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

[Jeanette_L]

Re-read the post I quoted from JReducation. He explicitly says that the only thing the laity should write about is the closing of a parish or school. Otherwise we ought to stay in our place.

This is not a matter of tone, but whether we can address the issues at all. This is clericalism. And this fed the entire sexual abuse crisis. Children didn’t report abusers, and when they did they weren’t believed. And now the laity places all the blame on the priests and bishops, because after all they are priests.

That we shouldn’t be uncharitable in correcting priests is a given, but that the laity have more responsibility than to “stay in your place” and obey.

This was being used as an example. You are picking out a sentence whose purpose was to give an example, not a comprehensive list. You have completely ignored not only the remainder of the post, but all his other posts on this subject.

This is a tactic. And it is not honest. You need to read the posts together as a whole, just as you would when reading any body of work anywhere. Picking a sentence here and there out of each post and using them as the whole of a person’s thoughts and intentions is not honest.

This is what Fundamentalists do. I have no respect for those kinds of debating tactics.

The whole of JR’s argument throughout this thread is urging the laity to approach their concerns with balance and an attitude that is proper for us as Catholics, one of charity and respect. You in turn accuse him of clericalism and this is not his intention, your accusations do not ring true with JR’s thoughts on this subject and anyone who has followed any of JR’s posts throughout CAF will know this.

I don’t think JR would misrepresent you or anyone else here as carelessly.

 

[catharina]

This was being used as an example. You are picking out a sentence whose purpose was to give an example, not a comprehensive list. You have completely ignored not only the remainder of the post, but all his other posts on this subject.

This is a tactic. And it is not honest. You need to read the posts together as a whole, just as you would when reading any body of work anywhere. Picking a sentence here and there out of each post and using them as the whole of a person’s thoughts and intentions is not honest.

This is what Fundamentalists do. I have no respect for those kinds of debating tactics.

The whole of JR’s argument throughout this thread is urging the laity to approach their concerns with balance and an attitude that is proper for us as Catholics, one of charity and respect. You in turn accuse him of clericalism and this is not his intention, your accusations do not ring true with JR’s thoughts on this subject and anyone who has followed any of JR’s posts throughout CAF will know this.

I don’t think JR would misrepresent you or anyone else here as carelessly.

Ditto to Jeanette’s excellent use of charity and logic

 

[catharina]

Re-read the post I quoted from JReducation. He explicitly says that the only thing the laity should write about is the closing of a parish or school. Otherwise we ought to stay in our place.

This is not a matter of tone, but whether we can address the issues at all. This is clericalism. And this fed the entire sexual abuse crisis. Children didn’t report abusers, and when they did they weren’t believed. And now the laity places all the blame on the priests and bishops, because after all they are priests.

That we shouldn’t be uncharitable in correcting priests is a given, but that the laity have more responsibility than to “stay in your place” and obey.

On the other hand, quoting you to you (from another thread, Baptism-two godparents): nightwalker: “Or he may be simply ignorant, or he could be open to correction, or it could just be the right thing to do. Priests have a hard enough time without everyone who has a complaint running to the Bishop.”

hhhhhmmmmmmmm …

I think that the fact that both JR and Jeanette are converts speaks clearly to their motivation in cherishing the pearl of great price. Too often it seems that some young Catholics feel very free to criticize more than to praise or thank our priests. I don’t know why.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I don’t understand why so many people are reluctant to approach their pastors (or other priests or deacons) in person and simply talk about a problem. An in-person discussion allows you to ask questions and get answers.

Talking to someone means actually having to be adult enough to take responsibility for initiating a discussion and possibly for hearing that you’re wrong. It also means treating your priest as another person with feelings of his own.

How would you feel if your next-door neighbor was unhappy with the height of your grass and sent you a several-page letter not only telling you that you hadn’t mowed your lawn, but also pointing out the city laws or homeowner association rules about yard maintenance? Wouldn’t you wonder why he didn’t just ask you what was going on so you could tell him that your lawn mower was in the shop and you’d mow the lawn as soon as you got it back?

