Defining charity when a non-Christian group worships in a Catholic church

[benedictgal]

Be very sure that if this was in fact a violation of canon law–if, for instance, someone was going to be claiming to have ordained a woman in this church–the bishop would have put a stop to it immediately and in no uncertain terms, end of discussion, and it wouldn’t make a difference who would be offended. A bishop cannot avoid all actions that give him a headache.

It is the perogative of a bishop, though, to be private and discrete with regards to telling his priests how he takes a situation and what sort of behavior he expects in the future. That the bishop did not make his opinion public does not mean he did not make it known where it counts.

Please bear in mind that the diocese in question does not have a bishop. Their former bishop is now the Archbishop of New Orleans. They are operating under the care of the diocesan administrator.

The fact that this has caused a great deal of problems to the parish in question should not be ignored. The faithful have the right to have access to the sanctuary of their parish. From what I have read in these threads and from what I heard in conversation with my friend, who is rather reputable, the proper channels were not followed. This is a serious issue.

 

[EasterJoy]

…The fact remains that a non-Christian group is using the sanctuary and that the faithful do not even have access to their own church…

You make this sound like a very big imposition. It has been a long time since the faithful have had anything like unlimited access to our own churches. The vast majority are locked most of the time, save the perpetual adoration chapels. (Even those usually require a security code to get in.) It is unlikely that these services were disrupting access to the church any more than it would to have the rugs shampooed, the walls repainted, or the pews refinished…which is to say, the church was probably unavailable for one afternoon and the whole day following, and not on a weekend.

Well, with all due respect, it was hard to tell since you seemed to be reinforcing this belief that the sanctuary needed to be reconsecrated. It seems no one here trusts the diocese to make appropriate canonical judgments and I find that disturbing.

In other words, unlike the decision about whether having Yom Kippur services in a Catholic church is appropriate, the decision about whether or not a reconsecration is in order is a far more well-defined juridical matter than what has been implied in this thread. Whether a consecrated space needs reconsecration isn’t a matter of how the faithful feel about the matter, one way or the other. What matters is how canon law applies to the facts of the case. When it is not needed, it ought not be done…is that correct? That is my impression, but it is only that.

But, Father, with all due respect, Judaism is still non-Christian. Inasmuch as we share the faith of Abraham, that’s it.

The fact remains that a non-Christian group is using the sanctuary and that the faithful do not even have access to their own church. Furthermore, the sacred images that we hold dear are being covered and replaced with Judaic symbols…

If we aren’t there, does it hurt us that the sacred images are covered, provided it is done in a respectful manner? There are times when we cover them ourselves; it isn’t a desecration to do it. It’s not as if our worship is being impoverished.

It is not inconsequential that we share the faith of Abraham!! It makes all the difference in the world! And as much as I think the pastor would have been more prudent to explain his actions in detail (rather than to just expect his parishioners to trust his judgement) we also have a duty to avoid rash judgement. His expectation to be trusted on this matter may not have been realistic, but neither was it unfair.

Take these “Judaic symbols” that you are so worried about… what symbols were those? Did the people who got upset about them know any Hebrew? May we charitably just assume that these symbols are offensive to Catholics? Because I will bet that any such symbols are passages from the Bible, written in Hebrew, or the Star of David, that is the shield of the royal house to which Our Lord and Savior has everlasting claim. Jesus Christ is the Son of David. What does the crucifix say, after all? “King of the Jews.” How could the Star of David be offensive to us? It could be that if the priest in question had even a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, he could have read all these symbols for himself and found them totally appropriate for the inside of a Catholic church. Maybe he didn’t, but it is totally possible.

We should not assume that all things strange to us are offensive. If they were to cover the Stations of the Cross with a banner that read (in Hebrew), “Hear, O Israel! The Lord thy God, the Lord is one!!”…what on earth is offensive about that? Or what if it was one of the passages from the Psalms that urged Israel to return to her God, who is full of mercy and forbearance? Is that in opposition to what the Stations of the Cross say? No…it is exactly what they say.

