Homily on sexual morality

[FrDavid96]

What you see as his “right”, the parish, just about every priest & deacon I know personally and many people on this forum, see as a failure to meet pastoral needs.
…

What pastoral need?

It’s nonsense, literally non-sensical, to say that when a priest visits the sick and brings them Holy Communion he is somehow “failing to meet pastoral needs” That’s quite absurd. Truly ridiculous.

That’s why he was ordained, and it’s why he was sent there. It is the height of absurdity to call this a failure to meet pastoral needs.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

just about every priest & deacon I know personally and many people on this forum, see as a failure to meet pastoral needs.

I think you have laid out the matter very well and very cogently…and very rationally. It has been very easy for me to follow what you have written.

The important thing to remember that everyone in this equation – the laity and the priest – are under the governance of the Bishop of the diocese, before whom all parties must bow.

It is a matter of reporting to the Bishop the issues and concerns you have and for him to decide if this newly appointed administrator has, in fact, acted against the Bishop’s will for these matters…concerning the most intensive possible ministry to the homebound and other matters.

 

[CilladeRoma]

So, you think it is ok that a husband who has been able to bring his homebound wife communion weekly for 3 pastors now should be comforted that his wife will now get communion once a month, so long as it fits into Father’s schedule?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Again, we have no idea what abuses this priest may be aware of that must be stopped

If, in point of fact, there is some abuse – which would involve by necessity the previous parish priest, who has been promoted because he has the favour of the Bishop – this young priest can present his case to his Bishop who can both interrogate him as well as bring in the other priest who can present what happened under his stewardship.

In this way, the Bishop can make a decision and impose it upon those who are under his governance.

 

[Rau]

What pastoral need?

I believe it was the “dispensing with” those laity who regularly took communion to the sick that has caused some distress, given (as I understood it) that meant that weekly communion for those homebound persons would then no longer be possible, combined with the priest expressing an opinion that such reduction in availability was not much of a problem. OP please correct me if I have that wrong.

It would indeed be great if the priest attended to each of these homebound persons on some occasions but I imagine it’s not feasible for him to attend to all on a weekly basis. Its the kind of change that you’d think deserves a sensitive explanation - the existing ministers must feel they are being cast aside for no reason, and the homebound miss out on communion too.

I hope i have captured the story correctly.

 

[CilladeRoma]

@Rau, yes, this is a very good summary.

I shared this and the change of long standing Holy Day Mass times 3 weeks before Christmas, along with the homily as a few of the challenges we have had since our new priest arrived the second week of November.
These things are the ones that have caused the most anxiety, but there are many more examples.

Needless to say, many people are in a tailspin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Needless to say, many people are in a tailspin.

There is another matter that occurs to me @CilladeRoma. I had occasion to look up something for another thread concerning the Archdiocese of Vancouver. Their Archbishop was a much esteemed former Vatican official and, in retrieving what I needed, I saw a directive concerning the appointment of Extraordinary Ministers for the benefit of the sick. The directive is:

The pastor or hospital chaplain may appoint properly mandated Extraordinary Ministers to serve the sick in hospitals or in nursing or private homes under the following conditions:

b) that there is an objective pastoral need, e.g. the sick person’s desire for more frequent reception of Communion than the priest’s usual visitations provide.

This is another reason to consult the diocese’s Office of Worship, to learn what policy the Bishop may have in place – and actually also consult your diocese’s website to see if they publish the Bishop’s guidelines, which you could consult on-line. My diocese does not post that documentation but many dioceses do today. That would help you to have that information.

 

[KMG]

You are not privy to all the priest may know.

 

[MikeInVA]

So, you think it is ok

It is his call as the pastor to determine how to exercise this ministry. Neither you, nor any of us have a say.

You say he’s only been in the parish 9 weeks. Why not let him settle in to the role before you decide he’s destroying the parish? It is possible that after a few months of doing all of the homebound visits personally that he may choose to use EMHCs to assist.
Or the people in receiving homebound visits may be satisfied to have a priest visit once a month. I doubt the homebound in my parish are visited by a priest nearly that often. The priest can also hear the homebound person’s confession when he visits. That’s something an EMHC can’t provide.

