Homily on sexual morality

[Rau]

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

Actually I think the topic has become whether a local priest is to be afforded the authority of a medieval king or not. One side seems to be saying “yes, the matters rests entirely with the priest to do as he himself decides, end of story” and the other is saying “if he makes decisions that appear to make no sense to us, and he gives us no explanation when we ask, and the matter is important, we are going to take it to his boss”.

 

[Rau]

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

A reality for nearly all homebound I imagine. How is that to be solved? Eliminate all EMHCs?

 

[exnihilo]

Actually I think the topic has become whether the local priest is to be afforded that authority if a medieval king or not. One side seems to be saying “yes, the matters rests entirely with the priest to do as he himself decides, end of story” and the other is saying “this makes no sense to us, he gives us no explanation, we are going to take to his boss”.

The authority in question is how many EMHCs to have. The authority does reside with the priest. As with anything one can appeal to a higher authority. So if someone wants to appeal to the bishop about the number of EMHCs they certainly can. Whether that is advisable is a different matter.

 

[KMG]

Weekly Communion should not be treated as some automatic event.

It is better to have a priest go once a month than an extraordinary minister every week.

 

[Rau]

The authority in question is how many EMHCs to have. The authority does reside with the priest.

The matter in question is not that. It is whether refusing to allow EHMC in the particular circumstances is an appropriate pastoral decision.

As with anything one can appeal to a higher authority.

Agreed.

Whether that is advisable is a different matter.

Surely it is. The same could be said of the priest’s decision. And of his decision to offer no explanation for his decision. Both are within his authority, but may not be advisable.

 

[Rau]

It is better to have a priest go once a month than an extraordinary minister every week.

Straw man. It is not either/or. The decision the priest made is in effect to eliminate the additional EHMC visits, not his own.

 

[Rau]

Yes they do. Tell that to Don Ruggero when the laity are conservative and complaining about perceived liturgical abuses.

I’m not sure this is the place to “have a go” at another poster for other than what he writes on this thread.

 

[Boler]

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.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

You are being disingenuous here. In the other case Fr. Ruggero was talking about personal reasons for needing EMHCs to assist, and he was quite right in stating that personal circumstances, such as a health condition, are confidential. The use of EMHCs is not abusive when circumstances warrant and most often, such as the health of the pastor, those circumstances are indeed confidential, so what might appear to be an abuse is in fact perfectly justified.

In this case it is true that there might be particular circumstances that only the priest is privy to and should be the only one privy to them along with his bishop. But given that there is widespread concern among parishioners that the spiritual needs of the homebound are not being met, and that age-inappropriate language was used in a homily where children can reasonably be expected to be present (a homily is not a sex-ed class), we are in a completely different context.

 

[Boler]

The use of EMHCs is not abusive when circumstances warrant and most often

I’m pretty sure there was consensus in that thread regarding this. The poster he was responding to explicitly mentioned it, yet many ignored it.

 

[exnihilo]

In this case it is true that there might be particular circumstances that only the priest is privy to and should be the only one privy to them along with his bishop. But given that there is widespread concern among parishioners that the spiritual needs of the homebound are not being met, and that age-inappropriate language was used in a homily where children can reasonably be expected to be present (a homily is not a sex-ed class), we are in a completely different context.

Age inappropriate language? I’ve seen no evidence of that at all.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

This priest is exercising his proper ministry and fulfilling his canonical obligation:

This is a far cry from saying that it’s just someone saying “I want my way.”

Can. 530 The following functions are especially entrusted to a pastor:
3/ the administration of Viaticum and of the anointing of the sick, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1003, §§2 and 3, and the imparting of the apostolic blessing;

(administrators have the same obligation)

It is his obligation; whether or not anyone on this board, and yes I do mean any priest, want to falsely claim otherwise.

See also Redemptionis Sacramentum

[146.] There can be no substitute whatsoever for the ministerial Priesthood. For if a Priest is lacking in the community, then the community lacks the exercise and sacramental function of Christ the Head and Shepherd, which belongs to the essence of its very life. For “the only minister who can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”

[152.] These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests, in such a way that the latter neglect the celebration of Holy Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, or their personal care of the sick, or the baptism of children, or assistance at weddings or the celebration of Christian funerals, matters which pertain in the first place to Priests assisted by Deacons. It must therefore never be the case that in parishes Priests alternate indiscriminately in shifts of pastoral service with Deacons or laypersons, thus confusing what is specific to each.