Jews differ fundamentally from us, but in a fundamentally different way than other religions do. Jews do not adorn their worship spaces with anti-Catholic or anti-Christian rhetoric. They don’t say there is no God, they don’t say that they’re gods, or ever will be. They pray for the coming of the Messiah and ask to be delivered from false Messiahs, but their prayers do not mention Jesus Christ by name. (Note: there may be historical reasons of self-preservation behind not mentioning Our Lord by name, but the point is that they don’t do these things.) They look forward to the Messiah’s coming; we look forward to the Messiah’s return.

This may be a matter in which education is needed, or one in which that the mountain of education is too high to climb, but that doesn’t mean the pastor did anything inherently wrong in all cases. He’s stirred up the ant’s nest, though. It’s MHO, but I think he’d do well to address the issue head-on, for the sake of the peace and peace of mind of those who are upset. He has that pastoral duty to them.

After all, some of the prayers that the Jews say on Yom Kippur are in Aramaic, because of the trouble caused them by Christians who knew just enough Hebrew to be dangerous when they eavesdropped on the prayers of the Jews. But it was like the non-Christians who eavesdropped on our Mass and declared us cannibals. It doesn’t take a real issue to get someone really upset with you.

BTW: Were I the rabbi of the Reform congregation, I’d run, not walk, the other way in future years. This is not worth it.

 

[zab]

Please bear in mind that the diocese in question does not have a bishop. Their former bishop is now the Archbishop of New Orleans. They are operating under the care of the diocesan administrator.

The fact that this has caused a great deal of problems to the parish in question should not be ignored. The faithful have the right to have access to the sanctuary of their parish. From what I have read in these threads and from what I heard in conversation with my friend, who is rather reputable, the proper channels were not followed. This is a serious issue.

I can understand the concerns of some of the parishioners but I can’t help but wonder if some things are being blown out of proportion. It was said that the Blessed Sacrament was moved to another chapel and the parishioners would still be able to make visits so what is the need to have access to the sanctuary on those few days? There have also been some accusations of the visitors covering statues and forbidding the parishioners access to the sanctuary and yet the OP has said that it is not known who covered the statues nor why this was done. It was also mentioned that the parish has other facilities that could have been used. But who knows for certain if those other facilities would have been available and not in use by some other parish function? I just think it is best to address all of these concerns to the pastor.

 

[benedictgal]

While we share in the faith of Abraham, there is a huge difference: we believe in Jesus Christ. Judaism does not.

Ancient Israel can be likened to a river. When a boulder hit the river, Jesus, the river went into two diverging directions: one went the way of Judaism and the other was the Church, the New Israel. Even though we recognize our Jewish roots, we also see that the Christ is the fulfillment of the promises made to Ancient Israrel. That is why she is the New Israel.

We have very distinct reasons for covering our statues during the Fifth Sunday of Lent. This is to signify the hiddeness of Jesus prior to the manifestation of His Hour. To liken this to the Jewish community wanting our sacred images covered is to completely miss the point. We should not have to make apologies or amendments for what we hold sacred.

The parish in question has other facilities that could have been used for the occasion. The parish hall is rather nice and could have easily and better fit the needs of the Jewish community. The parishioners would not have had to have been displaced and the community could have had the parish hall to themselves.

As for the Star of David, that is a fairly recent symbol. In fact, in a post regarding whether or not Catholics should wear the Star of David, Fr. David, one of our priest members, gave a history about this symbol. It does not date back to King David, let alone the time of Our Lord.

 

[zab]

The parish in question has other facilities that could have been used for the occasion. The parish hall is rather nice and could have easily and better fit the needs of the Jewish community. The parishioners would not have had to have been displaced and the community could have had the parish hall to themselves.