 

[Brendan_64]

These are decisions that have been made with little (name removed by moderator)ut or experience with anyone, including his own parish staff.

This is the problem. The laity have rights too.

Actually, strictly speaking, I think you might find that the laity actually has no such rights regarding how things are organised and carried out in a parish (other than the right to insist that things are carried out according to Church law and teaching).

I believe that all aspects of parish organisation and practice are under the authority of the Parish Priest. He may of course choose to consult members of the laity and listen to their opinions (or not), but he is under no obligation to. The only person who can insist a parish priest does things in a certain way is his bishop.

Of course ignoring the views of well-meaning laity is perhaps not the wisest course of action, but the Church is not a democracy, it is a hierarchy with authority passed down from above.

 

[DeniseNY]

Brendan, I agree. I was recently appointed to our Parish Advisory Council, and while we will discuss issues with our Pastor and give advice; all actual decision making is left to the pastor.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Again, I have to say that I am really surprised by some of the comments here.

It has been shown, that pastoral care to the sick and homebound are one of the most important ministries a parish can offer. There is no precedent or reason for this restriction other than the priests own thoughts that it is not necessary.

None of the ministers who brought Holy Communion to people have stopped visiting. We still go, pray with them and visit them. It is actually the visit, I think, that is most important. I visit 4 people- 2 weekly, and 2 bi-weekly. We have about 20 that we visit, then there were about 15 who had spouses or caregivers bringing communion. Based on conversations with other ministers, 3 people have been seen by the priest since he has been there. The biggest question I get is, “Did I do something wrong? Why can’t you bring my Holy Communion anymore?”

Someone, please explain to me how this is acceptable.

And before you say, he knows something I don’t- no that is not the case. He has said so. There is no abuse, he knows we are well trained, very respectful & reverent. His feeling is that no one is required to receive, except for once a year, and spiritual communion should be enough for when he is not available.

Again, in light of all the work done on pastoral care for the sick & dying, how can anyone think that this is OK?

 

[stinkcat_14]

It is his call as the pastor to determine how to exercise this ministry. Neither you, nor any of us have a say.

I agree that the final authority is the pastor, but the role of the laity is not to just sit there and pray, pay and obey. Most parishes have pastoral councils to provide advice although the pastor has the final say. Parishes are required to have finance councils by canon law.

Now, one must be careful when discussing these issues with a pastor, one owes him charity and respect. But if there are matters of concern, it is certainly reasonable for the members of the parish to bring them up.

 

[OraLabora]

Again, one gets the strong impression that if this priest were of a more stereotypically liberal/progressive bent, you would be replying more along these lines:

“How dare you presume to know what this priest administrator is doing, or why? Your job is to submit humbly to his authority. Your thoughts and views on why he decided to change this practice are meaningless.”

Then why am I thinking that if it were about a conservative complaining that a priest is too liberal you’d be all over the priest, or at the very least would be bemoaning the decline of the Church to “modernists and liberals”?

Bias cuts both ways. Somewhere between the conservatism you espouse and the happy clappy liberal who ad-libs his own Mass, there is a balanced and orthodox view, and I think Fr. Ruggero’s is such a view that shows many years experience of pastoral care and seminary teaching.

And why is it that in another thread you strenuously defend the laity’s “right” to criticize a priest using what appears to you too many EMHCs, but in this case, you ardently defend the priest’s “right” to blow off his parishioners?

Your bias is showing, and your criticism of Fr. Ruggero is way out of line.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Have you experienced a strong and faithful congregation fall apart after such a short time under a new pastor?

I am watching my parish implode because of some very bad choices that have been made by a young, inexperienced priest. It is very difficult and sad to see. I started the original post to see if anyone else had ever had any experience with a situation like this. From most of the replies- it has been no, no real experience, but hey, we think it’s great!

 

[Joe_5859]

I did not intend to throw this poor priest under the bus. I am just concerned for my friends and their pastoral care needs. I pray for this and all priests & Bishops daily.

