Criticisms of Clergy

[ethelzguy]

This is kinda hilarious…complaining about complainers!

sounds like a sick and twisted way of justifying bashing our Church. You bash, and it’s ok. I take exception to your bashing, and I’m “complaining about the complainers”.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I actually posted this on another thread but the situation is so similar I think it is appropriate here as well.

It seems to me that TONE is everything when communicating to our priests and bishops and anyone who serves us within our parish and within the Church at large.

You know, often times we do or say things in a manner which seems to us to be respectful or void of emotion or even charitable, when in fact it does not eventually resonate that way with the person or persons whom we are addressing. It’s very important I believe to refrain from criticisms unless we are first of all - absolutely sure of what we are talking about, and second of all - absolutely sure that we are presenting our case in a manner that is with the utmost charity, which can be extremely difficult to convey.

Addressing our concerns over any church matter should never be attempted until emotions wane. What we want or feel we need to accomplish can be done in a very short note or conversation, just drawing the appropriate person’s attention to a ‘mistake’ or ‘accident’ where the circumstances that allowed this to take place was in need of correction. Period. No accusations, nothing offensive, just pointing out a ‘mistake’. Short and sweet and charitable, always giving the other the benefit of the doubt.

What we want to avoid is not only offending those who serve us tirelessly through the sacrifice of their own lives, but also avoid wounding our own souls with actions that do not reflect the Spirit of Christ in all we say and do. In evaluating our motives, we protect ourselves and others against unnecessary wounds. This is charity and grace lived out in a life of holiness, which I’m sure we are all striving for.

 

[chicago]

I do beg to differ here… Mother Angelica`s Order the Poor
Clares of Perpetual Adoration are an Order of Pontifical
Jurisdiction and like most other monasteries of cloistered/
contemplative life, each monastery is autonomous. Mother
has NO Superior General… Someone else may have ASKED
her to apologize; but no one except the Pope could command
her to do so.

It was previously noted that an abyss has a certain authority. Isn’t Mother Angelica the abyss of her religious community?

 

[JReducation]

The laity have the right (and duty) to critique the clergy in the same way the clergy have the responsibility to critique and admonish the laity when they fall short of the Gospel. We are called to be brothers and sisters to one another. No one should be exempt or separated from the love of the community of the Church, and part of what it means to love one another within the context of a Christian community is to admonish one another with love and charity when we fall into sin or fall short of what the Lord has called us to. The call of the priesthood is not a call to an elitist state within the Church, high above the lowly lay person. In fact, it is a call to assume the lowest rung on the ladder and to become the servant of the people of God. When the cleric falls short of this call, the laity should remind him of it and call him back to the service he has vowed his life to.

You have several points that you have to review.

1. The clerical state is not subject to the authority of the laity, while the lay state is subject to the authority of the clergy. This is both Church law and tradition.
2. The clergy is not at the bottom rung. This may sound nice from a spritual standpoint, but it is incorrect from a sacramental point of view. Part of the role of the priesthood is to govern the Church.
3. You cannot call the cleric back to his vowed life, since the clerical state is just that, a sate within the Church. It is not a vowed life. Only Consecrated religious live a vowed life. Not all clerics are religious and not all religious are clerics. A cleric who is not a religious has made no vows and is bound by no specific way of life. A religious who lives a vowed life is not always a cleric.
4. The vowed life and the clerical state are theologically, canonically, and sacramentally different. A person can be both a cleric and a religious, but not always.
5. In either case, cleric or religious, they have proper superiors to which you must direct your concerns. If it’s the case of a secular cleric, his proper superior is the diocesan bishop. If it’s a religious cleric, his proper superior is the Superior of the House where he is assigned.

It is not the wish of the hierarchy to have lay people correcting clerics (deacons, priests or bishops) or correcting religious. You may write an appropriate letter and wait for a response.

In many instances, lay people who have taken it upon themselves to correct clerics, have been called on the carpet by either the bishop or the religious superior, because you are going over their heads.

Remember what happened when Mother Angelica made the statement about Cardinal Mahoney. The Cardinal complained to the Superior General of the Franciscan order. The Superior General was not concerned with whether Mother was right or wrong. He was concerned with the fact that a nun may never call a cleric into question in public. He ordered her to apologize and retract or to get off the air under holy obedience. If she did not obey the Superior General she would face excommunication. In this particular case there was something else involved. The rule that St. Francis wrote for the Friars and the Poor Clares does not allow them ever to call into question a cleric who is not under their jurisdiction. That authority is reserved only for Francis and he never used it, neither have his successors.