And, as has been noted above, a person’s attitude plays a big part in things. St. Benedict has a section in his Rule about approaching a problem. It’s actually intended for when an abbess asks a sister to do something impossible, but the attitude works elsewhere as well: If it happens that difficult or impossible tasks are laid on a sister, let her nevertheless receive the order of the one in authority with all meekness and obedience. But if she sees that the weight of the burden altogether exceeds the limit of her strength, let her submit the reasons for her inability to the one who is over her in a quiet way and at an opportune time, without pride, resistance, or contradiction (RB:68).

 

[tessi]

I don’t understand why so many people are reluctant to approach their pastors (or other priests or deacons) in person and simply talk about a problem. An in-person discussion allows you to ask questions and get answers.

I personally approached priests several times but they gave me silly excuses and continued doing it their own way so I decided I won’t talk anymore.

 

[JReducation]

I personally approached priests several times but they gave me silly excuses and continued doing it their own way so I decided I won’t talk anymore.

There are many situations in life where people give us silly excuses, not just in the parish. Look at married couples, children and parens, employees and supervisors, your telephone company, etc.

We do not declare war on them or assume the worst. If there is a truly loving relationship, which is what is assumed between the Christian and the Church, just as it is assumed between spouses, then the effort to dialogue must never be discontinued.

The Church (of which we are all part) is the bride of Christ. Just like any spouses have moments when there are communication problems or frustations and so forth, there is going to be the same experience within the Church, because we are talking about a marriage. Thiis one is between Christ and the Church.

If we want to preserve our earthly marriage we don’t give up on dialogue and we do not patronize our partner. The same should apply to the relationship with Christ’s bride and her ministers. We open the doors of communication and keep them open regardless of how silly the answer may be.

One of the things that I have learned in the spiritual life is that we must be open to the Spirit. We cannot always be expecting the worse intentions from people or to be treated badly by them. To do so makes us hypervigilant. Hypervigilance is not good for the spiritual life.

The mystical life calls us to be vigilant, not hypervigilant. There is a difference. Vigilance is prudence. It means to be on guard against what may do harm to our soul or that of another. Hypervigilance is to be constantly on the lookout for faults and failures instead of dealing with them as they arise, one at a time.

A soul that is hypervigilant consumes a great deal of time that can be dedicated to contemplation of the good and the holy. A soul who is hypervigilant has difficulty allowing God to be God, because the soul feels the obligation to be on the lookout, forgetting that God is already looking out for us.

When we do come across faults and failings, we must remember the advice from St. Benedict, to communicate with humility and charity. We must remember the what St. Francis taught us too, to remember that even though he is a sinner, he is a priest and only through him do we have the physical presence of God. Therefore, we must keep a balance between the recognition of sin and the ontological reality that this person is very different from us, because his entire soul has been changed by the grace of Holy Orders. To approach a priest who may have committed or allowed a fault with such a contemplative attitude, focused on the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the ontological change before us, will bring forth more grace and more good than any other approach.

Finally, we must keep in mind that the Church documents, whether they are about the Blessed Sacrament or any other topic, are theological and pastoral in nature. They are not just meant to be read, memorized and applied. There is more to them than that. Reading, learning and applying is important, but the application must come after serious contemplative reflection on their content. This way, when we refer to them or use them, we do so in a prayerful manner, not a juridical manner.

We the laity are have the right to communicate concerns, ask questions and offer suggestions, but we also have the duty to contemplate what the Church teaches and see each teaching within the context of the broader picture, which is the soul’s unity with Divinity.

If I speak to a priest about the GIRM, I should have read it, prayed over it, reread it, reflected on how it fits into the mystery of union with God. Then when I speak with the priest about it, I can speak from that perspective. I can share what I have come to understand about the contents of this document through prayer. Reading it and repeating it to my priest will only come across as trying to educate him.

Reading it and contemplating it in the light of redemption and our spiritual journey toward the mystical union, allows us to appreciate its meaning and to share with the priest how it impacts on my soul and my journey. Every good priest will want to hear about my journey and will want to correct any failures that may be putting my journey in danger. Some priests may also ally my fears by teaching me something about the document that I may have missed, something at a deeper level.

