Good Grief It happened again in the Diocese of Rochester, NY

[fix]

ByzCath:

So if I am to do this, then what must I think of the pope who appointed him and allowed him to stay in this position as bishop? and then what am I to think of the Church that does the same?

It is a slippery slope.

I cannot follow this logic. That an informed Catholic can see that certain things are going on that ought not go on does not mean one is rejecting the authority of the Church.

 

[contemplative]

fix:

I cannot follow this logic. That an informed Catholic can see that certain things are going on that ought not go on does not mean one is rejecting the authority of the Church.

Enough people see what is going on.
Enough people have said what needs to be said.
Enough has been said about Bishop Matthew Clark in this thread.
I believe there is
Enough momentum now to change what needs to be changed.
and
there can never be
Enough prayers for our priests and bishops.

As stories like this latest one arises we should share but stay on focus rather than be condemning of particular individuals. That would be a dangerous game.

 

[felra]

ByzCath:

So if I am to do this, then what must I think of the pope who appointed him and allowed him to stay in this position as bishop? and then what am I to think of the Church that does the same?

It is a slippery slope.

The Church is a heirarchy with different levels of lodging complaints/grievances and different levels of addressing and hopefully resolving abuses. It all starts with a paper trail of laity concerned (or personally offended/violated) enough to voice and document their concerns.

My understanding that the late PPJ II preferred regional bishops to police themselves and offered support in this manner. Some good folks would have preferred a more hands on/direct intervention. You can think what you will on this.

I have written my letters and voiced my concerns over the personal impact I have experienced at the hands of priests spreading errors on herodoxy in my Vicariate, with no apparent action taken. I do what I am able/feel called to, then trust that my documented concerns will have the influence that the Holy Spirit wants if/when/how He chooses.

No slippery slope here for me. I actively support the faithful and orthodox priests in my Vicariate and publically endorse them whenever the oportunity presents itself.

 

[jrabs]

ByzCath:

But again, there are issues but he is the bishop and to pray for his demise (which asking for prayers for a more orthodox bishop when there is currently no vacancy) is, IMHO, not the right thing to do.

Who may I ask on this thread, is praying for his demise? What are you talking about??? Not a single soul when last I reread EVERY post.

The Holy Spirit can change hearts through prayer. I do pray for more orthodoxy. That does not mean it will not happen with Bishop Clark.

You say he has come a long way - I say the Holy Spirit and prayer had a hand in it.

 

[fix]

contemplative:

Enough people see what is going on.
Enough people have said what needs to be said.
Enough has been said about Bishop Matthew Clark in this thread.
I believe there is
Enough momentum now to change what needs to be changed.
and
there can never be
Enough prayers for our priests and bishops.

As stories like this latest one arises we should share but stay on focus rather than be condemning of particular individuals. That would be a dangerous game.

I understand your point, but please do not fall for the argument that pointing out problems is condemnation.

Our Church still suffers from clericalism.

 

[Brad]

ByzCath:

And last I heard that is the case in Rochester.

If a parish priest does something, you can not blame the bishop, especially if you do not go to the bishop to report anything.

Anyways. Women giveing homilies is not heterodox. Its a matter of discipline.

Women giving homilies happens frequently in the Rochester diocese. To act as though the Bishop is unaware of this happening is to hand him a bigger insult than to say he accepts it.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum :

**"[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,[142] “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.[143] In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”. **

It is heterodox for a lay person to give the homily. Clearly, the Church Magisterium teaches that this is wrong. Ignoring this teaching is deciding that the Church Magisterium is not your authroity.

 

[Brad]

ByzCath:

So if I am to do this, then what must I think of the pope who appointed him and allowed him to stay in this position as bishop? and then what am I to think of the Church that does the same?

It is a slippery slope.

There are a whole bunch of ill-informed Catholics at the bottom of that slope, their souls in peril as Bishops continue to try to gain customers.

Church authority consists of the Vicar of Christ and those Bishops IN COMMUNION with him. If a Bishop does or says something that is contrary to the teaching of the Pope’s office, then is not something of authority.

 

[Brad]

contemplative:

Enough people see what is going on.
Enough people have said what needs to be said.
Enough has been said about Bishop Matthew Clark in this thread.
I believe there is
Enough momentum now to change what needs to be changed.
and
there can never be
Enough prayers for our priests and bishops.

As stories like this latest one arises we should share but stay on focus rather than be condemning of particular individuals. That would be a dangerous game.

I don’t see any condemnation going on.

You think there is enough momentum? I disagree. Most are sleeping.

 

[contemplative]

fix:

I understand your point, but please do not fall for the argument that pointing out problems is condemnation.

Our Church still suffers from clericalism.

It is good to have an open repoire and CA Forums provides a safe climate. It is important that we don’t have near lynchings online. It is difficult to speak semi-publicly about concerns that are often times mixed with strong emotions.

My emotions are greatest when I think of the poor people in the parishes affected by the priest who has been charged with child abuse. What about all the people who recieved Sacraments from him. Many must be devastated. I feel devasted for them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

I understand your point, but please do not fall for the argument that pointing out problems is condemnation.

I do not make this argument.

