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

[EasterJoy]

Just to be clear, and sorry I didn’t make it plain before, the Stations of the Cross were covered up. This has been confirmed by at least 3 witnesses who somehow got in to see it and apparently there are pictures. There aren’t many statues in the sanctuary…only two-- off to the side-- if I remember correctly, but one of the witnesses said that they were covered. They were covered because they symbolize Christian worship.

Assuming that the statues/stations of the cross/altar were covered for these reasons and not the ones that EasterJoy supposed, do you think that’s right?

Well, it is imaginable that the Catholics cover them to show respect to their own sacred symbols and sacramentals and the Jews are OK with that because the symbols make their own liturgy seem less in place when uncovered. It is the Catholic reasons that need to be found understandable and acceptable by the parishioners, but if the Jewish reasons for going along with it are disconcerting, that could be a factor to some.

When I wrote that it was a delicate situation, I meant that it was a delicate situation for both sides, and not just with regards to the sensibilities of the Jewish congregants. The sensibilities of the parishioners in the host parish have to be taken into account, too. Even if my scenario were totally true, it would still not fly if the parishioners didn’t buy it, IMHO. I don’t think it would be wise for a pastor to be either heavy-handed or to try to “fly under the radar” with this. It has to be something the parishioners will go with when it is done altogether openly. You don’t give your home over to the use of friends while on vacation, and fail to let the kids know that you’re doing that, even if you’re the parent and they’re kids. Pastors have authority over their parishes, but they had better give their adult parishioners far more consideration even than what a parent owes to children living under his or her roof. This is about peace and mutual trust within the family, between those who have the authority and those who do have feelings worthy of respect by those who want their trust, even if they don’t have ultimate authority. I mean that even the pastor and a unanimous parish council ought not to try to ram this down the other parishioners’ throats. I think that would be imprudent.

If I were in the Jewish congregation, and found that the local Catholic church couldn’t be used because there wasn’t a way to deal with the permanent Christian artwork inside that both sides could be comfortable with, I wouldn’t take that as anti-semitism. This is like asking to use someone’s home, not like asking to borrow their car. It is a very intimate invitation, and all sides need to not only be respected and acting in fidelity to their own beliefs, but need to feel that way, too.

 

[benedictgal]

Their website says that this congregation is a “Reform Jewish Congregation” so I guess that answers that. As to the question “did they profane the sanctuary,” that MusicMan brought up previously, I would say yeah they did. My fiance believes that the church should be re-consecrated for this reason…but that’s only his opinion, and mine is my opinion, and neither of us are church authorities. It just seems that a group that rejects Christ worshipping in Christ’s house, covering up the sacramentals and any artwork that alludes to Christ and barring Catholics from attending because we’re “impure”…seems like that would qualify as profaning a sacred space. That’s only my opinion.

My main thing in this thread is about charity. Fr. Corapi says something to the effect of, it’s never charity to confirm someone in their sin. I think the same would hold true for ignorance, whether invincible or vincible.

I spoke to my friend, who is a fellow parishioner of yours. She, too, is of the opinion that perhaps the sanctuary should be reconsecrated.

Some people might take this as prejudice. Please know that it is not, nor is it uncharitable. As I have stated in my initial post, the parish has other facilities that the Congregation could have and should have used. Inasmuch as the pastor, from what I recall during my time in Austin, was greatly involved in ecumenism, I believe that this was a step too far.

 

[EasterJoy]

I spoke to an elderly friend of mine who is a parishioner of the parish in question. She, too, voiced a lot of concern regarding the issue. She told me that the stations of the Cross had been covered up and replaced with Jewish artwork. Granted, this information is second-hand; however, I trust my friend.

We also talked about charity. The parish in question does have some facilities, such as the school and the parish hall where the Jewish faithful could have had their services. We both agreed that it would have been better for them to use these facilities than to use the actual church.

There will be folks who will quote Canon law and cite articles from different diocesan newspapers that note that such sanctuary-sharing has happened, but, as I see it, it’s a stretch. If we cannot celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a non-Christian house of worship, then, it should hold true that non-Christians should not be using our sanctuary.

Such a viewpoint, I submit, should not be taken to mean that I am being uncharitable. The parish has other facilities, as I have noted, that can be used. The major bone of contention was the fact that the usage of the sanctuary displaced the faithful of the parish.

