Has Anyone Here Ever Actually Triggered the Elimination of Abuses with a Letter or Meeting with Clergy?

[Spiller]

I’m curious, have any of you ever effected a significant reduction in liturgical problems by relating them to your pastor/bishop/Holy See either verbally or in written form?

One week ago I found a large chunk of one of those huge hosts under the altar at my parish during Mass – I saw it while kneeling as I was serving Mass. I presume it was consecrated. That’s the second chunk I have found in as many months. Those horrid events was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

I just sent my pastor (still fairly new and a good guy) a formal letter telling him what I found and suggesting it was a product of an out of control environment caused largely by poor training in some cases and liturgical abuses. The letter was 2 pages long with an additional page of endnotes. Zero emotion or condemnation.

I really wonder what’s going to happen?

I sent a similar letter 8-9 years ago to my former pastor during far worse times. When he said the GIRM were “only guidelines” via a phone call, I sent it to my bishop. The bishop sent me the single rudest and most insulting letter I have ever received. I can only hope one of his minions crafted it.

That bishop’s letter ended my own letter writing until today…

 

[jmcrae]

It gets a reaction, of course, but they still do whatever is right in their own eyes.

Instead of the essay with footnotes (which perhaps carries an air of “I’m better educated than you are”) I might rather send him one paragraph, very polite, just saying, “I saw a Host stuck in a place where it did not belong. This is the second time I have encountered this problem. What can I, as an altar server, do to help you to restore order in the Liturgy, and prevent things like this from happening?”

Emphasize the fact that you want to be helpful. Try the best you can to assume he doesn’t want liturgical abuses happening at his Masses. But most of all, keep it very, very short, and very, very polite.

 

[JReducation]

I’m curious, have any of you ever effected a significant reduction in liturgical problems by relating them to your pastor/bishop/Holy See either verbally or in written form?

One week ago I found a large chunk of one of those huge hosts under the altar at my parish during Mass – I saw it while kneeling as I was serving Mass. I presume it was consecrated. That’s the second chunk I have found in as many months. Those horrid events was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

I just sent my pastor (still fairly new and a good guy) a formal letter telling him what I found and suggesting it was a product of an out of control environment caused largely by poor training in some cases and liturgical abuses. The letter was 2 pages long with an additional page of endnotes. Zero emotion or condemnation.

I really wonder what’s going to happen?

I sent a similar letter 8-9 years ago to my former pastor during far worse times. When he said the GIRM were “only guidelines” via a phone call, I sent it to my bishop. The bishop sent me the single rudest and most insulting letter I have ever received. I can only hope one of his minions crafted it.

That bishop’s letter ended my own letter writing until today…

I have to take your word for it that the Bishop’s letter to you may have been rude, because I didn’t read it. However, there is a problem among many lay Catholics that really does bother the bishops and lately it’s bothering the Vatican. It’s called the clericalization of the laity.

The Church certainly wants the laity to be well read and to stay on top of Church teaching and ahead in the area of spirituality. But what is happening is that many lay people are reading Church documents and instead of learning from them and praying over them are using them to try to correct, discipline or call the clergy to accountability.

This is not allowed in the Church. The laity has a place in the Church. This is true. But if you look at the breakdown of the Church the highest place of honor in the Church is the Pope. Beneath the Pope are bishops, presbyters and deacons. Then comes the secular laity at the bottom of the rung. Very few secular lay people, like Dr. Scott Hahn, have been given the authority to teach in the name of the Church, much less to teach the clergy. Scott Hahn and Rabbi Klenicki are two of the few lay men who have ecclesiastical authority to teach the clergy. Ordinarily, the laity does not have the authority to teach or correct the clergy, even if the lay person is correct. For good or not, this is called a power base. It is meant to keep some semblance of authority.

In a parallel common there is another order of stratification. This column has to do with the most consecrated to the least consecrated. The most consecrated people in the Church are religious in solemn vows who live the monastic life, next come religious in solemn vows who belong to mendicant orders, then come religious in simple vows who live in apostolic congregations, then come consecrated lay people who live in vows, then comes the secular laity.

Again, the secular laity has not authority to teach or correct those above them, even if they are right. This is the rule of the Church. In this column, even great theologians like Scott Hahn and Rabbi Klenicki are not allowed to enter. No one may ever correct, admonish or teach a religious, not even a bishop. Only the Pope or the Major Superior has this authority.

