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

[benedictgal]

LOL!! Alrighty!!

I think that situations like the one Spiller has mentioned need to be handled directly by the priest. The EMHC (pleaese, folks, use the correct terms as they are used by the Holy See–we are not Eucharistic Ministers, we are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) coordinator’s job should primarily be focused on scheduling and assisting with the minor details. The major issues need to be handled by the pastor or the parochial vicar (if the pastor designates him to do so). Simply sending an email doesn’t cut it when a problem this serious arises.

 

[JReducation]

This post has made me remember something very bad I did . Many moons ago, when I was getting married, my wife wanted to get married in Ireland, in a small church in a small town she knew and had connections with.
It was a fransciscan church. I was told to write to the parish priest as I’d have to get his permission to marry in that church. I did, and got a letter back refusing his permission, and highlighting the huge diocesan churches we could get married in. This defeated the point entirely for my wife to be.

I flipped, and wrote the parish priest one of the nastiest, sarcastic, and rudest letters Ive ever written basically saying I knew all he was after was the fees for the wedding so I’d pay him the darn fees as well as paying the fees to the little Franciscan church… and if he refused that offer he could stick it … I then went on to a tirade of abuse about the catholic church, why people were leaving it in droves with dimwits (I used a much more abusive term) like him in charge, etc etc … I then quoted loads of bits of canon law, which I have no idea now what they were, and were almost certainly utterly wrong and inappropriate trying to prove a point he couldnt stop us getting married whereever the heck we liked

To his credit, he wrote saying we could get married in the church my wife wanted to be married in, and it was a very kind and charitable letter.

I really struggled with authority figures in those days, and anyone connected with the catholic church, and I so dearly loved to point out their faults, failings, and everything else.

Then one day I woke up, and couldnt shave properly coz there was this huge great big log sticking out of my eye

I love your example. It’s really great. One thing that we have to remember is that when we critique anyone, we can put them in an unnecessary spot where there credibility, their integrity, their faith, their orthodoxy or even their reputation may take a hit. This is not what the Church wants us to do to anyone, especially the clergy and religious.

In the event that our criticism gets out to others, even if we later realize that we were mistaken and apologize, people don’t simply forget. They continue to think about these things and some innocent person has been hurt.

In today’s Evening Prayer St. Peter reminds us to be gentle toward all.

As I was reading the exchange with Spiller, I get the sense that there is a lack of gentleness. It’s a contradiction to say that one loves the Eucharist so much that one risks making the priest or deacon look foolish during the celebration of the mass. Our love for the Eucharist must always be played out in our love for our neighbor.

Even in responding to the questions that people asked Spiller, I found it difficult to see love of neighbor in the responses that Spiller provided. The tone was condescending, rather than making an effort to clarify the picture.

All of us, especially those who are involved in ministry, must be examples of charity and decorum. To be engaged in ministry of any kind and call someone a name or say that his or her question is asinine is a juxtaposition in my mind.

It relates to your example about the wedding. Desiring a Catholic wedding while bashing the priest would raise all kinds of questions in the mind of the priest. I would certainly understand if the priest thought you were a nut job. It was very kind of him to respond charitably.

I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear. It’s been a long day. But I understand what you’re saying and I agree that we can’t claim love for the sacraments and make fools out of those who provide them for us. The two don’t work well together.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I sent a letter to a priest about a very “casual” Mass he offered for a group I belong to, but he hasn’t said Mass for the group since, I don’t know if it would stop the abuses from occurring again.

I also sent an email to my pastor about visiting priests who pour the Precious Blood from one chalice to another. He said he would take care of it at the proper time. I still see it happening on occasion, though.

If the content of your letter correctly describes this celebration of mass, there was certainly enough material there to be concerned about. The only difference that I would have made would have been to leave out the second half where you tell him what he could have done instead of this or that.

I would have written the letter in bullets starting with I was concerned with . . .

And I would have concluded with a simple statement that I would be happy to explain my concerns in person, if he wanted to meet with me.

This way you are sharing your concerns, which is legitimate and you’re not sounding as if you are his superior.

Do you see what I mean?

JR

 

[japhy]

I would have written the letter in bullets starting with I was concerned with . . . And I would have concluded with a simple statement that I would be happy to explain my concerns in person, if he wanted to meet with me.

This way you are sharing your concerns, which is legitimate and you’re not sounding as if you are his superior. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, but a bullet-list was the type of thing I wanted to avoid. It would seem like I’d been “keeping score”, I feared. In retrospect, yes, the letter was not good enough.