What I do argue is when people place labels with out providing any problems other than in vague terms.

Our Church still suffers from clericalism.

I take offence to this as I do not suffer from clericalism at all.

I do believe that we should show respect to the clergy but when they are wrong, and proof is shown rather than just saying “he is heterodox” or some such crud as that, then they are wrong.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brad:

Women giving homilies happens frequently in the Rochester diocese. To act as though the Bishop is unaware of this happening is to hand him a bigger insult than to say he accepts it.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum :

**"[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,[142] “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.[143] In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”. **

It is heterodox for a lay person to give the homily. Clearly, the Church Magisterium teaches that this is wrong. Ignoring this teaching is deciding that the Church Magisterium is not your authroity.

Actually this is not dogma in anyway. It is a matter of discipline.

There was a time in the Church when only certain priests could give homilies. There were a class of priest that all they could do was celebrate the Mass, baptize, and officiate at Marriages.

Who gives a homily and when homilies must be done is a matter of Church Law, not dogma.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brad:

There are a whole bunch of ill-informed Catholics at the bottom of that slope, their souls in peril as Bishops continue to try to gain customers.

Church authority consists of the Vicar of Christ and those Bishops IN COMMUNION with him. If a Bishop does or says something that is contrary to the teaching of the Pope’s office, then is not something of authority.

It is the Pope who determines who is in communion with him. As far as I know the Diocese of Rochester has not been removed from that Communion.

And I think I have said enough on this topic.

I feel that some need to learn a bit of charity as I have been accused of being an “ill-infomed Catholic”, of “clericalism”, and of not being an “informed Catholic”.

I do apologize to jrabs though. I am sorry for the misunderstanding but when I see someone says,

jrabs:

This diocese of Rochester needs prayers for a stronger, more orthodox Bishop.

and there is currently a Bishop in place, I assumed it could mean that there is a hope that something would happen to this bishop so a new one could come in. Maybe its me, maybe its the way it is worded.

 

[fix]

contemplative:

It is good to have an open repoire and CA Forums provides a safe climate. It is important that we don’t have near lynchings online. It is difficult to speak semi-publicly about concerns that are often times mixed with strong emotions.

My emotions are greatest when I think of the poor people in the parishes affected by the priest who has been charged with child abuse. What about all the people who recieved Sacraments from him. Many must be devastated. I feel devasted for them.

It is a fine line at times. My post was not about the priest accused of abuse, but I was thinking about the bishop.

It seems unfair to claim it is unjust to state criticisms of a bishop when a bishop has a public record to comment on. Now, I am not in favor of calumny, gossip or inciting others to disobey their bishop, but as my bishop often points out we are “adults” in the faith and our voices should be heard.

So, I am taking his advice.

 

[Brad]

contemplative:

It is good to have an open repoire and CA Forums provides a safe climate. It is important that we don’t have near lynchings online. It is difficult to speak semi-publicly about concerns that are often times mixed with strong emotions.

I don’t see anything resembling “near lynchings online”. Any examples that I am missing?

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

I do not make this argument.

What I do argue is when people place labels with out providing any problems other than in vague terms.

I take offence to this as I do not suffer from clericalism at all.

I do believe that we should show respect to the clergy but when they are wrong, and proof is shown rather than just saying “he is heterodox” or some such crud as that, then they are wrong.

Do you want a litany? Much has been posted before. Why bring it up again?

 

[Brad]

ByzCath:

Actually this is not dogma in anyway. It is a matter of discipline.

There was a time in the Church when only certain priests could give homilies. There were a class of priest that all they could do was celebrate the Mass, baptize, and officiate at Marriages.

Who gives a homily and when homilies must be done is a matter of Church Law, not dogma.

None of which changes the fact that it is still heterodox.

 

[Brad]

ByzCath:

It is the Pope who determines who is in communion with him. As far as I know the Diocese of Rochester has not been removed from that Communion.

And I think I have said enough on this topic.

I feel that some need to learn a bit of charity as I have been accused of being an “ill-infomed Catholic”, of “clericalism”, and of not being an “informed Catholic”.

I do apologize to jrabs though. I am sorry for the misunderstanding but when I see someone says,

and there is currently a Bishop in place, I assumed it could mean that there is a hope that something would happen to this bishop so a new one could come in. Maybe its me, maybe its the way it is worded.

Perhaps I had a frog in my throat. I’ll try again:

“If a Bishop does or says something that is contrary to the teaching of the Pope’s office, then is not something of authority.”

 

[Brad]

ByzCath:

I feel that some need to learn a bit of charity as I have been accused of being an “ill-infomed Catholic”, of “clericalism”, and of not being an “informed Catholic”.

Why is it that you apply to yourself (ill-informed Catholic) something that was said about a general population?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brad:

None of which changes the fact that it is still heterodox.

I do not think so, as it is only a matter of Church Discipline.

People love to throw that word around.

Anyways, show me the document from the Bishop that approves of the practice of non-clergy giving homilies and then I will agree that he is in error as regards to Church Law.

 

[contemplative]

What about all the people who were touched personally by Sewar? What happens for those people? Does someone say something to the parish? Do they get replacement priest and everything is business as usual?