This is why we say that it is a hierarchical church. When you start with the letter writing, unless you’re asking them to keep open a school or parish, which has nothing to do with religious life, theology, liturgy or morals you’re going to get a blast in return. Basically it’s the Church’s way of reminding you to stay in your place. You’re a layman or laywoman. Your role is not to teach, but to live the Christian life in the secular world

I studied theology and philosophy for many years. I work for a diocese. I have not authority except for those specific tasks that come under my job description. The laity that works at the chancery is not allowed to speak to the Bishop or even ask the bishop questions. We must always go through his secretary who filters the questions or requests. Sometimes our questions or requests end up in file 13. We know those are the rules. It makes no difference that we are theologians with PhD, STDs or Canonists. If you’re a lay person, that what you are and you stay in your place. You do your job and obey.

We’ve gotten used to it, because we understand that this is a very different world than the world that we live in where everyone has a right to speech etc.

I’m not sure if this helps.

JR

 

[nannygirl]

Again, the secular laity has not authority to teach or correct those above them, even if they are right. This is the rule of the Church. In this column, even great theologians like Scott Hahn and Rabbi Klenicki are not allowed to enter. No one may ever correct, admonish or teach a religious, not even a bishop. Only the Pope or the Major Superior has this authority.

Thank you for pointing this out. It is absolutely true. We cause our priests so much grief by trying to do their job.

 

[Spiller]

I have to take your word for it that the Bishop’s letter to you may have been rude, because I didn’t read it. However, there is a problem among many lay Catholics that really does bother the bishops and lately it’s bothering the Vatican. It’s called the clericalization of the laity.

The Church certainly wants the laity to be well read and to stay on top of Church teaching and ahead in the area of spirituality. But what is happening is that many lay people are reading Church documents and instead of learning from them and praying over them are using them to try to correct, discipline or call the clergy to accountability.

This is not allowed in the Church. The laity has a place in the Church. This is true. But if you look at the breakdown of the Church the highest place of honor in the Church is the Pope. Beneath the Pope are bishops, presbyters and deacons…

I hear you. To be honest the 10 points of concern I bought up have existed for a long time. They are all bad but I certainly have refrained from commenting ever since that letter years ago.

That changed with finding the two hosts. I think those 10 points (and certainly others) along with insufficient training caused an environment that allowed those hosts be be dropped and not picked up.

IT IS my responsibility and my place to speak-up in such instances.

FWIW, there are MANY lay professors in at least American seminaries today. And I’m not sure Hahn is at the “great” level quite yet…

 

[Spiller]

…The Church certainly wants the laity to be well read and to stay on top of Church teaching and ahead in the area of spirituality. But what is happening is that many lay people are reading Church documents and instead of learning from them and praying over them are using them to try to correct, discipline or call the clergy to accountability.

The more I reflect on this, the more wrong it sounds. As long as it’;s done in a charitable and factual manner, laity should bring to their pastor’s attention any problems with the liturgy…

 

[nightwalker]

The Church certainly wants the laity to be well read and to stay on top of Church teaching and ahead in the area of spirituality. But what is happening is that many lay people are reading Church documents and instead of learning from them and praying over them are using them to try to correct, discipline or call the clergy to accountability.

This is not allowed in the Church.

snip<

This is clericalism, pure and simple. Priests are not infallible, nor are bishops, and even the Pope has limits to his infallibility.

Laity have “the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (can 212:3)

 

[Spiller]

RS 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. 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.

 

[drforjc]

RS 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. 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.

Aww you beat me to it! Exactly what I would have posted!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Priests can be wrong! Priests can have their own agenda,and choose to place GIRM and other documents in the category of “advice” or “optional” when in fact they are not.

The OP asked if anybody has corrected a situation of abuse with a letter or meeting with clergy. I don’t know if these are liturgical enough for you, Spiller, I have corrected four in my adult lifetime:

• A pastor at a parish demanded that, in order to register in the parish, a couple had to let them look at their checkbook so HE could determine how much the couple would give every week. I called the chancery. They checked it out. Father’s days of viewing checkbooks and making offering determinations were over!
• My eldest received bad advice from a priest in regards to the Sacrament of Marriage. I urged her to write to the Archdiocese for the Military USA. She didn’t know what to write, so I ghosted her instead of her rambling all over the map on paper. The bishop then in charge sent her a letter outlining that he talked with the chaplain in question and explained the facts of the sacrament to the chaplain. The chaplain then sent my daughter a letter of apology.
• At my old parish, they were about to drain the holy water fonts for Lent, and replace the holy water with sand. I printed off the Ask An Apologist section of Catholic Answers, and handed it to the pastor. We had holy water all Lent.
• A deacon was licking his fingers then distributing the Eucharist. Nobody wanted to say anything because he was a deacon, and he was from another parish, and he might asked to be reassigned. I said something. He temporarily stopped licking his fingers.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I hear you. To be honest the 10 points of concern I bought up have existed for a long time. They are all bad but I certainly have refrained from commenting ever since that letter years ago.

That changed with finding the two hosts. I think those 10 points (and certainly others) along with insufficient training caused an environment that allowed those hosts be be dropped and not picked up.

IT IS my responsibility and my place to speak-up in such instances.

FWIW, there are MANY lay professors in at least American seminaries today. And I’m not sure Hahn is at the “great” level quite yet…

The more I reflect on this, the more wrong it sounds. As long as it’;s done in a charitable and factual manner, laity should bring to their pastor’s attention any problems with the liturgy…

RS 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. 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.

I have to say that TONE can sometimes be everything when communicating.

You know, often times we do or say things in a manner which seems to us to be respectful or void of emotion or even charitable, when in fact it does not eventually resonate that way with the person or persons that we are addressing. It’s very important I believe to refrain from criticisms unless we are first of all - absolutely sure of what we are talking about, and second of all - absolutely sure that we are presenting our case in a manner that is with the utmost charity, which can be extremely difficult to convey.

These situations should never be attempted until emotions wane. You say that your letter was void of emotions, and yet the fact that you sent such a lengthy letter of criticism surely was not taken to be without emotion or in the spirit of charity. What you wanted to accomplish could have been done in a very short note, just drawing the appropriate person’s attention to a ‘mistake’ or ‘accident’ where the circumstances that allowed this to take place was in need of correction. Period. No accusations, nothing offensive, just pointing out a ‘mistake’. Short and sweet and charitable, always giving the other the benefit of the doubt.

What we want to avoid is not only offending those who serve us tirelessly through the sacrifice of their own lives, but also avoid wounding our own souls with actions that do not reflect the Spirit of Christ in all we say and do. In evaluating our motives, we protect ourselves and others against unnecessary wounds. This is charity and grace lived out in a life of holiness, which we are all striving for.

 

[Spiller]

Priests can be wrong! Priests can have their own agenda,and choose to place GIRM and other documents in the category of “advice” or “optional” when in fact they are not.

I don’t think that’s the case here. My current pastor is a good guy but he was preceded by very poor pastors and a very poor bishop. During that time some members of the laity entrenched themselves and they don’t want to give up power which is often through liturgical deformation.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’m curious, have any of you ever effected a significant reduction in liturgical problems by relating them to your pastor/bishop/Holy See either verbally or in written form?

A “significant reduction” and “problems” makes it sound like something widespread and ongoing. Since I’ve never been anyplace with that kind of issue I guess the answer is no.

However, something happened at Mass one day that upset me greatly and I hoped it wouldn’t happen again. I waited until the next day when I could be a little calmer about it, then called the pastor to see if I could come in and talk with him. We sat down together and I explained why I was upset. He understood completely and said he would bring it up with the staff to make sure it never happened again.

That was one of the hardest things I ever did. I loved him and hated to be critical in any way. But the problem never recurred.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I don’t think that’s the case here. My current pastor is a good guy but he was preceded by very poor pastors and a very poor bishop. During that time some members of the laity entrenched themselves and they don’t want to give up power which is often through liturgical deformation.

Oh not your priest- the previous posts where people were complaining about the laity complaining.

 

[Joysong]

I just sent my pastor (still fairly new and a good guy) a formal letter telling him what I found and suggesting it was a product of an out of control environment caused largely by poor training in some cases and liturgical abuses. The letter was** 2 pages long with an additional page of endnotes**. Zero emotion or condemnation.

I really wonder what’s going to happen?

I can guess, Spiller, can’t you see it? All that would be needed is a phone call to the rectory to call his attention to a portion of a host which had fallen accidentally … who would believe it was purposeful? … and asking that he be aware when his loose-armed vesture might sweep a piece to the floor when he fragments the large host.