 

[Jeanette_L]

All of us, especially those who are involved in ministry, must be examples of charity and decorum. To be engaged in ministry of any kind and call someone a name or say that his or her question is asinine is a juxtaposition in my mind.

It relates to your example about the wedding. Desiring a Catholic wedding while bashing the priest would raise all kinds of questions in the mind of the priest. I would certainly understand if the priest thought you were a nut job. It was very kind of him to respond charitably.

I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear. It’s been a long day. But I understand what you’re saying and I agree that we can’t claim love for the sacraments and make fools out of those who provide them for us. The two don’t work well together.

JR

Excellent points. We each need to look at ourselves first, our true motives, and then be cautious about the manner in which we behave toward one another when confronting problems. Even in difficult or uncomfortable situations, we need to always be respectful and charitable.

 

[Spiller]

Yes, but a bullet-list was the type of thing I wanted to avoid. It would seem like I’d been “keeping score”, I feared. In retrospect, yes, the letter was not good enough.

I want to add another thing as gingerly as I can…

Even if you have quite a CV for this sorta thing (and you do not, nor do I) you don’t spend the space or the location you did in outlining it. Huge no-no. That’s why it’s also best to stay away from commentary. Describe the current situation without emotion and offer the Church’s instruction on the matter. Commentary can be in person if needed…

 

[JReducation]

I want to add another thing as gingerly as I can…

Even if you have quite a CV for this sorta thing (and you do not, nor do I) you don’t spend the space or the location you did in outlining it. Huge no-no. That’s why it’s also best to stay away from commentary. Describe the current situation without emotion and offer the Church’s instruction on the matter. Commentary can be in person if needed…

I agree that avoiding commentary is a better choice. Commentaries, whether you’re writing to the bishop or the president of a company can get one of two receptions, usually the latter. Either the person is impressed with your level of knowledge or the person feels that you’re being condescending toward them.

When I posted above about bullets, it’s for the benefit of the reader. I’m at the head of a department that has 35 employees and serves a lot of people. When letters get too long you tend to put them aside to read later, when you have more time, which means that they often don’t get read. When a person sends me a letter with bullets, I can read it quickly and see the bottom line fast enough. This is important if you have to go through a great deal of paper everday as do many pastors, bishops and vicars.

By the way, a Deacon is an ordinary minister of holy communion. Deacons can be helpful, if they are present in these situations.

Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

JR

 

[BamaRider]

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

Dang, makes ya wonder how much of this attitude contributed to the abuse problem.

 

[JReducation]

Dang, makes ya wonder how much of this attitude contributed to the abuse problem.

We’re talking about two different things here. A legitimate complaint such as sexual abuse should always be reported to the Vicar General of the Diocese or the Major Superior of a religious community. If you’re not sure who the Major Superior is or how to contact that person, you can go through the Vicar General who will forward the concern to the proper religious authority.

What the Vatican does not look at kindly is a lay person instructing or correcting a cleric or a religious. They are very interested in reports of behaviours that are busive, dangerous, immoral or illegal. They prefer to handle it themselves.

In the case of sexual abuse, that involves civil law. The new regulations are very clear on this. If the person wants to report it to the civil authorities, he or she does not need to go through the ecclesiastical authorities first. The Church will not stand in the way of a civil investigation.

We’re talking about correcting a priest because a person believes that he celebrated the mass wrong. Even in those cases, there is nothing wrong with asking the priest or deacon why it was different from what you usually see. Sometimes you’ll get a good answer.

The point that the Church is concerned about was well posted by someone else, but I can’t recall which post it was. When you begin to openly criticize clerics or religious, you run the risk of hurting someone’s reputation, credibility or other lay persons who have placed their trust in this individual. This is beyond what is necessary.

If you have a concern, you can certainly present it in the form of a question or via a letter, without sharing it with everyone in the parish. That’s the concern of the Vatican, the Bishops and the Major Superiors. They don’t want to see good clerics or religious hurt unnecessarily.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

We’re talking about two different things here. A legitimate complaint such as sexual abuse should always be reported to the Vicar General of the Diocese or the Major Superior of a religious community. If you’re not sure who the Major Superior is or how to contact that person, you can go through the Vicar General who will forward the concern to the proper religious authority.

What the Vatican does not look at kindly is a lay person instructing or correcting a cleric or a religious. They are very interested in reports of behaviours that are busive, dangerous, immoral or illegal. They prefer to handle it themselves.