This has been my experience in discussing these things with my priests and we have a wonderful relationship. Sometimes I see changes that I want and other times I learn why I have to live with certain things, even though they are uncomfortable for me. I have found that being uncomfortable (I’m not talking about being in sin), being uncomfortable with certain things that are not sinful is a good lesson and a good exercise in recognizing the nothingness of which St. Ignatius speaks about in his exercises.

Just my two cents.

JR

 

[nightwalker]

On the other hand, quoting you to you (from another thread, Baptism-two godparents): nightwalker: “Or he may be simply ignorant, or he could be open to correction, or it could just be the right thing to do. Priests have a hard enough time without everyone who has a complaint running to the Bishop.”

hhhhhmmmmmmmm …

I think that the fact that both JR and Jeanette are converts speaks clearly to their motivation in cherishing the pearl of great price. Too often it seems that some young Catholics feel very free to criticize more than to praise or thank our priests. I don’t know why.

Look, I really shouldn’t waste my time trying to show that JR said what he said. It is there, and not just once, but through the first few pages of the thread.

His most recent post, however, is rather well put.

Many young Catholics are as well educated (whether formally, through an exceptionally good parish formation, or just out of an interest in the Faith) on the matter of the liturgy (and other points of theology/philosophy) as many priests. They also feel that they have been robbed of the beauty of the past by bishops and priests who have ignored (or worse, deliberately deformed) documents on the Mass.

BTW, my statements on the other thread in no way contradict what I am saying here. You have the right/responsibility to say something even if you are unsure if something was right. You should do that as charitably as possible, and that includes starting with the priest involved (if possible, or the pastor if not).

II try to take see it from both sides. The side of the letter-writer is easy for me. I no longer attend my geographical parish because of conflicts with the pastor (liturgical, theological, and personality). However, I also try to see how I want people to react when I do something they disagree with as a priest (God Willing). I honestly can say that I would rather be challenged, even uncharitably, over a mistake than for people to follow along with whatever I say. Yes, it would be a blow to my pride (God knows I would probably need that anyway), I might even respond as JR suggests (and my sin would be the greater for it), but, if I were in the right, I ought to explain myself tirelessly and if I were wrong I should be glad of correction.

Ordination or vows do not make the priest or religious indefectable, or even infallible. The attitude that they cannot be corrected is far more dangerous than someone stepping on the priests toes.

 

[benedictgal]

Throughout the Church’s history, there have been times when the laity and non-clergy (meaning nuns) have stepped up to the plate. St. Catherine of Sienna, if you recall, pretty much told the Pope to be a man and move back to Rome (during the Avignon period). St. Francis of Assisi, a deacon, was asked by Jesus to restore his House (meaning the Church).

JReducation is greatly mistaken in his notion regarding the actions of the laity. Redemptionis Sacramentum clearly states that the laity have a right to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the form and manner dicated by the Church.

As this document notes:

1. 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 favoritism***.

[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.

Clearly, then, if the laity have a legitimate concern and complaint, then, they have the obligation to approach their prests and bishops, and even the Holy See, until such problem is addressed and corrected. To not do so, in my opinion, would be to go against one’s conscience. I for one, cannot, in good conscience, witness an abuse and passively let go. Sins are also committed through omission, just as they are through commission.

 

[JReducation]

Throughout the Church’s history, there have been times when the laity and non-clergy (meaning nuns) have stepped up to the plate. St. Catherine of Sienna, if you recall, pretty much told the Pope to be a man and move back to Rome (during the Avignon period). St. Francis of Assisi, a deacon, was asked by Jesus to restore his House (meaning the Church).

JReducation is greatly mistaken in his notion regarding the actions of the laity. Redemptionis Sacramentum clearly states that the laity have a right to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the form and manner dicated by the Church.

As this document notes:

Clearly, then, if the laity have a legitimate concern and complaint, then, they have the obligation to approach their prests and bishops, and even the Holy See, until such problem is addressed and corrected. To not do so, in my opinion, would be to go against one’s conscience. I for one, cannot, in good conscience, witness an abuse and passively let go. Sins are also committed through omission, just as they are through commission.

