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

[benedictgal]

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.

However, you miss an important point. It is non-Christian. It is no different than the Islamic service. As for the art, it is not Christian, let alone Catholic. It has no place within a Catholic church.

The sanctuary should not have been used, as I see it. The parish has other facilities. In fact, the community could have also joined up with the other Jewish congregations, for that matter. Furthermore, they have used the facilities at Dell for their other programs, why could they have also not gone there?

Just because you have read the prayers and not found them repugnant, that does not justify what happened.

Furthermore, it is not the pastor’s prerogative to grant permission to use the sanctuary in the manner in which he did. The canon law, which I believe either you or NewEnglandPries brought up to justify this, clearly states that the local ordinary is the one who is to grant the permission. Inasmuch as Austin is without a bishop for the time being, then, such granting would have had to have come from the diocesan administrator.

This also begs another interesting question, why would a Jewish congregation want to use a Catholic sanctuary in the first place?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, you miss an important point. It is non-Christian. It is no different than the Islamic service.

I beg to differ. We share 2000 years of history with Judaism (Abraham to right before Jesus) and we share 39 books of Holy Scripture. Quite different from Islam.

As for the art, it is not Christian, let alone Catholic. It has no place within a Catholic church.

So all those stained glass windows depicting scenes from the OT need to be ripped out of Catholic parishes?

Furthermore, it is not the pastor’s prerogative to grant permission to use the sanctuary in the manner in which he did. The canon law, which I believe either you or NewEnglandPries brought up to justify this, clearly states that the local ordinary is the one who is to grant the permission. Inasmuch as Austin is without a bishop for the time being, then, such granting would have had to have come from the diocesan administrator.

So if the pastor had followed proper protocal you would have been fine with it?

 

[benedictgal]

I beg to differ. We share 2000 years of history with Judaism (Abraham to right before Jesus) and we share 39 books of Holy Scripture. Quite different from Islam.

So all those stained glass windows depicting scenes from the OT need to be ripped out of Catholic parishes?

So if the pastor had followed proper protocal you would have been fine with it?

With all due respect, Father, while we have a shared history, this was before the time of Jesus. While we share 39 books, it is not the same. Inasmuch as that is different from Islam, the point is that Judaism is not Christian.

Please name an instance where Judaic emblems are found in stained glass windows in a Catholic Church. Please cite a source where the Star of David or the Ark of the Covenenat or the Torah shows up in any Catholic religious art. ’

With all due respect, those who support what happened in Austin are avoiding the issue of propriety. Furthermore, if the pastor had followed proper protocol, there is probably a good chance that none of this would have occurred. The community in question would have been able to use any other faciilty in the parish, not necessarily the sanctuary of the Church.

 

[ac_claire]

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.

Because I know the parish, and it’s a huge campus with a big hall and a gym and these places are NEVER occupied beyond the normal weekday functions of the parish/school. Clearly the temple wanted worship space and they were given worship space in the church’s sanctuary.

I hope we’re not just trying to split hairs here; that’s sort of what this sounds like. If you’d like to call the parish office to verify what I’ve told you and report back with your findings, be my guest.

 

[ac_claire]

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.

Yes, I see what you’re saying. But it never went beyond “opinion” territory. Please don’t try to construe this discussion as us implying/debating whether or not the sanctuary was desecrated. I did mention it as well as a concern but am not prepared to debate it.

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.

First of all, we’re not arguing whether or not a desecration took place. Secondly, Benedictgal’s friend was invited by the temple in and I know of at least two other people who “made” their way inside. Either during the services or after the fact (to help clean up? I don’t know.) These are the exceptions, as the fact that the Catholics were explicitly barred from the premesis is not a secret, but a published fact.

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?

I was party to some communication between the diocese and individual parishoners, yes. Unless the diocese administrator is lying, then the pastor didn’t have succifient permissions for this and was reprimanded.

I’m getting the feeling though, with both your and zab’s question above, that you’re just splitting hairs. Every time something is answered, you push it aside and come up with some other brand new, just-thought-of “what if?” or “but how do you know that xyz didn’t happen?” etc., etc.

Why do you have such a problen with the simple facts which *every single poster *on these two threads who actually has something to do either with the parish or the situation directly is in agreement about? And yet some of yall, outsiders who have nothing to do with the parish, are doubting and second guessing the honesty of every single sincere point.

Using your “logical assumption” argument from above…Why are you jumping to the defence of a person/parish accused of unorthodoxy or questionable judgement (accused not for condemnation but so that the problem can be corrected) rather than showing that your first loyalty is with orthodoxy/orthopraxy itself? Instead, not even knowing all the facts or even half the facts, you jumped in feet first to defend the person who exhibited the questionable judgement. I don’t understand why.

