S
SonCatcher
Guest
Let’s see… deceiving someone into forsaking Holy Mass and into an objectively disordered lifestyle… I don’t think I want to meet those “angels.”
- Status
R
Rachel_1
Guest
No doubt!
Ok here’s the thing… Look at what Jesus did for us, I mean seriously look at the sacrifice He made… and we’re going to treat his Sacrifice with such disregard all the time because we’re afraid we may ‘offend’ someone?? Really?? How offended do you think God is right about now with all the sin going on in the world… and in His own Church?
J
JReducation
Guest
There are a few details that are not clear from this article. It does not say if these individuals are marching with the pastor’s blessing. One thing that I noticed was that the contacts were lay people with addresses outside of the parish. The other thing that I noticed is that the people doing the speaking are lay men, not the Jesuits.
If we look at this from another perspective, the Archbishop has asked that they not march. He has not ordered them not to march. Canonically, requesting and ordering are not the same. Their actions do not incur any canonical or moral consequence, because it’s not defiance. The Church only applies the word “defiant” when a law has been broken or a command has been ignored. If it is a request, Church law says that there is no defiance and no sin. It is an imprudent choice on the part of the participants. Please understand that my role as Franciscan Brother of Life is to clarify these life issues for the faithful, not to agree or disagree with the folks in this article. In fact, I’m not allowed to have an opinion, except that which is allowed to me by my superior.
That being said, there is the second question, which is not clear and that is the position of the Jesuits in this. If this is a diocesan parish, even though it is administered by a religious order, the local bishop has the authority to make such rulings as “you may not march under the name of the parish.” The Jesuits are bound to obey that ruling, because they do not own the parish. They are employed by the Archdiocese. You cannot represent your employer, unless he gives you permission to do so. The same applies to the Church.
The Jesuits may march in the parade under their own names, with the permission of their provincial superior. The bishop has no authority over religious. Religious orders of men never answer to bishops. This is against Church law and it’s an abuse to expect them to do so. The reason for this law is that the provincial superiors and the general superiors are higher ranking than the bishops, even if these superiors are not priests. A consecrated religious superior has a higher rank in the Church’s line of authority than a bishop in relation to his religious order. This only applies to orders, not to congregations of sisters. Women do not have the same privilege of Ordinary Authority. Since the Jesuits are not women, they have the right of Ordinary Authority. The article does not say that the Jesuits are marching or that the Jesuit Provincial has authorized them to do so. I don’t know if the Jesuits are being disobedient or not. There is no comment about them.
If this is a canonical parish, then it belongs to the diocese. Parishes never belong to religious orders. Even if we build them with our own money, they automatically belong to the diocese in which they are erected. The Jesuits and the laity have an obligation to obey the bishop’s orders. But the bishop must give an order and it has to be in writing to have authority over the religious, not the laity. A bishop can give oral orders to laity and to secular priests, and women religious, never to male religious. When he writes such an order to them, he must sent a copy to the provincial superior or the superior general who must then require his religious to comply with the bishop. The article does not say if any of this has taken place or if there has been any dialogue between the Archbishop and the Jesuits. We’ll have to wait and see.
Finally, there is an error in one post, about the suspension of priests. If you are a male religious AND a priest, your status in the Church is that of a consecrated priest, which is different from your typical parish priest. Parish priests are usually secular men. If you are a religious the bishop can only suspend you from celebrating the sacraments on his property. He has no jurisdiction over you outside of Church property. Only the major superior can suspend your faculties in the diocese and anywhere else. If the Archbishop suspends a Jesuit, that priest cannot celebrate the sacraments in any diocesan facility. But he can celebrate them in any facility owned by any religious order. The religious superiors can grant faculties. If he goes to a Dominican house, the Prior can grant him faculties to celebrate the sacraments. The Prior outranks the bishop, inside of the priory, even if the priest is a Jesuit. It’s the Dominican’s house.