Nor is there any right of the lay parishioners to be appointed as EMHC’s

The Code, having referred to the rights and duties of all the faithful, in the subsequent title devoted to the rights and duties of the lay faithful, treats not only of those which are theirs in virtue of their secular condition, but also of those tasks and functions which are not exclusively theirs. Some of these latter refer to any member of the faithful, whether ordained or not, while others are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry of cleric. With regard to these last mentioned areas or functions, the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are "capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors… to those functions which, in accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge" or where “ministers are not available… they can supply certain of their functions… in accordance with the provisions of law”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ocuments/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

 

[CilladeRoma]

Wow. With all due respect Father, you need to chill.

We are not angry, pouty children who didn’t get our way.
We are are not concerned with our lack of ability to bring communion, we are concerned for the spiritual well being of long time parishioners who suddenly, without warning or reason, have been denied something that was very important to them.

It does not and should not be an either/or proposition. All we are asking for is dialogue, and in this case, I am sorry to say, “Because I said so”, just is not going to cut it.

 

[OraLabora]

Age inappropriate language? I’ve seen no evidence of that at all.

From two of the OP’s posts. Announcement about the homily:

His announcement used fornication, masturbation, and many other “loaded words”, and said that he will not be “soft” in his language. I am glad he put in a warning, but again, this is just one of many things that has our parish understandably upset and worried since he arrived about 3 months ago.

Homily itself:

It was the how. He is delivery is like that of of more Evangelical type preacher, and he loudly, with emphasis, made sure we heard pornography, masturbation, formication, adultery, about 6 times each, in 7 minutes. The only thing he didn’t do was pound his fist on the ambo.

Maybe you think that’s appropriate in a homily with children present. As a parent, I do not.

 

[exnihilo]

Maybe you think that’s appropriate in a homily with children present. As a parent, I do not.

The Gospels and Epistles use some of those words. So you are saying those shouldn’t be read at Mass? I don’t think pornography is in the Bible, but kids can hear that word in lots of ways. It’s in popular media. They’ll at least learn it from their friends, likely at a surprisingly early age.

The style of the homilst is irrelevant.

 

[Rau]

Nor is there any right of the lay parishioners to be appointed as EMHC’s

Straw-man

There can be no substitute whatsoever for the ministerial Priesthood.

Straw man.

These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests,

Straw man.

the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are "capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors…

Straw man.

 

[Rau]

We are are not concerned with our lack of ability to bring communion, we are concerned for the spiritual well being of long time parishioners who suddenly, without warning or reason, have been denied something that was very important to them.

Rather than acknowledge that this may be true, and responding to that circumstance, the good Fr. repeats over and over his strawman arguments which deny your claimed good motivation and replace it by something selfish.

 

[Rau]

The style of the homilst is irrelevant.

All styles are suitable?

 

[OraLabora]

So you are saying those shouldn’t be read at Mass?

6 or 7 times? In the same reading? With a fist pounding the Bible? Sounds like something some Evangelical television preacher would do.

The style of the homilst is irrelevant.

It certainly is relevant. Read the passages from the Rule of St. Benedict that I quoted. Different styles work with different people. The problem with a homily, is that all kinds of people are in the pews. Giving a homily at a parish Mass, and giving one at a retreat of like-minded people are two different matters.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Pope Benedict was abundantly clear in his penultimate address for World Day of the Sick:

I would also like to emphasize the importance of the Eucharist. Received at a time of illness, it contributes in a singular way to working this transformation, associating the person who partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ to the offering that he made of himself to the Father for the salvation of all. The whole ecclesial community, and parish communities in particular, should pay attention to guaranteeing the possibility of frequently receiving Holy Communion, to those people who, for reasons of health or age, cannot go to a place of worship. In this way, these brothers and sisters are offered the possibility of strengthening their relationship with Christ, crucified and risen, participating, through their lives offered up for love of Christ, in the very mission of the Church.

There is no excuse for depriving the faithful of the Eucharist, when the mechanism to do so is already in place through Extraordinary Ministers who are not only perfectly capable of fulfilling this ministry but constitute one of the greatest gifts of the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If this young priest does not understand that reality, the Bishop to whom – on his knees – he has promised obedience needs to correct him…directly or through whom he designates. At three years ordained, he is a member of the junior clergy and to be regarded by the Bishop and by the presbyterate as such.

To state that it is better to receive the Eucharist from an ordinary minister as opposed to an extraordinary minister is simply wrong – above all when it means that the person is prevented from receiving the Sacrament.

It is completely wrong to say that receiving Communion once per month is sufficient when it can easily be done more frequently by use of the means of pastoral care available today, thanks to extraordinary ministers.