 

[EasterJoy]

However, you miss an important point. It is non-Christian. It is no different than the Islamic service. As for the art, it is not Christian, let alone Catholic. It has no place within a Catholic church.

The sanctuary should not have been used, as I see it. The parish has other facilities. In fact, the community could have also joined up with the other Jewish congregations, for that matter. Furthermore, they have used the facilities at Dell for their other programs, why could they have also not gone there?

Just because you have read the prayers and not found them repugnant, that does not justify what happened.

Furthermore, it is not the pastor’s prerogative to grant permission to use the sanctuary in the manner in which he did. The canon law, which I believe either you or NewEnglandPries brought up to justify this, clearly states that the local ordinary is the one who is to grant the permission. Inasmuch as Austin is without a bishop for the time being, then, such granting would have had to have come from the diocesan administrator.

This also begs another interesting question, why would a Jewish congregation want to use a Catholic sanctuary in the first place?

I have learned that the pastor did not have this perogative. That is fine. I accept that. Some don’t seem to understand that, had it been a clear violation, the remainder of the services would have had to have been moved. In other words, some of us don’t want to admit this is ever permissible at all.

These are the most solemn services of the entire Jewish calendar. It is like Triduum is to us. A gym would be acceptable only as a last resort. Yet many Jewish congregations have to find bigger facilities for the High Holy Days, because it is the only time of the year when Jews have an absolute obligation to be at services…as in, Jewish graduate students across the world get calls from their mothers. Many congregations find that if they built a synagogue/temple big enough for High Holy Days, they spend the rest of the year feeling like marbles in a bath tub. And the services go all day. It isn’t like Christmas or Easter for us, where more Masses can be added.

As for the art, you’re grasping at straws. Our Lady has the title of the Ark of the Covenant. That image could appear on a stained glass window dedicated to her. Likewise, lions or eagles. Likewise, Our Lord reading the holy scrolls in synagogue, as was his habit. (Luke 4:14-22) You won’t see many images, save those, the Ten Commandments (still OK, I’m guessing), and natural images like flowers, trees, and vines, and often not even those. The Scripture verses that Jews favor for decorating their synagogues could easily be sung during our own Responsorial Psalm. That somebody is ignorant of Hebrew doesn’t make the art that includes it foreign to Christianity. Considering the way the Rome treated the Apostles, they’d probably be a little surprised to find our churches full of Latin, rather than Hebrew and Greek!

But no matter. Perhaps Jews shouldn’t worship in Catholic churches, not because anybody can demonstrate that they are doing anything repugnant, but because some uneducated parishioners might wander in, take scandal, and rush to rash judgement. They should be spared that near occasion of sin. Let’s face it: some of us will be scandalized at the thought that God could hear any prayers, save our own, from inside a Catholic church.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Please name an instance where Judaic emblems are found in stained glass windows in a Catholic Church. Please cite a source where the Star of David or the Ark of the Covenenat or the Torah shows up in any Catholic religious art.

LOL, you haven’t been to many churches then. While the star of david is indeed rare (though it has been used to represent the house of david in catholic art) there are plenty of images of the ark and the torah in Catholic parishes.

With all due respect, those who support what happened in Austin are avoiding the issue of propriety. Furthermore, if the pastor had followed proper protocol, there is probably a good chance that none of this would have occurred. The community in question would have been able to use any other faciilty in the parish, not necessarily the sanctuary of the Church.

You’re making an awful lot of assumptions here. But you still fail to answer the basic question I asked: if the proper authority approved it, would you still object?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I was party to some communication between the diocese and individual parishoners, yes. Unless the diocese administrator is lying, then the pastor didn’t have succifient permissions for this and was reprimanded.

OK, we’ve established he didn’t have the proper approval in the beginning. But the diocesan administrator did not say it had to be moved to another location so as of this point the current conditions are approved by the diocesan administrator.

I’m getting the feeling though, with both your and zab’s question above, that you’re just splitting hairs. Every time something is answered, you push it aside and come up with some other brand new, just-thought-of “what if?” or “but how do you know that xyz didn’t happen?” etc., etc.

Actually, I get that feeling from others in these threads. Its like trying to hit a moving target. First its said that this can’t ever happen then its said that there wasn’t proper communication then its said there’s possible desecration then its said this that and the other.

Why do you have such a problen with the simple facts which *every single poster *on these two threads who actually has something to do either with the parish or the situation directly is in agreement about? And yet some of yall, outsiders who have nothing to do with the parish, are doubting and second guessing the honesty of every single sincere point.