How do you know that the other facilities were not being used?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It seems to me that the priest put the diocese in a “forgiveness not permission” situation, as it was not possible in charity for the diocese to forbid the action, or to immediately come out and forbid it for the future, without being in the one case disruptive of the Jewish worship services, or in the other offensive to the Jewish worshippers whose fault it wasn’t. Silence in this case to me implies the only possible response to a situation which shouldn’t have happened. All the diocesan office could reasonably do was indicate that the diocesan administrator should be included in the discussions in the future, which I believe they did.

If this was a clear violation of canon law and a desecration the sanctuary then there is no way they could have remained silent on the matter.

And its very apparent that even if the diocese were to declare that the sanctuary does not need to be reconsecrated there are many here who would not believe them.

 

[EasterJoy]

While we share in the faith of Abraham, there is a huge difference: we believe in Jesus Christ. Judaism does not.

Ancient Israel can be likened to a river. When a boulder hit the river, Jesus, the river went into two diverging directions: one went the way of Judaism and the other was the Church, the New Israel. Even though we recognize our Jewish roots, we also see that the Christ is the fulfillment of the promises made to Ancient Israrel. That is why she is the New Israel.

We have very distinct reasons for covering our statues during the Fifth Sunday of Lent. This is to signify the hiddeness of Jesus prior to the manifestation of His Hour. To liken this to the Jewish community wanting our sacred images covered is to completely miss the point. We should not have to make apologies or amendments for what we hold sacred.

The parish in question has other facilities that could have been used for the occasion. The parish hall is rather nice and could have easily and better fit the needs of the Jewish community. The parishioners would not have had to have been displaced and the community could have had the parish hall to themselves.

As for the Star of David, that is a fairly recent symbol. In fact, in a post regarding whether or not Catholics should wear the Star of David, Fr. David, one of our priest members, gave a history about this symbol. It does not date back to King David, let alone the time of Our Lord.

Nobody is asking you to apologize for what you hold sacred, or for anything else. It is being asked for you to remember, as I’m sure you will admit, that in this case your point of view is not the definitively Catholic view (as it is, for instance, when you are talking about rubrics) and that it may not be the only one that is relevant to the discussion. We are outside the realm of Church law, and into the realm of opinion. I don’t think you’ll argue that.

This is a lot of discussion by two people who have only second-hand or third-hand knowledge of what happened. We have no first-hand knowledge that the Jews in question ever asked to have the statues covered. We have no first-hand knowledge of why the priest judged it permissible to have them covered. We have no first-hand knowledge of whether other parish facilities were considered or why such might have been deemed unsatisfactory, and by whom. Neither of us saw the “Judaic symbols” in question. All we can really address are the general principles covering situations of this general type.

There is nothing in canon law that says sacred art in a church may not be covered, or that statues may be covered or removed only for certain reasons, or that it cannot be covered if doing so would please someone outside the Church, or that removing or covering art requires the permission of the local ordinary, or that Jews can’t be allowed to pray in a Catholic church. As far as I’m aware, there is nothing in canon law that says the faithful have a right to have unlimited access to their sanctuaries at all times, either. (Since you have written “The faithful have the right to have access to the sanctuary of their parish”, maybe I’m wrong on that. Would you like to cite the law recognizing that right, specifically?) There is nothing in canon law that says that Hebrew is an unsuitable language for sacred art that is to be hung in Catholic churches, or that art that sacred art that is unoffensive to Jews must therefore be inherently offensive to Catholics and therefore unsuitable for display in a Catholic church. Again, if I’m wrong, please give the citations and bring this discussion to a satisfactory close.

As for the Star of David, it refers to King David, nonetheless. It is not anti-Catholic. There is no reason it should be seen as inherently offensive to Catholics.