I just want to affirm that taking your concerns to the diocese is not necessarily “throwing the priest under the bus.” Of course, there are better and worse ways to go about it. Starting an angry letter campaign to the diocese in a confrontational way and demanding the priest’s removal would be a bad way to go about it. Simply sharing concerns with the appropriate person (whether the episcopal vicar for clergy, vicar general, or the bishop himself) in an objective, calm manner is simply providing feedback. How else are they going to know how things are working out with the new administrator if no one from your parish says something?

Sharing feedback doesn’t mean the priest will be disciplined or removed. But it will provide an opportunity for an older priest (or the bishop) to offer some coaching pointers on being a pastor. Ultimately, that can help the priest become a better priest. It’s a tough calling.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Again, I have to say that I am really surprised by some of the comments here.

I am not at all surprised.

 

[FrDavid96]

So, you think it is ok that a husband who has been able to bring his homebound wife communion weekly for 3 pastors now should be comforted that his wife will now get communion once a month, so long as it fits into Father’s schedule?

First of all, you’re putting words into my mouth. You’re making a straw-man so you can knock it down.

If you want to know what I say, ask me or read what I say.

If you want to make a statement of your own, make it your statement.

But do not put words into my mouth with sentences like “so you’re saying that…” It happens a lot on CAF and it’s frankly annoying.

I am sure you would not like it if I were to hurl accusations against you such as:

So you want to deprive the sick people of the opportunity to go to Confession?

So you want to deprive the sick people of the opportunity to receive Anointing of the Sick?

I could go on, but if I did that, I would be doing exactly what I expect others not to do, so I’ll leave it at those 2 examples. I rather doubt that you want either of those 2 examples.

What I am saying is that it is far better for the sick to be visited by a priest bringing Holy Communion. Only that priest is in persona Christi. Only the priest was ordained to exercise his priestly ministry, and part of that is to bring Communion to the sick. Only the priest can hear their confessions. Only the priest can anoint them.

There is nothing, nothing at all, preventing any lay person from visiting the sick in the parish. They can visit all they want (so long as the house welcomes them).

So quite frankly YES, a visit by a priest once a month is a thousand times better than Communion from an extraordinary minister weekly. Immeasurably better.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

What pastoral need?

I believe it was the “dispensing with” those laity who regularly took communion to the sick that has caused some distress, given (as I understood it) that meant that weekly communion for those homebound persons would then no longer be possible, combined with the priest expressing an opinion that such reduction in availability was not much of a problem. OP please correct me if I have that wrong.

It would indeed be great if the priest attended to each of these homebound persons on some occasions but I imagine it’s not feasible for him to attend to all on a weekly basis. Its the kind of change that you’d think deserves a sensitive explanation - the existing ministers must feel they are being cast aside for no reason, and the homebound miss out on communion too.

I hope i have captured the story correctly.

The explanation is self-evident. He is the priest. He is the one who was ordained as a minister of the Eucharist. He is the one who was appointed by the bishop to have pastoral care of that parish.

It is his proper role to bring Communion to the sick. Indeed, it is his responsibility under canon law to bring Communion to the sick.

The role of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is exactly that: extra-ordinary. It is not in-and-of-itself a pastoral need which must be fulfilled.

It is far better for the priest himself to make those Communion calls than it is for him to make a temporary deputation to represent him only in part. As I’ve stated several times now, only that priest can offer the fullness of the priestly ministry. Only the priest can offer Confession and Anointing of the sick.

The value of “I want to be an EMHC” is not a pastoral need.

 

[CilladeRoma]

No straw man at all.

Our former Pastor made rounds every month. All the people in who were homebound were offered the chance for confession and anointing. He would see everyone at least every other month.
He made himself available to his homebound parishioners and still made sure that when he was unable, they were still able to receive communion if they so desired.

Since he has arrived and prevented the laity from doing this ministry, he has made time to see 3-4 people.

That leaves about 25 who have been basically told, too bad, so sad for you.

That is unacceptable.