One interesting thing to note is the fact that the congregation in question has also used the facilities at Dell for some of their activities.

While ecumenism calls for us to see the similarities in each other’s beliefs, it does not call for us to sell out. I found this article from Chiesa rather interesting.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1340216?eng=y

The article presents two very divergent views of Yom Kippur.

I spoke to my friend, who is a fellow parishioner of yours. She, too, is of the opinion that perhaps the sanctuary should be reconsecrated.

Some people might take this as prejudice. Please know that it is not, nor is it uncharitable. As I have stated in my initial post, the parish has other facilities that the Congregation could have and should have used. Inasmuch as the pastor, from what I recall during my time in Austin, was greatly involved in ecumenism, I believe that this was a step too far.

There are two issues at play here. One is whether it constitutes a desecration of a Catholic church to allow the statues to be covered in order for non-Catholic worship to take place there. If it is not a desecration, then reconsecration is not in order. We have no reason to believe this constituted desecration, rather than a lesser offense against personal sensibilities or a sense of the seemliness of the thing. “There will be folks who will quote canon law”…well, canon law does set the ultimate boundaries, with prudence coming in after that. Not every use of a church or sacred space that falls short of its intended use or seems just emotionally to miss its intended use is automatically desecration. This is hardly a hair-splitting distinction.

That prudence doesn’t come in black and white letters does not make the exercise of prudence a trivial consideration. The other issue is whether the parishioners feel it is a failure in evangelization or willingness to witness the Faith to allow the space to be used for any non-Catholic use at all, let alone for the sacred art to be covered or replaced, and for worship by those of another faith. That is a horse of a different color. Perception is reality.

The main thing I found jarring about the two pieces you posted about Yom Kippur is the reference to it as a feast day. A feast day? It is a very strict day of fasting! Not only no food, but nothing to drink from when the sun sets on Kol Nidre evening until total darkness and the shofar is blown the next night. A joyful fast, because it is a fast full of hope in God’s mercy, but a very strict one, such as we do not have because our fast days are also work days. That evening and the whole next day is spent in supplication for God’s mercy. Only then is the fast broken, but then the Day of Atonement itself is over.

It is a solemn day, the most solemn of days for Jews, a day when one reflects on living life so as to be chosen for inclusion in the eternal Book of the Living. This is heavy stuff. The congregation was undoubtedly looking for a space of solemnity of the kind one would want for a very formal wedding. There are parish halls that fit that bill, but not many. If a neighbor asks to use your house for a wedding, and you say, “No, but you can have the barn”, don’t be surprised if the neighbor insists that it needs to be the house or nothing. This isn’t an event for a gym. If the Catholics or another church in the area did not want to offer their best gathering space, it would be better to find the money to rent a well-appointed banquet space in a hotel.

Nevertheless, I kind of doubt that this was a parish that was emotionally prepared for this, even if it all the arrangements had been entirely in accordance with canon law. That is nothing against the parish, IMHO, and certainly not an indication of prejudice or anti-semitism. No one, Catholic or not, should have to apologize for having gut-level religious sensibilities that go beyond the letter of the law. Catholic sensibilities count, too, and that goes for every Catholic in the parish, not just the pastor and the staff.

I don’t think it is wrong to do it, and I wouldn’t accuse a parish that allowed it of either desecrating their space or of failing to witness the Gospel. That doesn’t make a parish that sees it differently wrong. Different parishes have different charisms in this world, and different sensibilities. That’s OK.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

 

[ac_claire]

There are two issues at play here. One is whether it constitutes a desecration of a Catholic church to allow the statues to be covered in order for non-Catholic worship to take place there. If it is not a desecration, then reconsecration is not in order. We have no reason to believe this constituted desecration, rather than a lesser offense against personal sensibilities or a sense of the seemliness of the thing. “There will be folks who will quote canon law”…well, canon law does set the ultimate boundaries, with prudence coming in after that. Not every use of a church or sacred space that falls short of its intended use or seems just emotionally to miss its intended use is automatically desecration. This is hardly a hair-splitting distinction.

That prudence doesn’t come in black and white letters does not make the exercise of prudence a trivial consideration. The other issue is whether the parishioners feel it is a failure in evangelization or willingness to witness the Faith to allow the space to be used for any non-Catholic use at all, let alone for the sacred art to be covered or replaced, and for worship by those of another faith. That is a horse of a different color. Perception is reality.