In the case of sexual abuse, that involves civil law. The new regulations are very clear on this. If the person wants to report it to the civil authorities, he or she does not need to go through the ecclesiastical authorities first. The Church will not stand in the way of a civil investigation.

We’re talking about correcting a priest because a person believes that he celebrated the mass wrong. Even in those cases, there is nothing wrong with asking the priest or deacon why it was different from what you usually see. Sometimes you’ll get a good answer.

The point that the Church is concerned about was well posted by someone else, but I can’t recall which post it was. When you begin to openly criticize clerics or religious, you run the risk of hurting someone’s reputation, credibility or other lay persons who have placed their trust in this individual. This is beyond what is necessary.

If you have a concern, you can certainly present it in the form of a question or via a letter, without sharing it with everyone in the parish. That’s the concern of the Vatican, the Bishops and the Major Superiors. They don’t want to see good clerics or religious hurt unnecessarily.

Hope this helps.

JR

I cannot see for the life of me how this is in anyway complicated or unclear.

And yet there are people who don’t see the simplicity of what is just plain common sense…

 

[jmcrae]

Essentially what we are talking about is telling a trained professional how to do his job.

You wouldn’t stand over your plumber and lecture him about what kind of solder to use on the pipes, or try to teach your doctor how to find a pulse, but somehow, when it comes to the Mass, we seem to feel that we know more than our priests do about it.

 

[anamchara]

I think that situations like the one Spiller has mentioned need to be handled directly by the priest. The EMHC (pleaese, folks, use the correct terms as they are used by the Holy See–we are not Eucharistic Ministers, we are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) coordinator’s job should primarily be focused on scheduling and assisting with the minor details. The major issues need to be handled by the pastor or the parochial vicar (if the pastor designates him to do so). Simply sending an email doesn’t cut it when a problem this serious arises.

Benedictgal, it’s just easier to write EM. We all know the difference. Good Lord. It is the coordinators job to make sure the people are trained correctly. If the "EM"s are not doing thier job right then we should go to her/him first instead of bugging the priest about it. We just recieved an email a few days ago from our coordinator telling us:

“1)Please remember to consume the Blood facing the altar; 2)Please do not place the purficator inside the cup.”

Obviously if something kept happening and was a serious problem then yes one might go to the priest if the problem wasn’t being taken care of.

I don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand. It’s called giving people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[anamchara]

LOL!! Alrighty!!

I don’t get what’s so funny. Sorry, you lost me.

 

[nightwalker]

I cannot see for the life of me how this is in anyway complicated or unclear.

And yet there are people who don’t see the simplicity of what is just plain common sense…

Redemptionis Sacramentum:

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 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.

We, the faithful, have a right to avoid abuses, even a serious duty. Charity often demands that we go first to the priest, but we have aright to go all the way to the Vatican if nothing is done. JReducation apparently believes that we don’t have this right, despite the fact that it had been established by Canon Law as well.
Canon Law:

Can. 212 ß1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.

ß2 **Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, **especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

ß3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

 

[Jeanette_L]

We, the faithful, have a right to avoid abuses, even a serious duty. Charity often demands that we go first to the priest, but we have aright to go all the way to the Vatican if nothing is done. JReducation apparently believes that we don’t have this right, despite the fact that it had been established by Canon Law as well.

I’m taking it you haven’t read all his posts? If you have, how do you come to this conclusion?

I’m starting to think no one around here really bothers to read the posts…

There is a world of difference between handling concerns in the proper manner, with respect and charity, than in an improper manner with arrogance, pride and offensiveness, which happens when people take it upon themselves to try to teach a priest a thing or two, rather than bring to him a legitimate concern in the proper way and with the proper disposition.

Is this difference really so hard to comprehend? This is my question and I’m thinking that it really is for some reason, although I can’t for the life of me figure out why…

 

[JReducation]

We, the faithful, have a right to avoid abuses, even a serious duty. Charity often demands that we go first to the priest, but we have aright to go all the way to the Vatican if nothing is done. JReducation apparently believes that we don’t have this right, despite the fact that it had been established by Canon Law as well.

This is not what I said at all. I’m speaking about the form and tone that we use in delivering our concerns.

I am not against any person expressing concerns or asking questions.

It does bother me that some take on an authoritative tone and attitude, when this is not implied or directed in the canon. The canon calls for all to take great care of the sacredness of the liturgy.

It also protects the right of the faithful to ask for what they need and present their concerns. In fact, the canon protects the laity’s right to be heard.

I have never said that this is wrong.