The Superior General could have ignored the Cardinal’s letter, because he has the same authority over his community that a bishop has over his diocese. But he chose not to use his right as a Major Superior and instead chose to adhere to tradition, that no one calls a cleric into question, except those who have authority over him.

This was also the case with Cardinal Law of Boston. The laity complained and wanted the Cardinal punished. Cardinal Ratzinger said, “absolutely not. The laity has no jurisdiction over a cleric.” Today, Cardinal Law is working in the Vatican and in good standing with Benedict XVI. The same thing happened with Fr. Hans Kung. Cardinal Ratzinger said that Fr. Kung could not teach Catholic theology, but that he could remain a priest and he could lead the commission on the establishment of a world ethic for ecumenism. In 2005 Benedict XVI invited Fr. Kung to spend time with him on vacation at Gondolfo and blessed his ministry on ecumenism, even though Kung still questions the dogma of infallibility. Benedict XVI said that they have academic differences between them, but that Kung is still a priest in good standing with the Church and can lead the world ethic project.

That was in 2005, right after Benedict became pope. I’m not sure if Kung is still alive or not, because he’s up there in years. I have not heard anything more about him.

JR

 

[JReducation]

It was previously noted that an abyss has a certain authority. Isn’t Mother Angelica the abyss of her religious community?

Mother Angelica is not an abbess. Her foundation is a monastery. She does belong to a Pontifical Order, but her monastery is not autonomous yet. It is suject the the local bishop and the Superior General of the Capuchin-Franciscans.

When it becomes an abbey, it then becomes autonomous. This takes several years, as there are several canonical conditions that such houses have to meet to prove that they can exist independently.

When Mother Founded the Franciscan Friars of the Eternal Word, they were not allowed to govern themselves. A friar from the Capuchin-Franciscans, Fr. Angelous Shaughnessy, OFM, Cap., was brought in to govern the community Mother Angelica could not govern it, because she is not an abbess. They were put under the protection of the Capuchin-Franciscans until this year.

They have just received permission to have a superior of their own community and Fr. Angelous has returned to the Capuchin-Franciscan Motherhouse in Pittsburgh, PA.

As to the use of command under holy obedience, it is true that it is rarely used, but that does not mean that it has never been used.

This was common knowledge via the Catholic media.

The bottom line here is not whether her community has Pontifical Rights or not, the bottom line is that she was asked to apologize and retract, because the Church does not tolerate well anyone correcting or criticizing clerics without jurisdiction.

I realize that Catherine of Siena had an intense dialogue with the pope. But what is rarely understood is that she did not correct or criticize him. She begged him to return to Rome and used very persuasive arguments in her letters to him and her conversations with him. She never told him that he was wrong and she was right. What Catherine did was to point out how much his presence was needed in Rome and why. Basically, she begged him to return using very persuasive arguments.

There is another point here, Catherine was an excellent theologian. How many Catherines are out there today? She didn’t become a Doctor of the Church because she was a saint, but because besides being a saint, she was a theologian who taught the Church something new or in a different light.

The position still stands. The Church does not want lay people to take on clerical authority or authority over clerics or religious.

JR

 

[chicago]

Mother Angelica is not an abbess. Her foundation is a monastery. She does belong to a Pontifical Order, but her monastery is not autonomous yet. It is suject the the local bishop and the Superior General of the Capuchin-Franciscans.

When it becomes an abbey, it then becomes autonomous. This takes several years, as there are several canonical conditions that such houses have to meet to prove that they can exist independently.

Her community has existed for how long? A few decades? It isn’t exactly new. I’m surprised that it was not some time ago recognized as independent.

When Mother Founded the Franciscan Friars of the Eternal Word, they were not allowed to govern themselves. A friar from the Capuchin-Franciscans, Fr. Angelous Shaughnessy, OFM, Cap., was brought in to govern the community Mother Angelica could not govern it, because she is not an abbess. They were put under the protection of the Capuchin-Franciscans until this year.

Their community was seemingly independent or under the authority of Angelica for many years, until at least the early Aughties when Fr. Shaughnessey came in, was it not?

The position still stands. The Church does not want lay people to take on clerical authority or authority over clerics or religious.

I don’t think that there is, ultimately, an argument over this. Obviously, the laity do not have juridical authority over the clergy.

At the same time, I don’t know that laity have to take entirely a back seat on everything or simply “refer it up the ladder” to let someone else in authority “take care of it” (or fail.) The real question would seem to be how to go about things when dealing with a matter that requires attention.