The main thing I found jarring about the two pieces you posted about Yom Kippur is the reference to it as a feast day. A feast day? It is a very strict day of fasting! Not only no food, but nothing to drink from when the sun sets on Kol Nidre evening until total darkness and the shofar is blown the next night. A joyful fast, because it is a fast full of hope in God’s mercy, but a very strict one, such as we do not have because our fast days are also work days. That evening and the whole next day is spent in supplication for God’s mercy. Only then is the fast broken, but then the Day of Atonement itself is over.

It is a solemn day, the most solemn of days for Jews, a day when one reflects on living life so as to be chosen for inclusion in the eternal Book of the Living. This is heavy stuff. The congregation was undoubtedly looking for a space of solemnity of the kind one would want for a very formal wedding. There are parish halls that fit that bill, but not many. If a neighbor asks to use your house for a wedding, and you say, “No, but you can have the barn”, don’t be surprised if the neighbor insists that it needs to be the house or nothing. This isn’t an event for a gym. If the Catholics or another church in the area did not want to offer their best gathering space, it would be better to find the money to rent a well-appointed banquet space in a hotel.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I can appreciate the sacredness of their holy days, but I think that’s beside the point. I believe you can’t turn a Catholic church into a jewish synogogue without compromising some of the sacredness of the sanctuary and the intended purpose for which it’s been consecrated, which is Christian worship.

Nevertheless, I kind of doubt that this was a parish that was emotionally prepared for this, even if it all the arrangements had been entirely in accordance with canon law. That is nothing against the parish, IMHO, and certainly not an indication of prejudice or anti-semitism. No one, Catholic or not, should have to apologize for having gut-level religious sensibilities that go beyond the letter of the law. Catholic sensibilities count, too, and that goes for every Catholic in the parish, not just the pastor and the staff.

True, and nobody knew about it till the last minute, either. We weren’t warned ahead of time and I’m sure, as you say, that contributed so some of the upset.

I don’t think it is wrong to do it, and I wouldn’t accuse a parish that allowed it of either desecrating their space or of failing to witness the Gospel. That doesn’t make a parish that sees it differently wrong. Different parishes have different charisms in this world, and different sensibilities. That’s OK.

So (based on your first couple paragraphs) you don’t think that covering up Christian artwork/sacramentals and barring Christians from being on the premesis as being opposed to the mission of a Catholic church because of a supposition that the terms were probably come to by mutual agreement? Just trying to understand.

 

[zab]

I think you have some legitimate concerns and they should be addressed to your pastor. The Jewish congregation is caught in the middle of this. According to the Rabbi they want to feel welcome in their new place of worship. I think it is important that the parishioners do not give them the impression that they are desecrating your church. The visitors are not at fault here. I am wondering if the good intentions of covering of the Stations etc. backfired and rather than making the visitors feel more welcome, raised questions as to why the pastor felt the need to hide them.

 

[ac_claire]

I think you have some legitimate concerns and they should be addressed to your pastor. The Jewish congregation is caught in the middle of this. According to the Rabbi they want to feel welcome in their new place of worship. I think it is important that the parishioners do not give them the impression that they are desecrating your church. The visitors are not at fault here. I am wondering if the good intentions of covering of the Stations etc. backfired and rather than making the visitors feel more welcome, raised questions as to why the pastor felt the need to hide them.

In a way this brings up the problem EasterJoy’s post highlighted…in that we really don’t know who exactly (The Jews or our pastor) got the ball rolling on the covering of the stations of the cross, statues, etc. And we don’t know the exact reasons behind it. I have absolutely no problem believing it was for a so-called “good” reason as you say, but this is all irrelevent. I don’t think any reason for hiding the Catholic parts of a Catholic church so non-Catholics can use it for their own (non-Christian) worship is defensible. We shouldn’t be ashamed of the Gospel. You can instead call it “sensitivity” or “courtesy” but it’s still the same thing and if you examine it closely and without prejudice, I believe it boils down to shame and denial.

If the pastor offered to do it to make the visitors feel more welcome, I believe he shouldn’t have done that. If the synogogue representatives did it so things would be less awkward for them, they shouldn’t have done that either. Point is, this is a consecrated Catholic Church. Period. It’s not just any old building with four walls where a priest says Mass. I think that fundamental (mis-)understanding of what the church is might be where some of us are not understanding eachother.