You find all of this offensive. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t. That’s your perogative. I’m not saying you can’t be personally offended, that the parishioners can’t be personally offended, or that those facts are irrelevant. To the contrary, I’ve said those are important. I am saying that those aren’t definitively Catholic points of view. A Catholic who sees it otherwise isn’t defying or failing the faith. A parish who sees it differently isn’t less faithful than one that sees it your way. You may disagree with that, too, but I don’t think you have anything definitive in Church law that will come to your defense. It’s just that you don’t like it. Well, OK. You’re opinion counts…but it is only your opinion, too.

I’m at a loss to know what law you want to hang this pastor with, save that he was insensitive to his parishioner’s feelings. That can be an offense, true, and even a serious one, but you’ll not find a bishop making it into a hanging offense, not if we don’t want to run out of priests very quickly. That means that we will sometimes have to put up with priests who do things we really don’t like for reasons that are not petty, but are also not binding upon the priest.

 

[benedictgal]

Nobody is asking you to apologize for what you hold sacred, or for anything else. It is being asked for you to remember, as I’m sure you will admit, that in this case your point of view is not the definitively Catholic view (as it is, for instance, when you are talking about rubrics) and that it may not be the only one that is relevant to the discussion. We are outside the realm of Church law, and into the realm of opinion. I don’t think you’ll argue that.

This is a lot of discussion by two people who have only second-hand or third-hand knowledge of what happened. We have no first-hand knowledge that the Jews in question ever asked to have the statues covered. We have no first-hand knowledge of why the priest judged it permissible to have them covered. We have no first-hand knowledge of whether other parish facilities were considered or why such might have been deemed unsatisfactory, and by whom. Neither of us saw the “Judaic symbols” in question. All we can really address are the general principles covering situations of this general type.

There is nothing in canon law that says sacred art in a church may not be covered, or that statues may be covered or removed only for certain reasons, or that it cannot be covered if doing so would please someone outside the Church, or that removing or covering art requires the permission of the local ordinary, or that Jews can’t be allowed to pray in a Catholic church. As far as I’m aware, there is nothing in canon law that says the faithful have a right to have unlimited access to their sanctuaries at all times, either. (Since you have written “The faithful have the right to have access to the sanctuary of their parish”, maybe I’m wrong on that. Would you like to cite the law recognizing that right, specifically?) There is nothing in canon law that says that Hebrew is an unsuitable language for sacred art that is to be hung in Catholic churches, or that art that sacred art that is unoffensive to Jews must therefore be inherently offensive to Catholics and therefore unsuitable for display in a Catholic church. Again, if I’m wrong, please give the citations and bring this discussion to a satisfactory close.

As for the Star of David, it refers to King David, nonetheless. It is not anti-Catholic. There is no reason it should be seen as inherently offensive to Catholics.

You find all of this offensive. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t. That’s your perogative. I’m not saying you can’t be personally offended, that the parishioners can’t be personally offended, or that those facts are irrelevant. To the contrary, I’ve said those are important. I am saying that those aren’t definitively Catholic points of view. A Catholic who sees it otherwise isn’t defying or failing the faith. A parish who sees it differently isn’t less faithful than one that sees it your way. You may disagree with that, too, but I don’t think you have anything definitive in Church law that will come to your defense. It’s just that you don’t like it. Well, OK. You’re opinion counts…but it is only your opinion, too.

I’m at a loss to know what law you want to hang this pastor with, save that he was insensitive to his parishioner’s feelings. That can be an offense, true, and even a serious one, but you’ll not find a bishop making it into a hanging offense, not if we don’t want to run out of priests very quickly. That means that we will sometimes have to put up with priests who do things we really don’t like for reasons that are not petty, but are also not binding upon the priest.

Would you care to cite where Canon Law says that the faithful do not have a right to have access to the sanctuary of their parish church? Redemptionis Sacramentum certainly affirms that the faithful have the right to a properly celebrated Mass. I believe that this right also extends to the place where the Mass is celebrated.

My friend saw the way the sanctuary was decorated. She was one of the few who was able to see it. She has also been long-time parishioner of the parish in question. I have no reason to doubt her word, nor the word of the OP.