In addition, the bishop cannot penalize the Jesuits. That’s why to some it may look like nothing is ever done. It’s not that nothing is ever done; it’s that it is a grave sin, punishable by excommunication, for a bishop to penalize a religious order. Once the order is canonically established in a diocese, to penalize the order constitutes barring the order. No bishop has the authority to bar a religious order of men, nor to disband it either, not even within his diocese. Once they are in, they are in to stay. Only a pope or a superior of that order can consequence a religious community. That’s why bishops have to tread gently when dealing with religious orders of men. They can end up excommunicating themselves in trying to do the right thing by doing it the wrong way. The best thing for the bishop to do is to negotiate a solution with the Jesuit superior, if the Jesuits are involved in the march at all. If the Jesuits agree not to go to the march, then they are not the guilty ones here. There are many things that take place behind closed doors that most of us do not see or ever get told about, because the Church is not allowed to share with the laity. Let’s hope and pray that this will be settled in a way that is for the good of all.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If we look at this from another perspective, the Archbishop has asked that they not march. He has not ordered them not to march. Canonically, requesting and ordering are not the same. Their actions do not incur any canonical or moral consequence, because it’s not defiance. The Church only applies the word “defiant” when a law has been broken or a command has been ignored. If it is a request, Church law says that there is no defiance and no sin. It is an imprudent choice on the part of the participants. Please understand that my role as Franciscan Brother of Life is to clarify these life issues for the faithful, not to agree or disagree with the folks in this article. In fact, I’m not allowed to have an opinion, except that which is allowed to me by my superior.
That being said, there is the second question, which is not clear and that is the position of the Jesuits in this. If this is a diocesan parish, even though it is administered by a religious order, the local bishop has the authority to make such rulings as “you may not march under the name of the parish.” The Jesuits are bound to obey that ruling, because they do not own the parish. They are employed by the Archdiocese. You cannot represent your employer, unless he gives you permission to do so. The same applies to the Church.
The Jesuits may march in the parade under their own names, with the permission of their provincial superior. The bishop has no authority over religious. Religious orders of men never answer to bishops. This is against Church law and it’s an abuse to expect them to do so. The reason for this law is that the provincial superiors and the general superiors are higher ranking than the bishops, even if these superiors are not priests. A consecrated religious superior has a higher rank in the Church’s line of authority than a bishop in relation to his religious order. This only applies to orders, not to congregations of sisters. Women do not have the same privilege of Ordinary Authority. Since the Jesuits are not women, they have the right of Ordinary Authority. The article does not say that the Jesuits are marching or that the Jesuit Provincial has authorized them to do so. I don’t know if the Jesuits are being disobedient or not. There is no comment about them.
If this is a canonical parish, then it belongs to the diocese. Parishes never belong to religious orders. Even if we build them with our own money, they automatically belong to the diocese in which they are erected. The Jesuits and the laity have an obligation to obey the bishop’s orders. But the bishop must give an order and it has to be in writing to have authority over the religious, not the laity. A bishop can give oral orders to laity and to secular priests, and women religious, never to male religious. When he writes such an order to them, he must sent a copy to the provincial superior or the superior general who must then require his religious to comply with the bishop. The article does not say if any of this has taken place or if there has been any dialogue between the Archbishop and the Jesuits. We’ll have to wait and see.
Finally, there is an error in one post, about the suspension of priests. If you are a male religious AND a priest, your status in the Church is that of a consecrated priest, which is different from your typical parish priest. Parish priests are usually secular men. If you are a religious the bishop can only suspend you from celebrating the sacraments on his property. He has no jurisdiction over you outside of Church property. Only the major superior can suspend your faculties in the diocese and anywhere else. If the Archbishop suspends a Jesuit, that priest cannot celebrate the sacraments in any diocesan facility. But he can celebrate them in any facility owned by any religious order. The religious superiors can grant faculties. If he goes to a Dominican house, the Prior can grant him faculties to celebrate the sacraments. The Prior outranks the bishop, inside of the priory, even if the priest is a Jesuit. It’s the Dominican’s house.