Your historical details are incorrect.

St. Catherine of Siena was never a religious. She was a lay woman, member of the Secular Dominican Order.

St. Francis was a lay man when he founded his order in 1209. He was conferred an indult to preach at mass in 1223, three years before his death. His order had already began to build up the Church long before this. We are not sure if he was ever ordained a deacon. We know that he was a preacher, but so are all of his sons who are members of the Friars Minor, to this day and they need not be deacons. It’s an indult that is included in the Bull of Honorius of 1223 which has never been revoked.

As to the above citation, I have no problem with it. I have a problem with the tone that some lay people want to use with the hieararchy.

Both Catherine and Francis had the gift of humility, obedience and persuasion. They did not chastise, they persuaded the hierarchy. There were times when they were also denied their requests or their suggestions were rejected and they obeyed without feeling anger toward the clergy.

Finally, Catherine did have problems with the Dominican Friars and eventually had to submit to their authority. She wanted to live an heremetical life and they would not allow it, because it was in conflict with the mission of St. Dominic.

Francis wanted to have the laity participate more in the Eucharist and forbade his friars to use Gregorian chant in their mases and in the Divne Office. To this day the Franciscans recite the office and use simple chant at mass. He also forbade the use of Latin homilies. They used Italian or the native language. He also wrote liturgical sons in Italian to be used at mass, which were allowed by the local bishops where the friars went. He even included the use of string instruments and tamborines in the liturgy.

Finally, he was the first person to move the Blessed Sacrament from the side of the sanctuary to the center of the sanctuary. It was later adopted by the Council of Trent several hundred years later, after the Friars Minor had been doing it. But he did all of these things with the consent of Bishop Guido, the Bishop of Assisi and Cardinal Hugolino, the Cardinal Protector of the Order.

Nothing was ever done or changed without their consent.

Neither of these saints ever attempted to scold the hierarchy. They always contemplated and prayed long before they approached the hierarchy with their requests, questons and concerns. They were always presented as thus. Never as complaints. Francis and Catherine had a strong sense of respect for the hierarchy and a much greater sense of humility than we often find here among those who say that they want to correct errant clerics.

JR

 

[benedictgal]

Your historical details are incorrect.

St. Catherine of Siena was never a religious. She was a lay woman, member of the Secular Dominican Order.

St. Francis was a lay man when he founded his order in 1209. He was conferred an indult to preach at mass in 1223, three years before his death. His order had already began to build up the Church long before this. We are not sure if he was ever ordained a deacon. We know that he was a preacher, but so are all of his sons who are members of the Friars Minor, to this day and they need not be deacons. It’s an indult that is included in the Bull of Honorius of 1223 which has never been revoked.

As to the above citation, I have no problem with it. I have a problem with the tone that some lay people want to use with the hieararchy.

Both Catherine and Francis had the gift of humility, obedience and persuasion. They did not chastise, they persuaded the hierarchy. There were times when they were also denied their requests or their suggestions were rejected and they obeyed without feeling anger toward the clergy.

Finally, Catherine did have problems with the Dominican Friars and eventually had to submit to their authority. She wanted to live an heremetical life and they would not allow it, because it was in conflict with the mission of St. Dominic.

Francis wanted to have the laity participate more in the Eucharist and forbade his friars to use Gregorian chant in their mases and in the Divne Office. To this day the Franciscans recite the office and use simple chant at mass. He also forbade the use of Latin homilies. They used Italian or the native language. He also wrote liturgical sons in Italian to be used at mass, which were allowed by the local bishops where the friars went. He even included the use of string instruments and tamborines in the liturgy.

Finally, he was the first person to move the Blessed Sacrament from the side of the sanctuary to the center of the sanctuary. It was later adopted by the Council of Trent several hundred years later, after the Friars Minor had been doing it. But he did all of these things with the consent of Bishop Guido, the Bishop of Assisi and Cardinal Hugolino, the Cardinal Protector of the Order.