From what my friend told me, the pastor is heavily involved in ecumenism. That is all well and good. I am not against ecumenism. However, when it involves doing something on one’s own initiative and not even consulting with the appropriate diocesan authority, then that is a serious problem, something that, as I read your posts, you seem to not want to recognize.

As I noted before, our covering our statues on the Fifth Sunday of Lent and what the parish did are two entirely separate things. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[revert_jen]

If this was a clear violation of canon law and a desecration the sanctuary then there is no way they could have remained silent on the matter.

Of course you are right.

FWIW, I don’t think it probably was a desecration, and I readily admit that it is not my decision to make.

However if it was a situation where the act is only allowed with the permission of the bishop, the bishop’s (or I guess in this case the diocesan administrator’s) hands were effectively tied by the circumstances, and there was no way for him to withhold permission without causing damage to others. That is what I meant to be saying.

–Jen

 

[EasterJoy]

Of course you are right.

FWIW, I don’t think it probably was a desecration, and I readily admit that it is not my decision to make.

However if it was a situation where the act is only allowed with the permission of the bishop, the bishop’s (or I guess in this case the diocesan administrator’s) hands were effectively tied by the circumstances, and there was no way for him to withhold permission without causing damage to others. That is what I meant to be saying.

–Jen

This raises a question with me with regards to what rights parishioners have over how parish property is used, under canon law, but I’m going to post it on a new thread.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However if it was a situation where the act is only allowed with the permission of the bishop, the bishop’s (or I guess in this case the diocesan administrator’s) hands were effectively tied by the circumstances, and there was no way for him to withhold permission without causing damage to others. That is what I meant to be saying.

–Jen

Indeed, the bishop’s hands might have been tied. However, that would presuppose that the ordinary/diocesan administrator can approve the use in the first place. Benedictgal is arguing that the bishop doesn’t even have the authority to approve Jewish use of the parish sanctuary.

 

[benedictgal]

Indeed, the bishop’s hands might have been tied. However, that would presuppose that the ordinary/diocesan administrator can approve the use in the first place. Benedictgal is arguing that the bishop doesn’t even have the authority to approve Jewish use of the parish sanctuary.

With all due respect, please show me where explicitly said that. Approve, yes, but, is it really necessary when the parish has other facilities where this particular service can occur? Is it really appropriate to allow for the covering of religious icons and statuary that are sacred to the Church and in their stead hang up non-Christian elements? Is it really appropriate to do so at the expense of the faithful of the parish who have the right to use their sanctuary for the Church’s liturgies? Bear in mind that the faithful of the parish are not permitted to set forth inside their church, especially today. These are issues that should be seriously studied.

The issue here concerns the fact that this is a non-Christian service. In fact, the documents on ecumenism that I have read on the Vatican’s website only treat the subject insofar as the Church’s relationships with the Protestant ecclesial communities are concerned. These documents do not fully address the dealings with non-Christians. Whether we want to admit it or not, Judaism is non-Christian, just as Islam is non-Christian.

One of the the documents that addresses non-Christians, as far as I can tell, is Dominus Iesus, written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and promulgated by Pope John Paul II back in the year 2000. The document notes, in part, that:

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God (85), and which are part of what the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions (86). Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God (87). One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments (88). Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation (89).

Thus, while we share a common belief in God the Father with Judaism, we need to remember that there is the chief element that causes a great divide, the recognition of the Lord Jesus (Dominus Iesus) as the Messiah.

Would you be so willing to host an Islamic service at your parish, using your sanctuary? With all due respect, Father, using your line of reasoning from the previous thread, Muslims are also children of Abraham through Ishmael. They even have a high regard for Jesus and the Blessed Mother. But, they are non-Christian.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Is it really appropriate to do so at the expense of the faithful of the parish who have the right to use their sanctuary for the Church’s liturgies?..

You keep referring to this right of the faithful to use the sanctuary, but I have yet to see where you believe such a right has been recognized by the Church. Unfortunately, I don’t think it exists.