 

[nannygirl]

sounds like a sick and twisted way of justifying bashing our Church. You bash, and it’s ok. I take exception to your bashing, and I’m “complaining about the complainers”.

Calm down!! Can’t you take a joke? I’ve NEVER bashed anyone! I just found it amusing that you were complaining about complainers- that’s all.

 

[nannygirl]

The position still stands. The Church does not want lay people to take on clerical authority or authority over clerics or religious.

JR

Yes. The priest is solely responsible for what goes on in his church. We are under his authority, not the other way around. He is not an employee of the church as some suppose. When our priest first arrived he found that lay people had taken over everything. One man introduced himself as the “lay leader of the church” and another tried to tell him how to celebrate the Mass! When he quickly established his authority, one man left and the other undermines him every chance he gets - even publicly ridiculing him. I’ve been told that criticizing a priest could be a mortal sin.

 

[hawkeye]

In countless threads, I see various posts criticizing the Church and her clergy-members. The criticisms seem to come mostly from those who consider themselves “Traditional Catholics”.

I wouldn’t consider myself a Traditionalist Catholic, but I do think some of the changes were unneeded, Altar rails etc;

So if anyone thinks it’s OK for me to sit and suffer my way through criticism of JP2, and then years later listen to the same Priest sing his praises after his death, then then that’s a Priest I want no-part off.

Plus the same Priest is into women priests, then thanks, but no thanks, I personally despise this priest I’m talking about, God help me but I can’t stand him…

 

[JReducation]

I usually find your posts right on target but I am a bit confused by your remark regarding people authorised to teach and correct priests.

There are many many lay people who have the authority to educate seminarians and priests. in seminaries and universities (Pontifical ones at that). An STL or STD usually authorises a person to be able to teach in a seminary although people with PhDs often do so as well. My friend’s (who is a priest) mentor at Catholic U. was a lay man as were many of his teachers when he went for his STL. There are many lay people in high diocesan postions who do have the authority and the right to correct priests. I am thinking of the sister in our Office of Worship who very often has to correct priests for things they are doing wrong in their parish, and she has the authority from the Bishop to do so.

Let’s break this down into two separate groups. There are many of us who teach theology and philsophy and we have seminarians, religious and lay people in our classes. This means that our classes have passed the scrutiny required so that the persons can attend. In other words, we can educate them. There nare many of us who are lay, religious and clerics. This kind of education refers to academic education. In other words, we provide the education that they need to get their degrees or get ordained.

There are also people who work under a bishop at the diocesan level and are in charge of specific departments. They are delegated by the bishop to run these departments or ministries. Any deacon, priest or religious involved in this ministry would come under their jurisdiction, but only in that area. For example, if a Sister is the Diocean Liturgical Director, it is her job to see to it that the liturgy of the diocese follows the rules of the diocese. When those rules are not followed, she can intervene. She intervenes, as a delegate of the Bishop. The Bishop is actually the person with the authority. The Bishop will usually write in your job description how far you can go and what has to come either to him or to his Vicar. This is a different kind of education. This is not academic. This is teaching priests and deacons how to celebrate the liturgy. However, this person cannot intervene in matters concerning marriages, for example. That would be someone else in the chancery.

If the priest is also a religious, then you have a compounded problem. If the diocese says they want the priest to walk on water during the mass and the religious superior says that he wants his priests to float above the water, then the bishop and the superior have to reach a meeting of the minds. The religious may never disregard their superior to follow the bishop. The superior is the equivalent of a bishop in all things, except that he cannot administer the same sacraments that a bishop can, but he has the same legal authority over his priests. This is what would be a conflict of interest between the religious community and the bishop.

Most bishops prefer to avoid those conflicts of interest and let the priests who are also religious follow the guidance of their superiors. This kind of situation rarely comes up. For the most part, religious superiors and bishops are on the same page.

Lay people or religious who work for the chancery only have as much authority over the clergy as the bishop is willing to delegate. Some bishops delegate more than others. They never have authority over the clergy who are religious, unless it has been agreed upon with the religious superior.

Most religious superiors will say to the diocese, “You can correct or priests in anything that has to do with parish life, but never in anything that is personal or that is related to institutions that are owned by the religious community and not by the diocese.”

