Homily on sexual morality

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Precisely. And I would trust your Bishop would agree.

 

[DeniseNY]

Have you or any other parishioners actually asked him why he hasn’t been ablet to see the others yet? Does the Bishop know? You’re ascribing this “too bad, so sad” attitude to him and if you haven’t had the conversation, it’s grossly unfair. If that’s not in fact his mindset, you’re slandering him on this message board.

 

[FrDavid96]

CilladeRoma:

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.

Yes, and no. Canon law outlines his responsibilities.

And one of those responsibilities is to take Communion to the sick.

So, objectively, it’s quite obvious that he is entirely in the right to decide to make those sick calls himself.

That is his proper ministry.

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.

Apparently, to some posters here, the value of appointing EMHCs outweighs the value of making Confession available to the sick parishioners.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Apparently, to some posters here, the value of appointing EMHCs outweighs the value of making Confession available to the sick parishioners.

Does it have to be either or? I could envision a rotation where the priest visited everyone once a month and EMHCs visited in the interim. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I am just curious. I do realize it would be the pastor’s call.

 

[CilladeRoma]

He freely admitted in our last meeting that he has not had time to make home visits.
He, in addition to being our Priest administrator, also works 1 day a week at the Chancery and teaches courses at our Theology school. He is not a full-time priest in the parish.

Right now, he is booking appointments 2 weeks out, and only 3 per week.

There has been on-going conversation. I am not here to slander any priest.
Obviously, there are very different ideas on what the pastoral needs of people and parishes are.
In our case, this is one of the biggest issues, as it slaps in the face of our diocesean norms, and what has been done for many years.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Apparently, to some posters here, the value of appointing EMHCs outweighs the value of making Confession available to the sick parishioners.

Does it have to be either or?

No. It need not be.

I could envision a rotation where the priest visited everyone once a month and EMHCs visited in the interim. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I am just curious. I do realize it would be the pastor’s call.

Surely, if he were to decide to do it that way, he could.

Yes, it’s his decision to make.

 

[KMG]

The real issue on this thread is summed up in the original poster’s note:

“The issue is not so much the topic of Catholic moral theology, it the fact that most people (our parish is pretty much a 50-50 split: adults over 65 and young families) don’t want to hear the loaded words- masturbation, fornication, etc.”

The young new priest is facing a group that has decided what it wants. It doesn’t want to hear certain messages of Catholic morality. It doesn’t want the system of lay extraordinary minister use changed.

In short, it wants things its own way.

 

[Brendan_64]

He has only been in the parish for a couple of months. Perhaps he intends to regularly visit more sick parishioners himself in time?

Taking over a parish is a big job and, particularly if he is young, perhaps he has underestimated what he can do straight away? Perhaps he has made changes quickly with the best of intentions, but has underestimated the initial impact of these changes or how quickly he can take over himself?

I know it’s easy for me to say, but maybe give him time and the benefit of the doubt?

If his intention is that the priest plays a greater role in visiting the sick and administering the sacraments (while scaling back the role of EMHCs) then that is surely a good thing?

If his intention regarding homilies is to preach the Catholic faith clearly covering all relevant areas (no matter how difficult) then surely that is also a good thing?

As for his traditionalist leanings and fondness for things ‘pre-Vatican II’ then if that means more emphasis on reverence, quiet prayer and devotions, then that too may well be a good thing?

Perhaps he is young, eager and full of zeal, but has jumped in with both feet not really thinking too much about the effects of his actions on others? We’ve all been there at one point or another in our lives. Maybe because of his youth he also finds out-spoken, intelligent, confident, middle-aged women (and there are a lot in parishes) intimidating and maybe as a result he won’t want to back down?

He’s only just arrived. Maybe cut him some slack and see where he takes the parish over the next 6 months?

 

[Joe_5859]

The young new priest is facing a group that has decided what it wants. It doesn’t want to hear certain messages of Catholic morality. It doesn’t want the system of lay extraordinary minister use changed.

In short, it wants things its own way.

That certainly could be the case in some parishes, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what the OP is describing at her parish. She has repeatedly stated that her parish is not a liberal hotbed of heterodoxy, nor were changes made to correct abuses.

I fully support and believe all Catholic moral teaching. And I believe it needs to be taught. But that doesn’t mean I’d want my priest peppering his homily with words like “fornication,” “contraception,” and “masturbation” a half dozen times each with my elementary school age children right beside me. There are ways to teach Catholic morality that don’t involve using explicit language in the homily on Sunday.

It’s also not unreasonable that people who are used to receiving the Eucharist once a week (in addition to being visited by the pastor once a month as the OP stated previous pastors were in the habit of doing) are disappointed and/or hurt that they suddenly can no longer receive the Eucharist that frequently without being given a reason that they understand. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Sacraments and a great grace. Why wouldn’t someone want to receive it once a week (at least)?

 

[KMG]

Quite possibly if the priest in question were on this thread, he would have information the original poster does not.

Her position can be briefly summed up as, “Everything was fine in the parish until he came and started doing things a different way.”

But again, the priest in question is clearly stereotypically conservative. So some…sadly, including fellow clergy…are quite quick to urge “Report him”…when all the while, were someone complaining about a stereotypically liberal priest, the response would be…“You are not competent to make a comment, remain silent and bow before authority.”