The faithful have a right to the sacraments, but I’ve not seen any evidence that they were denied the sacraments in this case, either. There certainly isn’t a right to daily Mass, let alone a right to have the church open to them all the time. Do they have a right to be in their own parish church if anyone else is allowed in? Find where that right is recognized by the Church. I don’t think it is. I think the pastor has the discretion to allow private functions in the church.

Perhaps the parish had other facilities; fine. Nevertheless, it seems to me that unless the bishop directs him otherwise, it is up to the discretion of the pastor to decide which facilities to offer, if any. I tried to find some legal traction the parishioners might have, but so far, I don’t know what it would be. Proving that other rituals aren’t equal to ours doesn’t prove that it is beyond our discretion to host anyone in our churches if we know they aren’t going to pray as we do. After all, doesn’t a Catholic priest have to lead non-Catholic services in order to be a chaplain in the military? Surely if our priests can be pressed into service, due to a fully-foreseeable extremity, our church buildings wouldn’t be exempt. Merely having a non-Catholic prayer uttered in the vicinity of the altar does not, legally speaking, constitute a profaning of the altar. I keep looking for some rule or precedent or parallel to help your case, but I don’t think you have a leg to stand on, here.

Again, I’m not saying it is a great idea. I’m saying it isn’t forbidden. There’s a big difference.

…Would you be so willing to host an Islamic service at your parish, using your sanctuary? With all due respect, Father, using your line of reasoning from the previous thread, Muslims are also children of Abraham through Ishmael. They even have a high regard for Jesus and the Blessed Mother. But, they are non-Christian.

Having said that, I don’t think there exists a canonical barrier to it. Prudence may forbid it, but I don’t think that Church law does.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

With all due respect, please show me where explicitly said that. Approve, yes, but, is it really necessary when the parish has other facilities where this particular service can occur? .

So then you recognize the right of the Ordinary to grant such permission? Here’s the problem, a Bishop can’t authorize something that “compromises the integrity of the sacred space of a Catholic church” which is what you claim this is.

If the Ordinary has the right to make the decision and the issue has been resolved with the Ordinary (or in this case the diocesan administrator) then to rally against it is to stir up discontent against a legitimate authority.

 

[ac_claire]

The diocese did not come out and say that this event should not have happened or even that it will not happen again. Its simply silent on the matter of whether or not this was appropriate in-and-of-itself. Whatever the canonical situation is, the diocese and appropritae authorites have made their peace with it and we should too.

Respectfully Father, this is all just supposition on your part. The pastor did not follow the proper protocol, thus the diocese had no chance to object or to forbid it! The pastor was reprimanded for it. The parishoners are still being displaced during the Jewish services and there are many parishoners who are upset about it. I don’t know that anyone has “made peace” with the situation.

Well, with all due respect, it was hard to tell since you seemed to be reinforcing this belief that the sanctuary needed to be reconsecrated.

She was only repeating what her friend told her, in that it agreed with my fiance’s own concerns. None of us are church authorities and it’s up to the authorities to decide whether or not the church was desecrated. From what I have heard, the diocean administrator never saw what was done to the sanctuary, in addition to not knowing about it beforehand, so at least one parishoner is sending photos to the authorities. I trust them to make the right decision.

It seems no one here trusts the diocese to make appropriate canonical judgments and I find that disturbing.

The problem is, the diocese *didn’t know about it *and still doesn’t know the extent of it (hence the pictures being sent in). For my part, I trust the authorites to make the appropriate canonical judgements when they have all the information.

benedictgal;5754375:

The parish in question has other facilities that could have been used for the occasion. The parish hall is rather nice and could have easily and better fit the needs of the Jewish community. The parishioners would not have had to have been displaced and the community could have had the parish hall to themselves.

How do you know that the other facilities were not being used?

I can answer that: they weren’t.

 

[zab]

I can answer that: they weren’t.