In addition, the bishop cannot penalize the Jesuits. That’s why to some it may look like nothing is ever done. It’s not that nothing is ever done; it’s that it is a grave sin, punishable by excommunication, for a bishop to penalize a religious order. Once the order is canonically established in a diocese, to penalize the order constitutes barring the order. No bishop has the authority to bar a religious order of men, nor to disband it either, not even within his diocese. Once they are in, they are in to stay. Only a pope or a superior of that order can consequence a religious community. That’s why bishops have to tread gently when dealing with religious orders of men. They can end up excommunicating themselves in trying to do the right thing by doing it the wrong way. The best thing for the bishop to do is to negotiate a solution with the Jesuit superior, if the Jesuits are involved in the march at all. If the Jesuits agree not to go to the march, then they are not the guilty ones here. There are many things that take place behind closed doors that most of us do not see or ever get told about, because the Church is not allowed to share with the laity. Let’s hope and pray that this will be settled in a way that is for the good of all.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
R
Rachel_1
Guest
Thank you!!! This is something I asked about in RCIA and they tried to answer but didn’t get this involved in the answer. Your post really helped me understand the hierarchy.In addition, the bishop cannot penalize the Jesuits. That’s why to some it may look like nothing is ever done. It’s not that nothing is ever done; it’s that it is a grave sin, punishable by excommunication, for a bishop to penalize a religious order. Once the order is canonically established in a diocese, to penalize the order constitutes barring the order. No bishop has the authority to bar a religious order of men, nor to disband it either, not even within his diocese. Once they are in, they are in to stay. Only a pope or a superior of that order can consequence a religious community. That’s why bishops have to tread gently when dealing with religious orders of men. They can end up excommunicating themselves in trying to do the right thing by doing it the wrong way. The best thing for the bishop to do is to negotiate a solution with the Jesuit superior, if the Jesuits are involved in the march at all. If the Jesuits agree not to go to the march, then they are not the guilty ones here. There are many things that take place behind closed doors that most of us do not see or ever get told about, because the Church is not allowed to share with the laity. Let’s hope and pray that this will be settled in a way that is for the good of all.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
So with what you’ve explained, Archbishop Dolan is in a tough spot and he has to be super careful not to get himself in trouble at this point since because Fr Joe is Jesuit and he answers to whoever is over him in the Jesuit order, is that right?
If that’s the case, maybe whoever is over him should have issued the request instead of Archbishop Dolan, or Archbishop Dolan should have requested through the Jesuit superior. Sorry, I’m just trying to understand the hierarchy here.
It does seem like a tricky situation for all involved.
R
Rachel_1
Guest
I listened to it… you know I’m such a newbie that I didn’t know what "apostasy’ was till I listened to this.
I totally bookmarked that site btw
C
choy
Guest
Rachel, first of all, Br. JR is THE MAN
second, from what i understand from Br. JR’s post is that Archbishop Nolan can “ask” the Jesuits to do something, and its up to their superior to “require” them to follow such request. that the most the Archbishop can do. if the parish is owned by the Archdiocese, the Archbishop can also “punish” them by removing their faculties in the parish and all other churches owned by the Archdiocese. but these priests can simply go to a Jesuit parish, a parish in a different diocese, or to another parish owned by another religious group and continue to celebrate Mass as only their superior can remove their faculties totally.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Thanks nycatholickat for sticking around and providing us with information ‘from the ground’ so to speak.
I would agree with you if this is in fact what is happening… But where’s the evidence that gay people are being welcomed into the parish community, complete with the Church’s teachings about the sinfulness of homosexual activity?
J
johns58w
Guest
Thank you Br. JR for your post. There is so much in depth I don’t know about Church Hierarchy. As a layman I only know so much what is presented up front.
It gets frustrating for many of us when “wordliness” seems to overcome us in the Church community especially in the past 40 years.
I have to go to Confession tonight and attend Adoration. I will pray that we will overcome what has tried to destroy us.
Again thank you Br.JR and God Bless.
It gets frustrating for many of us when “wordliness” seems to overcome us in the Church community especially in the past 40 years.
I have to go to Confession tonight and attend Adoration. I will pray that we will overcome what has tried to destroy us.
Again thank you Br.JR and God Bless.
C
Corki
Guest
Brother JR,
Thank you for that thorough response. It was really helpful. I always thought that the Bishop had the last say in who had faculties in the diocese. It seems you are saying that that does not apply to religious priests. No wonder some Bishops are so reluctant to allow new congregations of priests and sisters into the diocese since once they are there, the members could go “off the ranch” and there would be nothing the Bishop could do.