 

[OraLabora]

But again, the priest in question is clearly stereotypically conservative. So some…sadly, including fellow clergy…are quite quick to urge “Report him”…when all the while, were someone complaining about a stereotypically liberal priest, the response would be…“You are not competent to make a comment, remain silent and bow before authority.”

And you have proved that you are the opposite side of the same coin when you put down Fr. Ruggero for insisting that the priest is wrong when you don’t see it your way because he’s doing something you perceive as too liberal (too many EMHCs), yet you support this priest because he is doing something your way: behaving in a manner you perceive as conservative.

You see this is the problem when we add labels like “liberal” or “conservative” or “traditionalist” in front of Catholic.

It’s a lose-lose proposition, because it always ends up with the “liberal” or “conservative” doubting the sincerity of the other’s faith, or motives. The result is polarization, and groups of people who never talk to each other. It’s an offence to the unity of the Church, just one step removed from full-blown schism.

We have a Church in the here and now. She is made up of sinners, like you and I, at every level of the hierarchy from the pope on down. There will always be disagreements, different ways of seeing things etc. But when we start denigrating the sincerity of people who don’t think like ourselves, then the Church is in deeper trouble than we think.

The Church is not intended to be divided into partisan politics of “conservative” or “liberal”. She is made up of people seeking their own salvation, as imperfect as we all are. She allows different options and preferences liturgically, and allows fairly wide room to exercise our consciences, hopefully as well formed as we possibly can make them.

With what I see going on in the Church, especially the US Church, it won’t be long before it becomes as dysfunctional and polarized as its two-party political system.

Take your blinders off.

 

[Joe_5859]

Quite possibly if the priest in question were on this thread, he would have information the original poster does not.

And that’s certainly possible. There are always other sides to the story. If there were an abuse that the priest wanted to correct, he could very well choose not to share that information out of a desire not to make certain parishioners feel bad.

But again, the priest in question is clearly stereotypically conservative. So some…sadly, including fellow clergy…are quite quick to urge “Report him”…when all the while, were someone complaining about a stereotypically liberal priest, the response would be…“You are not competent to make a comment, remain silent and bow before authority.”

I don’t know who you think would respond in that way if the tables were turned. Taking it to the diocese is never my first suggestion, and I side with the “conservative” view far more often than the “liberal” view in most things. I’d be much more quick to advise someone to talk to the diocese if the priest were advocating for gay marriage or women priests than I would be for a priest who wants to reduce the number of EMHCs.

But based on what the OP has stated, it sounds like they have already made their concerns known to the pastor, but haven’t received an explanation that assuages their concerns. Taking their concerns to the diocese would be the next step—not in an effort to “report” the priest or get him into trouble, but in hopes of coming to greater resolution. Maybe someone from the diocese will contact the priest, find out the “real” reasons for the changes, and then respond to the parishioners encouraging them to accept the new changes. Or maybe they will talk to the priest, give him some friendly advice about how to make the exact same changes in a way that will get more people on board, and he will be a better priest because of it. Who can say?

And maybe talking to the diocese isn’t the right move at this point in time. That’s certainly possible. Brendan suggested giving it 6 months to see how things progress. Maybe that would be the better approach. The OP needs to discern that for herself as she has a lot more facts than the rest of us. I’m mainly just pointing out that talking to the diocese doesn’t necessarily need to be construed as ratting out the priest or being a tattle-tale. It can be done in a positive way and can yield positive results. For sure, it can also be done in a negative way and yield negative results. So consideration has to be given to doing it the best way possible.

 

[KMG]

No blinders here.

Don Ruggero’s positions on this thread are strikingly at variance with his position re: stereotypically conservative issues.

I never said the woman in question has no right to complain to a bishop. I said that in what she reported, there was no violation of Church teaching or practice.

 

[Rau]

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.

Who ever claimed it was “either/or”? Only you I believe. Would it not be far better for him to do so to the extent he can (as I stated) and to have assistance for the (perhaps) 3 in 4 Sundays he cannot (given the homebound appear to be numerous) - for the benefit of the homebound?

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

No it isn’t - and I imagine you know that that is not the claim. But receiving holy communion once per week instead of once per month seems better, no? It is perhaps why EHMC was created?

 

[Rau]

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.

How about he goes once a month - or whatever time allows - and he has help for the other times? Would that be commune sense?

 

[Rau]

Apparently, to some posters here, the value of appointing EMHCs outweighs the value of making Confession available to the sick parishioners.

You should retract that uncharitable and unjustified statement. There is no such claim on the thread by any poster. Is this your straw man? The Claim is not that the priest should step back in favour of EHMC. It’s that allowing their ministry in addition to his own visits benefits the homebound because the priest cannot humanly visit all the homebound every week.

 

[exnihilo]

How about he goes once a month - or whatever time allows - and he has help for the other times? Would that be commune sense?

To be clear the topic has now become how many EMHCs must the priest have? And we are the judge of that?

 

[KMG]

The implication here is that the use of EHMCs is somehow de facto mandatory to ensure weekly Communion. That is not Church teaching. Weekly Communion is not always a desideratum.

 

[KMG]

The priest might well have been concerned about a situation where there was weekly Communion, but no regular administration of Penance.

 

[Rau]

Surely, if he were to decide to do it that way, he could.

Yes, it’s his decision to make.

Agreed. And if for no apparent reason he decides a different course - the laity have options beyond docile acceptance.