 

[EasterJoy]

My feeling is that, as far as I know, what was described does not necessarily violate canon law. It does not, per se, constitute a descecration of the church, nor is it inherently an act of shame concerning the faith, nor is it necessarily a failure of evangelization. It could be, depending on the circumstances, but it might not be. (Well, canon law is to the letter, so some one could conceivably argue that it doesn’t violate canon law. I couldn’t say that for sure.)

OTOH, it seems pretty clear that doing this in such a way to avoid scandal or violation of the sensibilities of parishioners is going to be a very high bar to clear in a lot of parishes, if not most of them. That is a very important bar to clear. I would go so far as to say that according to prudence, it is a pastoral necessity to do so. A pastor who takes this on also takes on the task of communicating why it was done in a way the respects our own faith.

If the parish next door did it, I wouldn’t be offended by it, or at least not necessarily. Again, though, it is something that absolutely could be done in an inappropriate way, too. Nevertheless, if it could be done sensititively and with integrity with regards to our own faith, it might also be an act of great compassion. It just depends.

If my pastor decided it wouldn’t be appropriate for our parish to do it, then, I would not doubt his prudence, nor his charity. It is obviously a minefield, and his first responsibility is to his parishioners.

 

[ac_claire]

My feeling is that, as far as I know, what was described does not necessarily violate canon law. It does not, per se, constitute a descecration of the church, nor is it inherently an act of shame concerning the faith, nor is it necessarily a failure of evangelization. It could be, depending on the circumstances, but it might not be. (Well, canon law is to the letter, so some one could conceivably argue that it doesn’t violate canon law. I couldn’t say that for sure.)

OTOH, it seems pretty clear that doing this in such a way to avoid scandal or violation of the sensibilities of parishioners is going to be a very high bar to clear in a lot of parishes, if not most of them. That is a very important bar to clear. I would go so far as to say that according to prudence, it is a pastoral necessity to do so. A pastor who takes this on also takes on the task of communicating why it was done in a way the respects our own faith.

If the parish next door did it, I wouldn’t be offended by it, or at least not necessarily. Again, though, it is something that absolutely could be done in an inappropriate way, too. Nevertheless, if it could be done sensititively and with integrity with regards to our own faith, it might also be an act of great compassion. It just depends.

If my pastor decided it wouldn’t be appropriate for our parish to do it, then, I would not doubt his prudence, nor his charity. It is obviously a minefield, and his first responsibility is to his parishioners.

Here’s the pertinent canon law:

Can. 1210 Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden.* In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place**.*

This type of thing can be allowed in a Catholic church if it goes through the proper channels of authority, ie: through the local ordinary, or bishop. The pastor of my church did not go through the bishop, he didn’t seek or receive permission. The congregation only learned of it days before it started, and the diocese might never have even known about it if parishoners hadn’t started complaining. Canon law was violated.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Here’s the pertinent canon law:

Can. 1210 Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden.* In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place***.

This type of thing can be allowed in a Catholic church if it goes through the proper channels of authority, ie: through the local ordinary, or bishop. The pastor of my church did not go through the bishop, he didn’t seek or receive permission. The congregation only learned of it days before it started, and the diocese might never have even known about it if parishoners hadn’t started complaining. Canon law was violated.

According to one poster the diocese did learn of it, contacted the pastor, and did not object or forbid it as a matter of law. The diocese apparently did object to being kept out of the loop but no statement was issued saying that this should not have taken place.
The diocecse is essentially silent on the appropriateness and in the old latin expression goes: Qui tacet consentit, silence implies consent

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I spoke to my friend, who is a fellow parishioner of yours. She, too, is of the opinion that perhaps the sanctuary should be reconsecrated.

And what bearing does that have? Someone or even some group with no training in canon law is going to officially define how the Church understands desecration and when a reconsecration is needed?

 

[benedictgal]

And what bearing does that have? Someone or even some group with no training in canon law is going to officially define how the Church understands desecration and when a reconsecration is needed?

With all due respect, Father, she and others were upset about what had happened. Furthermore, the fact that the Jewish Congregation did not allow the faithful access to their own sanctuary because a non-Christian service was happening is also cause for valid concern. The pastor did not also clear this with the proper authorities, ie, the diocesan administrator. It was only after parishioners complained that the diocese learned that this was about to happen.