And how do you know? Do you work at the parish and know the schedule? Just because one is a parishioner (or have visited the parish) doesn’t mean that they know what is going on all of the time or whether the hall is reserved or not.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Respectfully Father, this is all just supposition on your part. The pastor did not follow the proper protocol, thus the diocese had no chance to object or to forbid it! The pastor was reprimanded for it. The parishoners are still being displaced during the Jewish services and there are many parishoners who are upset about it. I don’t know that anyone has “made peace” with the situation.

What I said was that the diocese had apparently made its peace with it. The fact that parishioners have not is another matter. The diocese could have still forbidden it if it violated canon law or demanded it be moved to another facility on the parish grounds.

She was only repeating what her friend told her, in that it agreed with my fiance’s own concerns. None of us are church authorities and it’s up to the authorities to decide whether or not the church was desecrated.

Yes, but she never stated a contrary opinion. That was where the confusion lay. If all I say is “yes, others agree with you” and never say what my opinion is, it would be a logical assumption that I am not holding a contrary opinion. Granted its merely an assumption, but it is a logical one.

From what I have heard, the diocean administrator never saw what was done to the sanctuary, in addition to not knowing about it beforehand, so at least one parishoner is sending photos to the authorities. I trust them to make the right decision.

How exactly do they have pictures if parishioners are banned from being there? And secondly, merely covering something over with a cloth is not desecration.

The problem is, the diocese *didn’t know about it *and still doesn’t know the extent of it (hence the pictures being sent in). For my part, I trust the authorites to make the appropriate canonical judgements when they have all the information.

How do you know what the diocese knows and doesn’t know? Were you a party to the communication that has taken place between the pastor and the diocese?

 

[HollyDolly]

EasterJoy, the links to the articles that I posted are from the online magazine Chiesa. In fact, both articles appeared in the Vatican Newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. Thus, the publications were the ones who referred to it as a feast. I never referred to Yom Kippur as a feast.

The parish in question has a lot of facilities. When I was in Austin, I visited the Church a few times. Rather than cover up the Stations and displace the faithful, the pastor could have offered the Congregation the use of the school or the parish hall. That would have been the better course of action to take. One could be hospitable, but, not at the expense of the Church nor of the faithful.

So, this church is in Austin, oh no wonder.Austin is a pretty liberal town. Now i have no problem with them using the parish hall or whatever, but there is no need for them to have used the church it’s self.Some years ago in Time Magazine i think it was, and even on the net, they had about a catholic church in Belgium being used for muslim services.
I don’t believe in it. If a catholic group used a synagog for services, I wouldn’t expect the jews to cover up the torah or anything just because we were there.
I’m sure the priest told the rabbi, oh,yeah will cover up the statutes,etc.
Bad call all around. The priest should have checked with the bishop first.As bishop, I would not have aproved use of the main church for their services,but they could use any other building there they wanted to.

 

[EasterJoy]

Respectfully Father, this is all just supposition on your part. The pastor did not follow the proper protocol, thus the diocese had no chance to object or to forbid it! The pastor was reprimanded for it. The parishoners are still being displaced during the Jewish services and there are many parishoners who are upset about it. I don’t know that anyone has “made peace” with the situation.

She was only repeating what her friend told her, in that it agreed with my fiance’s own concerns. None of us are church authorities and it’s up to the authorities to decide whether or not the church was desecrated. From what I have heard, the diocean administrator never saw what was done to the sanctuary, in addition to not knowing about it beforehand, so at least one parishoner is sending photos to the authorities. I trust them to make the right decision.

The problem is, the diocese *didn’t know about it *and still doesn’t know the extent of it (hence the pictures being sent in). For my part, I trust the authorites to make the appropriate canonical judgements when they have all the information…

I can answer that: they weren’t.