Thank you for that thorough response. It was really helpful. I always thought that the Bishop had the last say in who had faculties in the diocese. It seems you are saying that that does not apply to religious priests. No wonder some Bishops are so reluctant to allow new congregations of priests and sisters into the diocese since once they are there, the members could go “off the ranch” and there would be nothing the Bishop could do.
While the article doesn’t mention the pastor’s involvement/blessing, most of the people posting in this thread have gone to the actual parish website and not relied soley on the news report. The parish group’s participation in the march is advertised on the parish website. The pastor should have control of his own site and be held accountable for its content.
J
JReducation
Guest
Bishops have to be very careful when they admit religious into their dioceses. Once you do so, it is considered an erection. A bishop cannot disband, penalize or shut down any canonically erected community in his diocese, even if it’s a secular or lay order. An Order has rights over and above the bishop.
While the article doesn’t mention the pastor’s involvement/blessing, most of the people posting in this thread have gone to the actual parish website and not relied soley on the news report. The parish group’s participation in the march is advertised on the parish website. The pastor should have control of his own site and be held accountable for its content.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
nycatholickat - I noticed this in the parish’s bulletin:
GAY CATHOLICS: Men meet monthly on the first and third
Fridays in a welcoming, affirming environment to address gay
Catholic life and how best to live authentically our commitment
to the Gospel. Meetings are held in the Mary Chapel at 7PM.
Do you know what is meant by “to address gay Catholic life and how best to live authentically our commitment to the Gospel”? If this is really an SSA support group trying to live chastely in accordance with Church teaching, then kudos to them.
C
choy
Guest
i totally agree
we shouldn’t be shutting gays out. not just because they’re more obvious than cheating husbands and promiscuous teens, doesn’t mean we’ll single them out from other sinners. most of them who reject the Church thinks the Church rejects them. lets show them that the Church is a hospital established by the world’s best healer, Jesus, to cure those afflicted with sin
i think many of us may have judged too quickly. if their presence in the Pride Parade is to promote a true Catholic lifestyle for the gay community, so that they may abandon their sins and return to the Church, then bless them. in fact, if that is what they do plan to do, then we should support them if we can. i’m sure many there will reject that message and it would be great if there are supporters out there for them
C
catharina
Guest
Whatever their avowed intent, if the bishop has said ‘no’ and he has said ‘no’ - then
there is nothing that can justify the disobedience to their bishop.
The case is closed.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I sent an e-mail (charitable in tone) to the priests and a couple of the staff two days ago - I have not received a response yet. I also expressed my concern via e-mail to Archbishop Dolan late last night. I received a response from someone at the archdiocesan office this morning that my e-mail would be forwarded to the archbishop.
We’ll see.
R
Rachel_1
Guest
Yes, I didn’t receive a response from the priests either. I did get a receipt saying that at least Fr Joe read the email.
My email to Archbishop Dolan didn’t really require a response, I pretty much forwarded what I sent to the priests to him ‘for his records’ and gave a little statement as well. I do know that they read it and likely forwarded it to him.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
As soon as I read the thread title I KNEW it was St. Francis Xavier Church. One only needs to look at their website to know the sort of parish this is. “Catholic Lesbian Group”, “Gay Catholics”, “Zen Meditation Group”, etc. Sad.
D
distracted
Guest
sad??
its beyond sad… its disgusting and rage-inducing…
not sure what to say…
but you know how they say Remember the Alamo?
how about Remember Sodom …
D
distracted
Guest
Who can expect the flock to prosper when its shepherd has sunk so deep into the bowels of the devil?
“
“Without fail, [the vice of sodomy] brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust.”
”[The vice of sodomy] leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind . . . It opens up Hell and closes the gates of Paradise.”
-Saint Peter Damien
.
“
“Without fail, [the vice of sodomy] brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust.”
”[The vice of sodomy] leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind . . . It opens up Hell and closes the gates of Paradise.”
-Saint Peter Damien
.
- Status