I wonder if those who support what happened would be so inclined to do the same had a Hindi, Muslim or Budhist service had occured in the sanctuary of a Catholic church, as these are also non-Christian denominations.

 

[benedictgal]

According to one poster the diocese did learn of it, contacted the pastor, and did not object or forbid it as a matter of law. The diocese apparently did object to being kept out of the loop but no statement was issued saying that this should not have taken place.
The diocecse is essentially silent on the appropriateness and in the old latin expression goes: Qui tacet consentit, silence implies consent

However, the poster also indicated that this did not necessarily mean that it had the diocesan seal of approval. Thus, silence does not necessarily mean approval.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what the poster in the other thread wrote:

Originally Posted by atxne
First, I am not “attack[ing] the parish priest and the diocese without evidence.” To imply that is simply not reasonable and there is nothing in any of my posts that would suggest same. Nor would that be charitable or truthful.

Perhaps the reason that you have such a difficult time in understanding how such a thing might happen without notice being provided to either the bishop’s office or the office of administrator, and without the proper protocols having been followed, is precisely why many of us are having such a difficult time with this. (Interestingly, you describe this as “something of this magnitude” but your earlier remark appear to downplay this as any significant type of event) As provided in an email response from the diocese dated this past Saturday, the diocese did not learn of this arrangement until the very afternoon on the day before the Jewish celebration was to begin at the church.

The diocese further noted in the same transmittal that discussions did thereafter occur with the parish priest regarding this matter and that the diocese and the priest agreed that in the future the bishop or diocesan administrator should first be included as a part of these initiatives so as to avoid the very situation that has now occurred.

In my opinion you cannot read too much into the fact that no correction was made upon learning of the plans mere hours before the celebration was to begin and thousands of Jewish faithful were prepared to attend at the churc. I** certainly do not see this as the diocese’s imprimatur on this matter.**

I am hopeful that you now have a better understanding as to both how this issue began, and why it is one that has made many of us uncomfortable.

Thus, silence, as I see it, does not necessarily mean that the diocese in question agreed to what was done.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

With all due respect, Father, she and others were upset about what had happened. Furthermore, the fact that the Jewish Congregation did not allow the faithful access to their own sanctuary because a non-Christian service was happening is also cause for valid concern. The pastor did not also clear this with the proper authorities, ie, the diocesan administrator. It was only after parishioners complained that the diocese learned that this was about to happen.

What does that have to do with whether or not the church needs to be reconsecrated?

I wonder if those who support what happened would be so inclined to do the same had a Hindi, Muslim or Budhist service had occured in the sanctuary of a Catholic church, as these are also non-Christian denominations.

But they are also not the religion/culture that our own religion/culture sprung from. Catholicism considers itself a “natural fruit” of Judaism whereas those other religions have zero connection to us.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Thus, silence, as I see it, does not necessarily mean that the diocese in question agreed to what was done.

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.

 

[benedictgal]

What does that have to do with whether or not the church needs to be reconsecrated?

But they are also not the religion/culture that our own religion/culture sprung from. Catholicism considers itself a “natural fruit” of Judaism whereas those other religions have zero connection to us.

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 you were to have read what I posted, I noted that my friend shares the opinion of the OP’s fiance. Please do not ascribe what I posted regarding their sentiments as my opinion as to whether or not the sanctuary should be reconsecrated.

Ecumenism does not mean that we should be ashamed of what we hold sacred and cover it up simply to appease others. It would do us all well to re-read Dominus Iesus.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If you were to have read what I posted, I noted that my friend shares the opinion of the OP’s fiance. Please do not ascribe what I posted regarding their sentiments as my opinion as to whether or not the sanctuary should be reconsecrated.

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.

 

[revert_jen]

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

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 the diocese had been contacted before the arrangement had been made, and had then approved of covering up the Christian images and forbidding access of Catholics to their own parish church, there could be no question of reconsecration. Even so, it would still be acceptable for the parishioners to feel that perhaps the Bishop had been lacking in prudence or in pastoral care for them, even as they accepted his judgement as binding. Perhaps in that case it would not be good to ask questions about it in this forum; I don’t know. But anyway, that is not what happened.

Which is all to say that forgiveness is not the same as permission. And people wondering about the consequences of this situation are not questioning the Bishop’s judgement about those actions, because he was effectively prevented from making that judgement known.

:twocents:
–Jen

 

[EasterJoy]

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.