For example, religious who run colleges and universities owned by religious orders, do not take their directives from the bishop. These institutions belong to the community. If you don’t like what you see at a mass at a Catholic university, you have to go to the superior of the house at that university. The bishop cannot intervene. The university is not part of the diocese, because the diocese doesn’t own it or finance it or pay the salaries to the religious who teach and say mass there. However, the bishop can complain to the superior and if he raises his voice loudly enough, he will be heard.

Does this help?

JR

 

[JReducation]

Yes. The priest is solely responsible for what goes on in his church. We are under his authority, not the other way around. He is not an employee of the church as some suppose. When our priest first arrived he found that lay people had taken over everything. One man introduced himself as the “lay leader of the church” and another tried to tell him how to celebrate the Mass! When he quickly established his authority, one man left and the other undermines him every chance he gets - even publicly ridiculing him. I’ve been told that criticizing a priest could be a mortal sin.

I don’t think it’s any more sinful than criticizing your mother-in-law. Criticism leads to judging others and their motives. It also leads to pride, “I know better than you do”. It leads to conflicts that often end up in sins against charity.

When it comes to criticizing clerics (deacons, priests and bishops) or religious, after working with them since 1973, I have found that the laity always loses, unless you have something that will bring down the Church, like the sexual abuse scandal, because then the media gets involved.

If we’re talking about how a priest celebrates mass or what he says in his sermons or what a deacon says in his sermon or a religious dresses, says or doesn’t say, the Church’s authorities are going to have to protect the clerics and religious.

Right now there is a serious problem with the clericalization of lay people. By the clericalization of lay people we mean that laity wants to play the role of authority over clerics and religious. The laity wants the freedom to say what they want clerics to do or not do, religious to do or not do, and to educate them on what the Church says or doesn’t say.

No one is saying that every cleric or religious is perfect. That would be naive. What we are saying is that each person has a role to play. These people have superiors. If something is so serious that needs to be addressed, then use the proper channels. Do not go over the heads of their superiors and try to do it yourself.

When lay people go over the heads of the proper superiors, they end up getting burned.

In one diocese that I worked for, the Bishop dismantled all parish councils. They are not allowed. The Bishop got so upset with the laity telling priests what was best for the parish, that he terminated parish councils.

In my current diocese, the bishop does not allow the laity to speak to him. You must go through his secretary or the Vicar General. The Bishop will contact you if he needs to do so. He became tired of lay people telling him how to run his diocese. It was sad, because it was not a large number of lay people and he’s a wonderful bishop and we have a wonderful diocese. There are always those who feel that they know better.

Sometimes they do know a great deal. But as the old saying goes, “The buck stops here.” That’s usually the bishop or the major superior.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Her community has existed for how long? A few decades? It isn’t exactly new. I’m surprised that it was not some time ago recognized as independent.

It has never been recognized as independent. It was always under the Bishop of Irondale and the Franciscan Order.

Their community was seemingly independent or under the authority of Angelica for many years, until at least the early Aughties when Fr. Shaughnessey came in, was it not?

The reason that the Friars Minor Capuchin sent in Fr. Angelous Shaughnessy is because Mother Angelica does not have the juridical authority to run an abbey. The community is still not an abbey. This takes years, sometimes as many as 40 or 50. There are alll kinds of requirements that must be met. One of them is that the Abbess must qualify to hold this title. Another is sustainability. Another is the will of the religious order to let the community become completely independent. Then there is the recommendation of the local bishop. There must be approval and recommendation from the Sacred Congregation for Religious. Then the final approval from the Holy See.

The Franciscan Friars of the Eternal Word are still not a religious community. The Capuchin Superior General would not approve it. They are what is canonically called a Public Association of the Faithful. They can be disbanded at any time by the Capuchin Superior General or the Bishop of Irondale. This is unlikely as they are held in high esteem by the Capuchins and the Bishop, but there is room in the law for this to happen. They are not a religious congregation. They have to go through several more steps to become a congregation. They can never become an order. The rule of St. Francis forbids it. They will eventually become a Franciscan Congregation of the Franciscan Third Order. There are only three orders allowed by the rule of St. Francis: Friars Minor, Poor Clares, Secular Franciscans. All other groups must join the Secular Franciscans. The TORs were the last Order that was allowed to join the Franciscan Family, through a special indult, becaue the Franciscans in France had been disbanded by Napoleon.

I don’t think that there is, ultimately, an argument over this. Obviously, the laity do not have juridical authority over the clergy.

Agreed

At the same time, I don’t know that laity have to take entirely a back seat on everything or simply “refer it up the ladder” to let someone else in authority “take care of it” (or fail.) The real question would seem to be how to go about things when dealing with a matter that requires attention.