In a similar example (if not the same one, but let’s not go there):
bethshalomaustin.org/calendar/high_holiday.asp

If you compare the schedule of the Jewish High Holiday services and the schedule of the Catholic church referred to in their schedule, I’m not sure where this “displacement” comes from, especially since daily Mass is scheduled for 7 am, and the High Holy Day services don’t start until 10 am on the weekdays and 1 pm on the Sunday. There is no more “displacement” than what might typically happen because a priest is on vacation. There weren’t weekend Masses cancelled, or anything like that. The Rosh Hashanah services that would have happened during the 5 pm Saturday night Mass were held elsewhere. Unless the High Holy Days were to fall on a Sunday or on a Monday for a parish that usually has a Sunday evening Mass, displacement is not necessarily an issue, theoretically.

Furthermore, this particular parish apparently supports itself partly by renting out its facilities. In the case I’m referring to, if not the one the OP is referring to, the parishioners will undoubtedly receive more than just good will for hosting these High Holiday services.

You refer to the “proper protocol”…do you know that this pastor’s bishop required him to get permission for allowing non-Catholics to use the church? Or do you only suppose that he ought to have required it, and so must have? Because if the bishop didn’t require the pastor to ask for permission, the pastor didn’t violate protocol by not asking for it.

He might have been reprimanded simply for not foreseeing what a headache this would pose for the bishop…that is, not for violating protocol, but for violating prudence. Fair enough, because he did. At least some of the parishioners are in an absolute uproar. Within canon law or not, he should have seen that coming. That matters a lot.

Again, it would be atypical for Jewish art to be in violation of Catholic beliefs. There aren’t any graven images of foreign gods (as Hindus might foreseeable have, for instance), no incorrect references to Jesus or the Virgin Mary (as Muslims might foreseeably have, for instance), no quotations from something outside the Holy Scriptures (as Muslims or Mormons might foreseeably have, for instance).

And again…because the Jews have historically had to be careful about who might be eavesdropping and could want to start a pogrom if offended, the Jewish prayers tend to be very careful not to make any directly offensive references to Jesus Christ or Christianity. They stay off the topic entirely. They might mention being delivered from following “false prophets” or “false messiahs” from time to time, but they don’t name names. There is nothing like a history of persecution to enforce political correctness.

IOW, if there are any non-Catholics who could have a service in a Catholic church without ever saying anything that is directly offensive to Catholics, it would be the Jews. It is rash judgement to immediately assume that anything offensive was said, then. That has yet to be proven by anybody. Informed common sense asks to see it before believing it, because it would be unexpected.

How do I know all of this? Because a friend invited me to High Holy Day services at our university, and I went. I have read the actual prayers. Yes, there is variation from one Jewish congregation to the next, they don’t have a GIRM, but I have no reason to believe that these major issues are different for Reform Jews in Texas. These are not services that are repugnant to Catholics, except in what they lack. What is present is not offensive.

Wrong here? It would seem so, very much! Wrong everywhere? That is a tough case to make.

 

[EasterJoy]

So, this church is in Austin, oh no wonder.Austin is a pretty liberal town. Now i have no problem with them using the parish hall or whatever, but there is no need for them to have used the church it’s self.Some years ago in Time Magazine i think it was, and even on the net, they had about a catholic church in Belgium being used for muslim services.
I don’t believe in it. If a catholic group used a synagog for services, I wouldn’t expect the jews to cover up the torah or anything just because we were there.
I’m sure the priest told the rabbi, oh,yeah will cover up the statutes,etc.
Bad call all around. The priest should have checked with the bishop first.As bishop, I would not have aproved use of the main church for their services,but they could use any other building there they wanted to.

There is a parish here in Portland that has great accoustics and that hosts secular concerts fairly often over the course of a year. When I went there for a concert (this was several years ago), the statues and main crucifix were covered. If this parish does the same, the Jews who had been to concerts there would have no reason to think covering the statues when outsiders would be in the church was at all unusual.

If this pastor hosts a similar event again, he is either totally unconcerned about what his parishioners think or he needs to have his head examined.