Let’s use this example. Our children have a right to be heard. But do they have a right to scold their parents? If they make themselves heard appropriately, any good parent who is rational will stand corrected without the child overstepping his bounds.

The same applies to the relationship and communication between the laity and the hierarchy.

This is not a denial of fundamental human rights, which is what the canon is protecting. In any society, it is a fundamental human right to have one’s concerns, questions and needs heard. This includes the Church.

In any society, that which is sacred must be protected and is the responsibility of every member of said society. This is also a fundamental obligation, which is presented in the canon regarding the sacredness of the liturgy and the sacrament.

That being said, in no society do individuals have the right to disrespect each other or those in positions of authority when they present their concerns or when they attempt to protect that which is sacred. The reason being, that those with whom we are communicating are also sacred, because they are the Beloved sons and daughters of the Father.

Therefore, in our effort to protect the sacred, we must take great care not to violate the sacredness of the individual with whom we are communicating. We must protect the liturgy while at the same time remember the dignity of the person who is receiving our message.

JR

 

[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.** 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.

snip<
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.

I am not against any person expressing concerns or asking questions.

snip<

I have never said that this is wrong

I could go through the thread and pull the other half-dozen references where you say that it is not the laity’s place to address their concerns. Yes, in other places you contradict yourself and say that it is all about tone, but you have repeatedly swerved into clericalism to avoid clericalization (in this case imagined, as the faithful have the right and responsibility to help curtail liturgical abuse).

In the post I quoted from above, you directly state that no-one can admonish religious, and laity can correct clergy. This can very easily create a situation for abuse of power (ranging from psychological abuse to physical abuse) that the laity are powerless to affect. After all, it is not a matter of the closing of a parish or a school…

The Church, as much as it resembles a business or monarchy, it is not supposed to function as either. It ought to follow more of the relation of a family. The ideal bishop would hear out his children, even if they seem to be spouting nonsense.

But you are right, the Church often does function as a bureaucracy, much like a government. But then we see that letter writing campaigns, frequent persisting nagging on a particular matter can produce a result often in the hardest of hearts (a lesson taught us by Christ, Himself).

I’m sure this doesn’t help, but condescending clericalism does not either.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I could go through the thread and pull the other half-dozen references where you say that it is not the laity’s place to address their concerns. Yes, in other places you contradict yourself and say that it is all about tone, but you have repeatedly swerved into clericalism to avoid clericalization (in this case imagined, as the faithful have the right and responsibility to help curtail liturgical abuse).

In the post I quoted from above, you directly state that no-one can admonish religious, and laity can correct clergy. This can very easily create a situation for abuse of power (ranging from psychological abuse to physical abuse) that the laity are powerless to affect. After all, it is not a matter of the closing of a parish or a school…

The Church, as much as it resembles a business or monarchy, it is not supposed to function as either. It ought to follow more of the relation of a family. The ideal bishop would hear out his children, even if they seem to be spouting nonsense.

But you are right, the Church often does function as a bureaucracy, much like a government. But then we see that letter writing campaigns, frequent persisting nagging on a particular matter can produce a result often in the hardest of hearts (a lesson taught us by Christ, Himself).

I’m sure this doesn’t help, but condescending clericalism does not either.

I’m sorry but I have to say once again, even though you are not addressing me, that you still have not understood this whole premise at all.

The debate is not about addressing legitimate concerns with pastors, bishops and everyone up the chain if necessary. It is about people thinking they can teach their priests or bishops Church law! As if the lay person understands Church law better than those who have studied it and been approved to teach it or govern.

Addressing concerns, in a respectful, charitable manner is not the issue, that is certainly encouraged by the Church herself and is not being debated here.

Arrogance and uncharitable actions or behavior towards the priests and or bishops is what is being discussed as not proper for any of us.

Even what you have in bold above proves this point.

Why is this so hard to understand???

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

I second this. Long letters just end up being a lot to read.

Better still, get out your camera phone and take a photo and attach a copy. If you are like me and your cell phone is just a phone, get a teenager to take one for you (all of them have camera phones). The old addage “A picture is worth a thousand words” is true. In this case a picture is worth two pages with end-notes.

 

[nightwalker]

**
Addressing concerns, in a respectful, charitable manner is not the issue, that is certainly encouraged by the Church herself and is not being debated here.**

Arrogance and uncharitable actions or behavior towards the priests and or bishops is what is being discussed as not proper for any of us.

Even what you have in bold above proves this point.

Why is this so hard to understand???

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.