Nothing was ever done or changed without their consent.

Neither of these saints ever attempted to scold the hierarchy. They always contemplated and prayed long before they approached the hierarchy with their requests, questons and concerns. They were always presented as thus. Never as complaints. Francis and Catherine had a strong sense of respect for the hierarchy and a much greater sense of humility than we often find here among those who say that they want to correct errant clerics.

JR

First of all, no one here is attempting to scold the hierarchy. In fact, it is on the basis of the document that I quoted that the Holy See is encouraging the faithful, whether laymen or priests, to stand up for the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy.

Furthermore, sometimes, we do have to take a tuogh stand, especially where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned. Abuses are intolerable, especially when they compromise the integrity of the liturgy and when they cause undue confusion among the faithful.

The fact of the matter is that it remains the right of the faithful to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the form and manner prescribed by the Church. Redemptionis Sacramentum empowers the faiithful to ensure that this right is protected through the appropriate measures. Since when does reporting such abuses to the competent authority involve “scolding the hierarchy”, especially if the same hierarchy is doing something that will lead to abuse.

 

[Praxis]

(Hello, this is Spiller. Pardon the name change. As soon as I can figure out which e-mail address I used when I registered, I will have my old nickname back.)

I received a letter from my pastor in response to my own letter. It was a one pager and was easily one of the most finely crafted letters I have ever read. The tone was warm and nice and the content compelling.

He said that he pretty much agreed with my assessment. That things will change, but not piecemeal. Coordinated change will take place in the next 3-6 months. The extra time is required because as a pro-cathedral, he wants the direct guidance and approval of the bishop. Given the bishop’s growing reputation, that is a wonderful thing. (I also think he also wants to wisely short-circuit those whose first step would be to go over his head to complain about the coming changes.)

I heard a few months ago that he was getting his ducks in a row to implement RS and that some of the insider laity were concerned about the coming changes. His letter confirms that rumor and I couldn’t be happier.

Eight years ago a similar letter was answered by a dismissive 90 second phone call by a former pastor. When I sent it to the bishop, I was treated to one of the most offensive letters I have ever received.

The difference a few years can make is remarkable. Never give up!

I think those like myself who questioned the advisability of sending a letter have become accustomed to poor treatment and/or lousy performance by our pastors and/or bishops and we expect it to continue. I had not taken into consideration just how much higher a caliber of a pastor and bishop I now have. If I did, I would not have been so concerned.

I encourage others to do the right thing. Be overly tactful but don’t be afraid to do the right thing. I think apathy is one of the qualities that has really done a number on the Church in the past few decades.

I will let you know what actually takes place…

 

[Praxis]

I don’t understand why so many people are reluctant to approach their pastors (or other priests or deacons) in person and simply talk about a problem. An in-person discussion allows you to ask questions and get answers.

Talking to someone means actually having to be adult enough to take responsibility for initiating a discussion and possibly for hearing that you’re wrong. It also means treating your priest as another person with feelings of his own.

How would you feel if your next-door neighbor was unhappy with the height of your grass and sent you a several-page letter not only telling you that you hadn’t mowed your lawn, but also pointing out the city laws or homeowner association rules about yard maintenance? Wouldn’t you wonder why he didn’t just ask you what was going on so you could tell him that your lawn mower was in the shop and you’d mow the lawn as soon as you got it back?

And, as has been noted above, a person’s attitude plays a big part in things. St. Benedict has a section in his Rule about approaching a problem. It’s actually intended for when an abbess asks a sister to do something impossible, but the attitude works elsewhere as well: If it happens that difficult or impossible tasks are laid on a sister, let her nevertheless receive the order of the one in authority with all meekness and obedience. But if she sees that the weight of the burden altogether exceeds the limit of her strength, let her submit the reasons for her inability to the one who is over her in a quiet way and at an opportune time, without pride, resistance, or contradiction (RB:68).

I think there are many reasons for that reluctance.