For starters, saying that something cannot happen is a matter of canon law and ecumenical guidelines. Those are objective issues and have nothing to do with the local parish. So those are what is being debated.
Secondly, for any decision in a parish I can find 50 people who absolutely love it and 50 people who absolutely hate it. So the fact that a handful of people who hate it made/searched their way to this board doesn’t mean all that much.
As for the honesty of posters, that’s not really being questioned. What’s being questioned is: of what is being posted what are facts and what are assumptions?

Instead, not even knowing all the facts or even half the facts, you jumped in feet first to defend the person who exhibited the questionable judgement. I don’t understand why.

When this thread first started there were next to zero facts presented. People were jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I, for one, do not automatically assume that a decision I don’t like was made in an improper manner. And in reality, the argument that this can never take place has been essentially refuted and proven false. All that’s left is: were the proper procedures followed? Apparently they were not, but that is being dealt with between the pastor and the diocesan administrator.
The facts as we have them is that this can take place with proper approval and that approval (whether freely given or given under duress) has in fact been given.

For example, an outside priest can only validly perform a wedding of 2 of my parishioners with my permission. Let’s say I walk into my sacristy one saturday and see a priest getting ready to do a wedding that I was not aware of. I would be very upset that this is taking place without properly informing me. However, for the sake of the couple I give my permission for the wedding. Yes my hands were “tied” but I would also be well within my canonical rights to refuse to grant permission and thus either abort the cerimony or cause any consent to be invalid. The fact I gave my permission out of duress does not negate the validity of my permission and thus the marriage that takes place would in fact be valid and licit since it has the proper canonical permission.

Why are you jumping to the defence of a person/parish accused of unorthodoxy

Whoa! Hold on there. Failure to follow proper canonical procedure does not make him “unorthodox”. There’s plenty of priests and laity who are very holy and orthodox individuals who don’t always understand the finer points of canon law and thus make mistakes. Its highly unfair and rather slanderous/libel to accuse them of being unorthodox as if they were some kind of heretic.

 

[zab]

ac claire,
In response to your questions directed to NewEnglandPries and me, Father nailed it in his post. It is not as though you presented us with facts from the beginning. Bits were added here and there and then they did not come across as facts but more as assumptions. I did say on more than one post that you have some legitimate concerns. I just think that you should bring those concerns to your pastor instead of making too many assumptions. Now you are getting on the defense by attacking posters who have questioned your facts. I have to wonder why.

 

[ac_claire]

Actually, I get that feeling from others in these threads. Its like trying to hit a moving target. First its said that this can’t ever happen then its said that there wasn’t proper communication then its said there’s possible desecration then its said this that and the other.

In response to your questions directed to NewEnglandPries and me, Father nailed it in his post. It is not as though you presented us with facts from the beginning. Bits were added here and there and then they did not come across as facts but more as assumptions. I did say on more than one post that you have some legitimate concerns. I just think that you should bring those concerns to your pastor instead of making too many assumptions. Now you are getting on the defense by attacking posters who have questioned your facts. I have to wonder why.

Sorry if it seemed like an attack, it wasn’t. I can see where you’re coming from. I’m trying to look at the thread like yall might be looking at it instead of just seeing my own POV.

The facts of what happened haven’t changed. I didn’t start the thread to lay out all the details as I knew them and have a discussion about them. When I posted the OP I didn’t know the details, I didn’t know if any protocol had been breached; I didn’t know if maybe I was the only one who was bothered. I only had a real bad gut feeling and what my fiance told me about the rules. That’s why the thread was started. The rest of the facts have been confirmed in the thread or by PM or by further research.

This thread was actually meant to address some of the things that came up in the other thread. I’m going to re-post the OP, editing out some of the commentary so we’ll be left with the main questions:

Recently a Jewish temple was invited by the pastor of a church I attend to hold their High Holy Days services for the month of Sept. at our church. The original thread about it can be found here.

There were some comments made about how accomodating these non-Christians and their worship services in charity might include covering up the statues, altar and stations of the cross so as not to offend the visitors, who-- again-- are not themselves Christian. I was a little shocked to hear this view and asked for clarification, but it was never addressed further.

The way I see it, this public acceptance of /respect for a group’s rejection of Christ amounts to being ashamed of our religion. Or at least, of ackowledging the validity of other faith traditions that don’t accept Christianity. Yes, we are called to be charitable to all, but are we called to publically give the impression that rejecting/ignoring Christ (in His own house no less) is somehow ok? How is this evangelizing?

 

[ac_claire]

I’ll try one last time. Is it ever appropriate to cover up artwork/sacramentals (like a crucifix or the Stations of the Cross for instance) depicting Christ’s Passion and Crucifixion in order to make non-Christian visitors to a church feel more comfortable? To those who answered “yes”-- please explain.