How best to handle liturgical abuse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyrieliberame7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that the remark was that the Priest in question left the sacred vessels on the cruet table and, if I understand correctly, did NOT purify them…there was a time where the individuals assisting with Holy Communion were doing this and a mandate came down that only the Priest or Deacon was to purify the Vesels…so…as far gathering around the Altar…I’m not sure but we have had a Mass offered in our home and we were around the Altar…and this was done very reverently…my wife was extremely ill at the time just before she died…PAX
 
awsiukiewicz said:
I believe that the remark was that the Priest in question left the sacred vessels on the cruet table and, if I understand correctly, did NOT purify them…there was a time where the individuals assisting with Holy Communion were doing this and a mandate came down that only the Priest or Deacon was to purify the Vesels…so…as far gathering around the Altar…I’m not sure but we have had a Mass offered in our home and we were around the Altar…and this was done very reverently…my wife was extremely ill at the time just before she died…PAX
Click to expand...
And instituted acolytes too can purify.
 
It is important to remember that the point of informing the superior is not to get the priest in trouble, but to ensure that the liturgy is celebrated correctly and that a priest simply making an honest mistake should only not feel threatened or offended, but actually welcome and encourage feedback through proper channels which IS his superior. Contacting the superior first is important for establihing a paper trail and keeping them informed because there are already too many “this is the first I’m hearing of this” examples out there. This is the proper order, and in the case of bishops, it is actually dilineated in canon law. There is nothing rude about it as again, an honest priest has nothing to fear.
 
Great answer. If I found myself at a mass like this it used to anger me. Now I focus on loving Jesus with all I am. If he’s left unattended on the altar during the sign of peace, I stare at the chalice and paten, telling him he’s not alone, that I’m here with him and that I love him. I also try to make amends for all the times I’ve received him indifferently or neglectfully.
 
It’s probably not even worth addressing tbh. These things afaik are happening less and less over time, it will eventually sort itself out–we are in the midst of an historical corrective right now–so it’s not worth the effort. If it bothers you enough, and it probably would me, you should go somewhere else.
 
OraLabora said:
Note too I called it a “liturgical error”. The charitable thing to do is assume the priest made a genuine mistake. It happens, they’re human. Calling it an “abuse” presumes ill will on the part of the priest. We shouldn’t presume ill will unless it’s glaringly obvious.
Click to expand...
That is not how the Church calls it. Anything that is not in accordance with the GIRM is considered an abuse. The Church doesn’t call it an error. It is surprising to me that priest sometimes are not up on how they should be doing things. I have had priest who were unaware of Redemptionis Sacramentum :eek:

From that document emphasis mine
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.
Click to expand...
 
YoungTradCath said:
It’s probably not even worth addressing tbh. These things afaik are happening less and less over time, it will eventually sort itself out–we are in the midst of an historical corrective right now–so it’s not worth the effort. If it bothers you enough, and it probably would me, you should go somewhere else.
Click to expand...
A short letter is not that much of an effort. You are right that things are better than the days of “burlap and butterflies”, but like I said, most priests aren’t malicious and are probably open to correction if done without acrimony or bitterness.
 
Scottgun said:
It is important to remember that the point of informing the superior is not to get the priest in trouble, but to ensure that the liturgy is celebrated correctly and that a priest simply making an honest mistake should only not feel threatened or offended, but actually welcome and encourage feedback through proper channels which IS his superior. Contacting the superior first is important for establihing a paper trail and keeping them informed because there are already too many “this is the first I’m hearing of this” examples out there. This is the proper order, and in the case of bishops, it is actually dilineated in canon law. There is nothing rude about it as again, an honest priest has nothing to fear.
Click to expand...
:nope: What’s wrong with asking the priest first instead of running to tattle to the Bishop? What happened with the common courtesy of asking those involved with a situation before making a huge issue over it by going right to the superiors? That’s just another thing wrong with our society- instead of politely starting where one should (with those involved) we think we must post the problem on the internet or go broadcast it to the superiors. If you want a “paper trail”, email the priest and wait for his reply. You can always reference back to the emails sent and received if the answer isn’t satisfactory to your liking and then forward them to the Bishop. I swear, some people just want to start trouble by stirring the pot instead of taking the simple action of addressing it themselves first. What happened to personal responsibility? It seems to be taken over by a spirit of "let’s go tattle and get someone in trouble because I don’t want to take personal responsibility for addressing this directly with those involved. The OP hasn’t been here in almost a week. I think it’s now a mute point for him, but hopefully others reading this thread would go to the priest first instead of running to the Bishop if any incidents they question arise in their own parish or a parish they are visiting.
 