More than a few priests have poor people skills and those who have the most questions already carry the greatest number of scars. Some like myself might not be absolutely certain they would remain civil in a face to face conversation if treated poorly so the letter is a safer alternative. Some do not think well on their feet and feel more comfortable crafting a letter. Some priests are simply not available for a chat and if one insists, it’s a big deal to coordinate.

 

[Spiller]

(Hello, this is Spiller. Pardon the name change. As soon as I can figure out which e-mail address I used when I registered, I will have my old nickname back.)

I received a letter from my pastor in response to my own letter. It was a one pager and was easily one of the most finely crafted letters I have ever read. The tone was warm and nice and the content compelling.

He said that he pretty much agreed with my assessment. That things will change, but not piecemeal. Coordinated change will take place in the next 3-6 months. The extra time is required because as a pro-cathedral, he wants the direct guidance and approval of the bishop. Given the bishop’s growing reputation, that is a wonderful thing. (I also think he also wants to wisely short-circuit those whose first step would be to go over his head to complain about the coming changes.)

I heard a few months ago that he was getting his ducks in a row to implement RS and that some of the insider laity were concerned about the coming changes. His letter confirms that rumor and I couldn’t be happier.

Eight years ago a similar letter was answered by a dismissive 90 second phone call by a former pastor. When I sent it to the bishop, I was treated to one of the most offensive letters I have ever received.

The difference a few years can make is remarkable. Never give up!

I think those like myself who questioned the advisability of sending a letter have become accustomed to poor treatment and/or lousy performance by our pastors and/or bishops and we expect it to continue. I had not taken into consideration just how much higher a caliber of a pastor and bishop I now have. If I did, I would not have been so concerned.

I encourage others to do the right thing. Be overly tactful but don’t be afraid to do the right thing. I think apathy is one of the qualities that has really done a number on the Church in the past few decades.

I will let you know what actually takes place…

Ahhhh, back to my old nickname…

I had a brief and pleasant chat with my pastor yesterday. He and my new bishop have my trust now – it is there’s to lose. I honestly hope things are cleaned-up largely by Christmas.

 

[JReducation]

Ahhhh, back to my old nickname…

I had a brief and pleasant chat with my pastor yesterday. He and my new bishop have my trust now – it is there’s to lose. I honestly hope things are cleaned-up largely by Christmas.

Ahhhhhhhhh, there you are. Now you look more like your old self.

JR

 

[Spiller]

Ahhhhhhhhh, there you are. Now you look more like your old self.

JR

:yup:

 

[GemmaRose]

I was just doing some thread-surfing & came across this one. Since it’s now 5 AM, I confess to not having read the previous 10 pgs (will do so later), so if I’m interrupting a discussion, I apologize.

I’ve had 2 success stories:

#1 happened @30 years ago. I left work at lunchtime for Mass & found a new priest. He said he would be with us for the summer & that he usually worked with youth at, if memory serves me correctly, a college somewhere west of NY. Being @21, I thought this was great. Mass was going along fine; his homily was good; then came the consecration. He consecrated the bread & wine together .

At the time, I was attending the NY School of Liturgical Music with music & liturgy classes. While I didn’t know each & every liturgical no-no, I knew darn well that you can’t consecrate the bread & wine in one fell swoop.

Here’s how I handled it: Instead of correcting him (especially since I was so young), after the Mass I welcomed him, told him that I enjoyed his homily & then “mentioned” that I was confused about something… and brought up his creative consecration. I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I do precisely remember my last sentence: “Um… I’m kinda sure you’re not supposed to do it that way.”

He truly looked surprised & said, “That’s the way I always do it! I’ll have to look it up.” I guess he did look it up because I never saw him do it again.

#2 happened about 10 years ago, again with a summer visitor, only this time in my home parish. I heard a long litany of complaints from a friend about “Fr. Leonard.” I hadn’t encountered him since I attended daily Mass at my work parish. I heard that he had come from missionary work someplace down south - can’t remember - South America, Central America, an island…

Some of my friend’s complaints were that instead of starting precisely at 8:00 AM, he often gabbed in the sacristy and would waltz out at 8:10, 8:15, often causing my friend to have to leave before Communion so she would be able to get to work on time. She also complained that he seemed to make up the Mass as he went along. While she would be complaining to me, I would be thinking, “How bad can he be?”

