Giving Priests the Benefit of the Doubt

[Joe_5859]

Very interesting. I rather liked the theater imagery. It resonates with my experience doing plays in high school. I do not like public speaking, but doing theater was always different. The script freed me to go all in.

Of course, the liturgy is not a “play”, but I can appreciate the comparison and how sticking to the script can free you to participate more completely.

Yet, there are times when even the script says “In these or similar words.” So sometimes going off script is not doing anything wrong.

 

[13pollitos]

There are mostly good priests who are at least trying to do what’s right and I think it stands to reason that things should begin with a talk to the priest himself. If it’s nothing truly severe and speaking with him does nothing I think it’s best to just drop the matter. There are a few times that priests truly are causing real harm. If talking to the priest doesn’t help, go to the bishop. Unfortunately that often does nothing either. A former parish of mine is fighting this unfortunate battle currently. There are times that priests really are wrong and parishioners deserve the help of the diocese in those situations. Unfortunately they rarely get it. I’ve been praying for my former parish. If you all have time, please pray for them as well. (Don’t want to put too much on the public forum but the situation is severe and has been in numerous newspapers)

 

[TheLittleLady]

The general person in the pew gives the Priest this benefit.

Those who watch EWTN, read blogs, etc are the folks who tend to question.

 

[po18guy]

Those who watch EWTN, read blogs, etc are the folks who tend to question.

I do, and I don’t. The greatest of the theological virtues, charity, demands that we assume the best of the priests. Thomas á Kempis teaches that we should assume the worst of ourselves and the best of others.

 

[edwest211]

Those who read Catholic literature and who go to websites like EWTN should be encouraged and should encourage others. The mass is not a sit back and relax event. Catholics should understand why the mass is the mass as defined by the Church. Going off-script is definitely wrong. There is no ‘sensitivity’ in this. Golfers are taught how to do things the right way. Priests should do things the right way. It appears there are some false ideas circulating about how the mass should be. A bit of guidance from Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

 

[edwest211]

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

 

[angel12]

Otherwise the next thread will be about how they offended their Priest

Or, more likely, how offended they are that their priest was offended.

 

[CilladeRoma]

No, they should talk to said priest first.
I have worked for 2 Bishops now, and know 3 others.
The first question out of their mouths when something like this is brought to them is
"Have you spoken to the priest about this? If not, do that first. If you still have an issue, then contact the Pastor (if not the priest you have issue with.) Then, if there are still questions, contact my office with all the relevant documentation."

 

[ioannes_pius]

Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[JohnLilburne]

A few excerpts from the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

"[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.[27] On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,[28] and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. "

“[13.] All of the norms and exhortations set forth in this Instruction are connected, albeit in various ways, with the mission of the Church, whose task it is to be vigilant concerning the correct and worthy celebration of so great a mystery.”

"6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity."

From 186: "Let Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command.[294] For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy.[295]

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned."

The full document is at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[jack63]

I have worked for 2 Bishops now, and know 3 others.
The first question out of their mouths when something like this is brought to them is
"Have you spoken to the priest about this? If not, do that first. If you still have an issue, then contact the Pastor (if not the priest you have issue with.) Then, if there are still questions, contact my office with all the relevant documentation."

I don’t go over anybody’s head until I give them fair warning. The Bishops you work with are really following a very Christian way of managing conflict described in Matthew 18:15-17. This is good.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church;…

This is also a good way for dealing with relationships while working in industry. Going over people’s head straight to the boss is a good way to infuriate your co-workers, annoy your boss to no end, and lose your job.

 

[OraLabora]

Here’s a riddle for those who complain about liturgical abuses.

For some (especially from Latin-derived cultures), what’s not explicitly forbidden is permitted, for example priests adding a prayer here or there, or making a comment.

For others (especially from a Germanic background), what isn’t specifically allowed is forbidden.

Could it be that some “liturgical abuses” come from these two significant cultural differences?

 

[edwest211]

The answer is no.