Scottgun said:
A short letter is not that much of an effort. You are right that things are better than the days of “burlap and butterflies”, but like I said, most priests aren’t malicious and are probably open to correction if done without acrimony or bitterness.
Click to expand...
A short letter to the priest would be the best and most appropriate place to start. If that doesn’t solve the issue, then forward a copy of the letter and the priest’s reply to the Bishop.
 
adrift said:
That is not how the Church calls it. Anything that is not in accordance with the GIRM is considered an abuse. The Church doesn’t call it an error. It is surprising to me that priest sometimes are not up on how they should be doing things. I have had priest who were unaware of Redemptionis Sacramentum :eek:

From that document emphasis mine
Click to expand...
The fact that the word “abuse” is applied equally to the failure to add a drop of water to the chalice, and the sexual exploitation of altar boys, to my way of thinking cries out for a change in vocabulary. And I agree with those who feel “abuse” implies a degree of intentionality, and which thus sets it apart from a simple “error.” And the GIRM, not having been handed down on Sinai, can reasonably be made to reflect that.
 
adrift said:
That is not how the Church calls it. Anything that is not in accordance with the GIRM is considered an abuse. The Church doesn’t call it an error. It is surprising to me that priest sometimes are not up on how they should be doing things. I have had priest who were unaware of Redemptionis Sacramentum :eek:

From that document emphasis mine
Click to expand...
Not too surprising if they are of a certain age. Sometimes it’s not a matter of being unaware.
 
LightBound said:
:nope: What’s wrong with asking the priest first instead of running to tattle to the Bishop? What happened with the common courtesy of asking those involved with a situation before making a huge issue over it by going right to the superiors? That’s just another thing wrong with our society- instead of politely starting where one should (with those involved) we think we must post the problem on the internet or go broadcast it to the superiors. If you want a “paper trail”, email the priest and wait for his reply. You can always reference back to the emails sent and received if the answer isn’t satisfactory to your liking and then forward them to the Bishop. I swear, some people just want to start trouble by stirring the pot instead of taking the simple action of addressing it themselves first. What happened to personal responsibility? It seems to be taken over by a spirit of "let’s go tattle and get someone in trouble because I don’t want to take personal responsibility for addressing this directly with those involved. The OP hasn’t been here in almost a week. I think it’s now a mute point for him, but hopefully others reading this thread would go to the priest first instead of running to the Bishop if any incidents they question arise in their own parish or a parish they are visiting.
Click to expand...
As I said, it’s not about trying to get the priest (or tattling as you put it) in trouble, but rather making sure the liturgy is sound. Frankly, it is almost like you skimmed my response until offended and started typing. I also reject your characterization that one is “making a huge issue of it” or that they are maliciously trying to stir the pot. That doesn’t need to be the case.

So to recap and summarize since none of the responses so far has overthrown what I’ve said:
  1. Persistent liturgical errors (I’ll avoid “abuse” since that seems to be a tangential sticking point) ought to be corrected. One-offs can usually be ignored.
  2. Charity should dispose to assume that priests are not acting maliciously.
  3. It is the lay person’s choice whether to go to the priest or the bishop first. There is nothing wrong with either approach and in fact there is Church-documented support for the latter.
  4. Redemptionis Sacramentum tells us, “This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.” If such is done in truth and charity, no one can reasonably cry foul or tattle-tale!
 
