCP version and only accepted altar boys. Sure enough, the parish complained and the associated was transferred shortly after that.

He is now pastor of a much larger parish; a parish that has produced several vocations to the priesthood in this pastor’s time there. The original pastor, the one who objected to the altarboys is now out in the “boondocks”. In that pastor’s time in the priesthood, he has not produced a single vocation as pastor.

 

[Brendan]

As far as I know, only the pastor has a canonical right to his assignment for a set term. Associates can be rather quickly transferred at the bishop’s sole discretion. It behooves the associate to keep the pastor happy.

Why?

 

[Joannm]

The pastor cannot be the associate’s “boss” more than the bishop himself could be. The Vatican has decreed that the bishop cannot force a priest to accept the things mentioned, so neither could the pastor.

And who knows that parish in the “boondocks” might become a bastion for fidelity to the Magisterium

We have had the situations in our diocese where priests, on both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum, who were consistently at odds with their pastors, even after being moved around several times, were forced to take a leave of absence. There is a structure within a parish, and an associate has to work within that structure. The Sunday Mass does not belong to the individual celebrant, it belongs to the people of the parish, and the pastor is responsible for it and what is done and not done at it. If the associate doesn’t like the music at the 9:00 mass, whether it be a traditional choir or over-aged hippies singing songs from the 60’s, he should not have the right to refuse to celebrate that mass if his pastor asks him to do it, especially if there are only two priests in a parish.

 

[Digitonomy]

The pastor recieves his authority in the parish from the bishop, and a bishop cannot grant more authority in a matter than he himself has.

This is true theoretically, and was true in practice historically, but nowadays the pastor is granted certain authority canonically, such as that listed by John Lilburne above. I’m not sure that a bishop automatically has authority to insist a person be choir director of a parish, just because the pastor has that authority.

Brendan:

An Associate cannot force a pastor to hire someone who plays the organ, but the Associate can state that instruments not be used at all.

He cannot force the pastor to buy certain vestments using parish money, but he could wear his own vestments if he so chose ( the same is true for the use of sacred vessels)

He could not have a particular sacristan scheduled but he could refuse the service of a sacristan he did not approve of.

Your position, like mine, has the virtue of being consistent. I’m still not convinced. Either these issues are mere disagreements where an associate should be obedient when possible because it’s polite, as Joe Kelley and Joanm seem to agree with you, or a pastor actually has authority over liturgies in his parish which the associate is canonically obliged to follow, despite his disagreements, unless the pastor is requiring something unlawful.

Two priests may disagree about whether to watch a television show at night, and such a disagreement may balloon so much that the bishop is forced to replace the associate, but the associate has no obligation to watch what the pastor demands. On the other hand, however much he hates the organist and choir, I think the associate is canonically obliged to put up with them at his Sunday morning mass if the pastor insists on it.

 

[stbruno]

Personally, I don’t think this pastor is going to be able to hold associate pastors for any length of time. Not only that, associate pastors talk to each other…alot. So interesting. Personally, if I were a pastor and the associate was not breaking canon laws or rubrics for a mass…I would not say anything to him unless there were some serious violations. Just my opinion as a deacon.

 

[Brendan]

. On the other hand, however much he hates the organist and choir, I think the associate is canonically obliged to put up with them at his Sunday morning mass if the pastor insists on it.

Can you site the canon? The associate is certainly bound to obedience, but when the Vatican has confirmed that the bishop’s authority is not present in certain circumstances, how can a pastor have more canonical authority?

 

[Digitonomy]

Can you site the canon? The associate is certainly bound to obedience, but when the Vatican has confirmed that the bishop’s authority is not present in certain circumstances, how can a pastor have more canonical authority?

The GIRM section that John Lilburne cited is a pretty good one for some of those issues. I cannot, however, resolve the contradiction you have pointed out with regard to the bishop’s authority - I would like to hear a canon lawyer clarify this.

 

[benedictgal]

In my parish, it’s a rather fascinating study in contrast. Our pastor comes out in his alb before Mass and pretty much does the meet and greet thing. He also has the flourescent lights turned on and everything is surgically bright white. He also preaches from the center aisle and makes announcements during the collection.

When my PV celebrates Mass, the lights in the body of the church are dimmed and, sometimes before the liturgy begins, he’s in front of the Tabernacle praying his Office (our Tabernacle is off the side, but still next to the sanctuary). He preaches from the ambo and defers all announcements until after the Post-Communion prayer.

They are both good men and good priests and don’t seem to interfere with each other’s liturgical styles.

 

[NetNuncio]

The “universal norm” per the GIRM is both male and female altar servers.

This is not the case.

The most recent letter concerning this matter, which can be found here: adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

says " the Diocesan Bishop, in his role as moderator of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, has the authority to permit service at the altar by women within the boundaries of the territory entrusted to his care."

So, there is no “universal norm”, per se.

The Institutio Generalis Missale Romani (GIRM) assumes that the role of acolyte is filled by “a duly installed acolyte”. This would require that they be male and over the age of 18 (in the United States). No assumption are made of the traditional “altar boy” or “altar server” in the Institutio and therefor there is no “universal norm”. Canon law may be another matter…Canonist in the house?

Adam