 

[dochawk]

e. Do I wish the priest would carefully follow each rubric?

Keep in mind that the rubric are full of “in these or similar words” . . .

If anyone sees a priest not observing the proper form of the mass, they should contact their local Archdiocese or Bishop or Archbishop.

If the threads started here are any indication, the overwhelming majority of such observations come from people not understanding what the rubrics provide . . .

 

[angel12]

If anyone sees a priest not observing the proper form of the mass, they should contact their local Archdiocese or Bishop or Archbishop. Whatever they saw should be politely and accurately presented.

And in most cases, the response will be “Have you talked to Father _________ about this?”
One should speak to the priest first.

 

[Horton]

I think this will vary depending on geography. I’ve seen places where I wouldnt ever question a liturgical anomaly. And now I live in a place where there is plenty of evidence to suggest the priests are either ignorant of the liturgy or feel it is theirs to change how they wish.

I’m sorry you are experiencing this in your area. In my current parish I’ve been fortunate to have priests who not take liberties with the liturgy. The former priest was very orthodox but quick. He was a master at the 50 minute Mass, but everything was there. Our current priests are very orthodox and traditional. Mass is generally extended to 70 minutes. Only a few really mind the extra 10 minutes, most of us don’t.

I have been in one parish in our diocese where the priest took many liberties with the liturgy, but I’m not sure he is in your area. If so, I know what you are talking about.

 

[Horton]

I will give priests the benefit of the doubt. I’m very fortunate to have two great priests who are faithful to the Mass. We recently had a retired priest say Mass here and it wasn’t like any other Mass I’ve been to, but knowing this priest I know he is a holy man and that was just the way he says Mass. All the critical elements were there and we received the Eucharist.

I figure priests know more about the Mass than I ever will, so they get my trust.

 

[Pitcairn17]

Mi_Rose:

e. Do I wish the priest would carefully follow each rubric?

Keep in mind that the rubric are full of “in these or similar words” . . .

If anyone sees a priest not observing the proper form of the mass, they should contact their local Archdiocese or Bishop or Archbishop.

If the threads started here are any indication, the overwhelming majority of such observations come from people not understanding what the rubrics provide . . .

You are totally correct. The cited edwest advice makes no provision for the person to make sure their “complaint” is in fact a founded one. Rather it has people reporting a priest to his bishop just because he may have used a perfectly licit, but infrequently employed, Eucharistic Prayer. Such an action would itself be abusive toward the priest and a waste of the bushop’s time. We have all seen too many threads here complaining of actions that were perfectly licit.

 

[edwest211]

You know what? The individual person who observed the priest not following the proper form of the mass gets to decide what to do. An earlier post included a quote that made it very clear how the Church views priests who do not follow the proper form of the mass. The person making the complaint will suffer any consequences if it is based on a lack of knowledge. They will learn something if they do not present it in the manner expected.

 

[LisaB]

In my own parish I absolutely give priests the benefit of the doubt, though I’ve never witnessed a case where this was necessary in the first place. But FSSP that runs our parish has an impeccable reputation, so if something seemed off, my first thought would be that it’s me and not them.

The same goes for other priests who I trust or in parishes where I know from experience that the rubrics are taken seriously. And I wouldn’t join a parish where this wasn’t the case.

However, if I’m visiting a parish, especially here in Southern California, I don’t give the same benefit of the doubt, no. I wouldn’t complain to the bishop (unless it was a really serious problem), and I probably won’t even talk to the priest since I’m just visiting there, but I would notice if something was off and would not automatically assume it’s just another legitimate option. In such a case I see nothing wrong asking the question on this forum- it’s not like we are getting the priest “in trouble” by asking here, or even by venting here.

I must say, I had a totally different attitude before I moved to this area. Like someone else said, it can depend on geography. After you witness one innovation after another (and yes, an extra prayer inserted where a priest pleases counts as innovation), it’s natural to be more on your guard so to speak at a new parish.