Scottgun said:
  1. It is the lay person’s choice whether to go to the priest or the bishop first. There is nothing wrong with either approach and in fact there is Church-documented support for the latter.
Click to expand...
Having worked in my diocese, in parishes, as well as in the Bishop’s office, I can tell you that every single letter that was addressed to the Bishop with an accusation of liturgical “abuse” was met with a letter/phone call asking if the person complaining had talked with the priest in question and/or the Pastor of the parish. If neither had been done, the person was instructed to do that first. Then, if after discussing with the priest and/or pastor, there is still a question, it may then be brought to the Bishop’s attention.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Having worked in my diocese, in parishes, as well as in the Bishop’s office, I can tell you that every single letter that was addressed to the Bishop with an accusation of liturgical “abuse” was met with a letter/phone call asking if the person complaining had talked with the priest in question and/or the Pastor of the parish. If neither had been done, the person was instructed to do that first. Then, if after discussing with the priest and/or pastor, there is still a question, it may then be brought to the Bishop’s attention.
Click to expand...
I’m not disputing a bishop’s prerogative to have a policy on how to handle such cases. If someone encountered a similar situation, I would however double-check that such a policy did come from the bishop himself and not some chancery layperson. It’s just personal experience talking, but I have run into laypeople who appointed themselves the gatekeeper and brushed people off with, “Oh, don’t bother Father with that!” when the concern was exactly what the Father needed and wanted to know about. I’ve also seen situations were several people wrote directly to their bishop and the bishop was thankful for making him aware of it. In fact, a bishop can do something a layperson can’t do, which is not singling anyone out. A bishop can address all his priests at once and, without pointing fingers, remind everyone of liturgical norms.

The main point however, is there is nothing inherently wrong with petitioning the bishop directly.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
The fact that the word “abuse” is applied equally to the failure to add a drop of water to the chalice, and the sexual exploitation of altar boys, to my way of thinking cries out for a change in vocabulary. And I agree with those who feel “abuse” implies a degree of intentionality, and which thus sets it apart from a simple “error.” And the GIRM, not having been handed down on Sinai, can reasonably be made to reflect that.
Click to expand...
You compare two unlike things to come to an insulting conclusion. The Church used words in a particular way for liturgy. The Altar servers sexual exploitation is not part of liturgy. What cries out is the display of ignorance which often is the reason that abuses occur in liturgy in the first place. To believe that it implies a degree of intent ( is there a word intentionality?) is ignorance in understanding what abuse in liturgy is.
The dictionary definition is

1

: a corrupt practice or custom
2
: improper or excessive use or treatment : misuse
3
obsolete : a deceitful act : deception
4

: language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily

5: physical maltreatment

As you can see, the Church is correct in using the first definition. There is no need to cater to ignorance and change wording.
 
Scottgun said:
  1. Redemptionis Sacramentum tells us, “This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.” If such is done in truth and charity, no one can reasonably cry foul or tattle-tale!
Click to expand...
Very well stated but it does seem that to go to the Bishop (despite what Redemptionis Sacramentum states) is viewed as uncharitable no matter what.
 
adrift said:
That is not how the Church calls it. Anything that is not in accordance with the GIRM is considered an abuse. The Church doesn’t call it an error. It is surprising to me that priest sometimes are not up on how they should be doing things. I have had priest who were unaware of Redemptionis Sacramentum :eek:

From that document emphasis mine
Click to expand...
There is nothing in what you quoted to suggest that the statement concerns a simple liturgical error.

“Abuse” would be a systematic and regular failure to “do the red, say the black”. The fact that an elderly priest, on a minor feast day during the week, forgot the Gloria on one occasion is an unintentional error.

The fact that a priest systematically omits the Gloria on feasts is an abuse.

I really doubt that the statement you quoted intends for the ordinary or the Holy See to investigate every minor liturgical error someone may spot.

Sorry, but your argument is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because the statement used the word “abuse” it equally applies to an occasional error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top