We agree on this. What I am saying is that the laity follow the protocol establish by the diocese if you’re dealing with secular priests or by the religious community if you’re dealing with religious.

I don’t know of any bishop or religious superior who likes to see people go over their heads and take their people to task. There is a chain of command in every organization.

JR

 

[chicago]

If you don’t like what you see at a mass at a Catholic university, you have to go to the superior of the house at that university. The bishop cannot intervene. The university is not part of the diocese, because the diocese doesn’t own it or finance it or pay the salaries to the religious who teach and say mass there. However, the bishop can complain to the superior and if he raises his voice loudly enough, he will be heard.

Didn’t Ex Corde Ecclesiae extend bishops’ authority over the university ministries?

 

[chicago]

It has never been recognized as independent. It was always under the Bishop of Irondale and the Franciscan Order.

The reason that the Friars Minor Capuchin sent in Fr. Angelous Shaughnessy is because Mother Angelica does not have the juridical authority to run an abbey. The community is still not an abbey. This takes years, sometimes as many as 40 or 50. There are alll kinds of requirements that must be met. One of them is that the Abbess must qualify to hold this title. Another is sustainability. Another is the will of the religious order to let the community become completely independent. Then there is the recommendation of the local bishop. There must be approval and recommendation from the Sacred Congregation for Religious. Then the final approval from the Holy See.

The Franciscan Friars of the Eternal Word are still not a religious community. The Capuchin Superior General would not approve it. They are what is canonically called a Public Association of the Faithful. They can be disbanded at any time by the Capuchin Superior General or the Bishop of Irondale. This is unlikely as they are held in high esteem by the Capuchins and the Bishop, but there is room in the law for this to happen. They are not a religious congregation. They have to go through several more steps to become a congregation. They can never become an order. The rule of St. Francis forbids it. They will eventually become a Franciscan Congregation of the Franciscan Third Order. There are only three orders allowed by the rule of St. Francis: Friars Minor, Poor Clares, Secular Franciscans. All other groups must join the Secular Franciscans. The TORs were the last Order that was allowed to join the Franciscan Family, through a special indult, becaue the Franciscans in France had been disbanded by Napoleon.

Thank you for the clarification and additional information.

I’d like to know more about the situation concerning the TORs and how it relates to the Franciscans in France.

I don’t know of any bishop or religious superior who likes to see people go over their heads and take their people to task. There is a chain of command in every organization.

Wouldn’t a lot of clerics argue that they do not appreciate you going “over their heads” by complaining to superiors without first talking to them about the matter of concern?

 

[nannygirl]

I don’t think it’s any more sinful than criticizing your mother-in-law. Criticism leads to judging others and their motives. It also leads to pride, “I know better than you do”. It leads to conflicts that often end up in sins against charity.

When it comes to criticizing clerics (deacons, priests and bishops) or religious, after working with them since 1973, I have found that the laity always loses, unless you have something that will bring down the Church, like the sexual abuse scandal, because then the media gets involved.

If we’re talking about how a priest celebrates mass or what he says in his sermons or what a deacon says in his sermon or a religious dresses, says or doesn’t say, the Church’s authorities are going to have to protect the clerics and religious.

Right now there is a serious problem with the clericalization of lay people. By the clericalization of lay people we mean that laity wants to play the role of authority over clerics and religious. The laity wants the freedom to say what they want clerics to do or not do, religious to do or not do, and to educate them on what the Church says or doesn’t say.

No one is saying that every cleric or religious is perfect. That would be naive. What we are saying is that each person has a role to play. These people have superiors. If something is so serious that needs to be addressed, then use the proper channels. Do not go over the heads of their superiors and try to do it yourself.

When lay people go over the heads of the proper superiors, they end up getting burned.

In one diocese that I worked for, the Bishop dismantled all parish councils. They are not allowed. The Bishop got so upset with the laity telling priests what was best for the parish, that he terminated parish councils.

In my current diocese, the bishop does not allow the laity to speak to him. You must go through his secretary or the Vicar General. The Bishop will contact you if he needs to do so. He became tired of lay people telling him how to run his diocese. It was sad, because it was not a large number of lay people and he’s a wonderful bishop and we have a wonderful diocese. There are always those who feel that they know better.

Sometimes they do know a great deal. But as the old saying goes, “The buck stops here.” That’s usually the bishop or the major superior.