Two pages? Plus another using endnotes? Implying that he or another was not properly trained and/or ‘out of control’?

Don’t be surprised if he is cool toward you.

Since you are familiar with R.S., you may hve noticed the classification of abuse: Gravisima delicta, grave matters, and other matters. When any of us decides to write a bishop, we need to be aware of this distinction. Can you imagine the frustration a bishop may feel if he receives hundreds of letters saying, for instance, my pastor omits a word in the creed?

From the sublime to the absurd. We need to be compassionate for human failings which are not the essence of liturgy.

 

[Spiller]

I can guess, Spiller, can’t you see it? All that would be needed is a phone call to the rectory to call his attention to a portion of a host which had fallen accidentally

Who knows how THEY ended-up on the floor? The real question is, why weren’t they ever picked-up? There are certainly enough laypersons surrounding the altar.

… who would believe it was purposeful? … and asking that he be aware when his loose-armed vesture might sweep a piece to the floor when he fragments the large host.

That fragment by the altar was the size of a silver dollar…

Two pages? Plus another using endnotes? Implying that he or another was not properly trained and/or ‘out of control’?

Pardon?

Don’t be surprised if he is cool toward you.

That’s OK with me. After finding two chunks of host on the floor, I can deal with coolness.

Since you are familiar with R.S., you may hve noticed the classification of abuse: Gravisima delicta, grave matters, and other matters. When any of us decides to write a bishop, we need to be aware of this distinction. Can you imagine the frustration a bishop may feel if he receives hundreds of letters saying, for instance, my pastor omits a word in the creed?

I wrote my pastor, not my bishop. Next?

From the sublime to the absurd. We need to be compassionate for human failings which are not the essence of liturgy.

We also need to be compassionate about the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Jesus Christ laying on the sanctuary floor overnight…

 

[Joysong]

Who knows how THEY ended-up on the floor? The real question is, why weren’t they ever picked-up? There are certainly enough laypersons surrounding the altar.

You might ask your pastor why. Obviously, you were the only one who saw it. I don’t think it is prudent or charitable to assume that it was deliberate negligence of set purpose, no matter how large the fragment was. Do you know for certain it was consecrated?

Originally Posted by Joysong
Two pages? Plus another using endnotes? Implying that he or another was not properly trained and/or ‘out of control’?

Pardon?

This was what you stated in your original post. Am I misreading?

I just sent my pastor… a formal letter telling him what I found and suggesting it was a product of an out of control environment caused largely by poor training in some cases and liturgical abuses. The letter was 2 pages long with an additional page of endnotes.

I wrote my pastor, not my bishop. Next?

In this incident, yes you did write your pastor, but you mentioned contacting the bishop for a previous matter. I quote: When he said the GIRM were “only guidelines” via a phone call, I sent it to my bishop. The bishop sent me the single rudest and most insulting letter I have ever received. I can only hope one of his minions crafted it.

 

[AHapka]

The laity that works at the chancery is not allowed to speak to the Bishop

So what your saying is that if he happens to pass you in the hall while you are walking, you are not even allowed to say “Good morning your Excellency?” I have tendency to greet my superiors myself, so I probably would fail him a lot

What kind of punishment does he impose upon you for talking to him?

I’m not going to criticize him, since he is the bishop, and can run his office how he sees fit…but I’m just curious.

 

[KathleenElsie]

RS 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. 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.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[KathleenElsie]

I can guess, Spiller, can’t you see it? All that would be needed is a phone call to the rectory to call his attention to a portion of a host which had fallen accidentally … who would believe it was purposeful? … and asking that he be aware when his loose-armed vesture might sweep a piece to the floor when he fragments the large host.

Two pages? Plus another using endnotes? Implying that he or another was not properly trained and/or ‘out of control’?

Don’t be surprised if he is cool toward you.

Since you are familiar with R.S., you may hve noticed the classification of abuse: Gravisima delicta, grave matters, and other matters. When any of us decides to write a bishop, we need to be aware of this distinction. Can you imagine the frustration a bishop may feel if he receives hundreds of letters saying, for instance, my pastor omits a word in the creed?

From the sublime to the absurd. We need to be compassionate for human failings which are not the essence of liturgy.

But, then, the priest has no right to eliminate from nor add a word to the creed. So even though I have not written a letter I will be bringing it to the attention of the priest that the omission has been noticed.

I did not miss the reference. Thank you.