WELL, where do I begin?

It was Saturday Noon - our parish has a Noon Mass every day in addition to the early morning Masses - so after a restful night’s & late morning’s sleep, I joined my friend for Mass, and who was the celebrant? Fr. L. He was only about 10 minutes late.

The first thing he did was to celebrate the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul (if I remember correctly). The only problem - it was the Feast of St. Iranaeus (sp?). From there, it only got worse. He seemingly didn’t follow one prayer from the Sacramentary, but made up his own, or ad libbed a bit on what was written. He even stopped in the middle of the Opening Prayer & said, “Isn’t is a shame that we have to stick to these old prayers in the book?”

Then came the homily. He babbled on for an intolerable amount of time & the only thing that I very clearly remember was the phrase “… lay people like us…” :bigyikes:

I turned to my friend and she turned to me. We both silently mouthed the words “lay people like us?” then both said to each other, “Is this guy even a priest???” Since we weren’t sure, we made sure to receive HC from the EMHC since he was distributing HC from a ciborium that had been reserved in the Tabernacle. Neither of us was going to receive whatever “Fr.?” L had “consecrated.”

After Mass, I greeted him warmly, introduced myself, asked him where he was from (originally incardinated in the Rochester, NY, Diocese), and then questioned him about why he had not used the Mass for the Feast of St. Iranaeus. He stared blankly for a second, then said, “Oh him! I like Sts. Peter and Paul so much better. Besides, no one here will be coming tomorrow.” (Might I remind the readers of this post that this Noon Mass is attended by at least 100 people who are giving up part of their busy Saturdays to attend daily Mass. I’m sure they’ll all be going to Sunday Mass!)

I reminded “Fr.” L that even though he might like Peter & Paul better, there are men who devote their entire lives to working on the calendar & the liturgy of the Church & he did not have the authority to juggle feast days around, not to mention his promise of obedience to HMC.

When he realized I was foe not friend, he quickly hurried inside, saying he had to go.

I thought the same thing: I wrote to the Bishop. I told him the complaints I had been told, what I witnessed & the conversation after Mass.

Fortunately, our retired Bishop (Bishop Daily) & I knew each other, so when he received my letter he knew I wasn’t some miscellaneous crank who likes to complain.

While I received a more or less pro forma letter stating that the credentials of all summer visitors are checked by the Diocese, the important thing was “Fr.” L was not seen again!

 

[JReducation]

I was just doing some thread-surfing & came across this one. Since it’s now 5 AM, I confess to not having read the previous 10 pgs (will do so later), so if I’m interrupting a discussion, I apologize.

I’ve had 2 success stories:

This is a very appropriate manner of handling a situation. You did well, without offending or attacking.

JR

 

[dconklin]

Has anyone here ever actually sent a priest a letter telling them they are doing a great job? Sure, we tell them “Great homily Father” on the way out of mass, but do we complement them on other things. The priests (especially pastors) have a tough job. Their job is not just saying mass. They are running a small business. They did not go to business school. How often do you think the Bishop gets a nice letter?

 

[catharina]

Has anyone here ever actually sent a priest a letter telling them they are doing a great job? Sure, we tell them “Great homily Father” on the way out of mass, but do we complement them on other things. The priests (especially pastors) have a tough job. Their job is not just saying mass. They are running a small business. They did not go to business school. How often do you think the Bishop gets a nice letter?

I’ve sent “thank you” notes to priests and to bishops and to bishops about priests. I know what you mean - the criticism is ever-present but who says “thank you” with regularity?

 

[Spiller]

Has anyone here ever actually sent a priest a letter telling them they are doing a great job? Sure, we tell them “Great homily Father” on the way out of mass, but do we complement them on other things. The priests (especially pastors) have a tough job. Their job is not just saying mass. They are running a small business. They did not go to business school. How often do you think the Bishop gets a nice letter?

My letter certainly contained elements or praise and thanks for the work he is doing…