JR

I am fortunate to be in a church where there aren’t any abuses (that I am aware of). How much more pleasant it would be for everyone if we all would “play our role”! We also have a wonderful Bishop and diocese. BTW, I always enjoy reading your charitable posts and have learned a great deal from them.

 

[consumedconvert]

JR, excellent posts.

As a new-ish Catholic I was genuinely shocked by some of the commentary out there bashing particular priests. Unfortunately, one of the first Internet Catholic news sources I became familiar with was CWNEWS.com. Their “Off the Record” by a fellow calling himself “Diogenes” is case-in-point.

Now I have no idea whether “Diogenes” is a Deacon, Priest, or layman (though I suspect the latter). But what am I to make of a man who devotes column space to ridiculing priests? Taking Bishops to task over not wording stronger condemnations of this or that (note they were condemning)? Criticizing the Archbishop of Atlanta’s homilies for no obviously good reason?

I’ve written and complained a couple of times, and have received no response; but I would guess that they get a lot of complaints.

It is ironic. One of the strongest criticisms of Vatican II is that it emphasizes the power of the laity too much. But here we go, myself unfortunately included in the past, trying to take even more power than Vatican II gave us by ridiculing the laity, telling them how to do their jobs.

 

[consumedconvert]

I wouldn’t consider myself a Traditionalist Catholic, but I do think some of the changes were unneeded, Altar rails etc;

So if anyone thinks it’s OK for me to sit and suffer my way through criticism of JP2, and then years later listen to the same Priest sing his praises after his death, then then that’s a Priest I want no-part off.

Plus the same Priest is into women priests, then thanks, but no thanks, I personally despise this priest I’m talking about, God help me but I can’t stand him…

Then you have let the priest bring you where you shouldn’t be, to despising him. Sounds like an issue for confession. I have my own similar struggles with a somewhat similar situation, though not with a priest. We are so frail, us human beings…

 

[consumedconvert]

JR, excellent posts.

As a new-ish Catholic I was genuinely shocked by some of the commentary out there bashing particular priests. Unfortunately, one of the first Internet Catholic news sources I became familiar with was CWNEWS.com. Their “Off the Record” by a fellow calling himself “Diogenes” is case-in-point.

Now I have no idea whether “Diogenes” is a Deacon, Priest, or layman (though I suspect the latter). But what am I to make of a man who devotes column space to ridiculing priests? Taking Bishops to task over not wording stronger condemnations of this or that (note they were condemning)? Criticizing the Archbishop of Atlanta’s homilies for no obviously good reason?

I’ve written and complained a couple of times, and have received no response; but I would guess that they get a lot of complaints.

It is ironic. One of the strongest criticisms of Vatican II is that it emphasizes the power of the laity too much. But here we go, myself unfortunately included in the past, trying to take even more power than Vatican II gave us by ridiculing the laity, telling them how to do their jobs.

I forgot to add that I get enough anti-clericalism from the secular media. I don’t need it from Catholic lay organisations. I now get my Catholic news from www.catholicnewsagency.com!

 

[gavanhe]

I don’t believe that there’s a moral problem with being critical of the clergy if we honestly believe that they are acting contrary to church laws.
I for one remember one time receiving communion from the priest only to have him ask me how my weekend was going, not answering I went back to my pew quite disconsolate.
Perhaps this priest was not breaking any church rules but he certainly no longer believed in the real presence as was apparent by many other questionable practices.
I no longer attend that parish as I believe that I could be led astray by this cleric.
In short we need to be questioning at times.
Gerry

 

[consumedconvert]

I don’t believe that there’s a moral problem with being critical of the clergy if we honestly believe that they are acting contrary to church laws.
I for one remember one time receiving communion from the priest only to have him ask me how my weekend was going, not answering I went back to my pew quite disconsolate.
Perhaps this priest was not breaking any church rules but he certainly no longer believed in the real presence as was apparent by many other questionable practices.
I no longer attend that parish as I believe that I could be led astray by this cleric.
In short we need to be questioning at times.
Gerry

But it would seem the proper thing to do in such a situation is:

(if you believe it is serious enough to take action)

1. Approach the priest about it. If the situation was not resolved,
2. Approach the priest with a deacon or another person he respects; and if the situation is not resolved,
3. Approach the Vicar General of your diocese (or other appropriate person with authority from your Bishop) with two or three witnesses.

(Or, if you believe it is not serious enough to take action)
Continue going to that parish and don’t complain to anyone else about what happened;
OR Go to another parish, and don’t complain to anyone else about what happened.

Is this not the spirit behind the Biblical principle?