How long should it take

[Newbie2]

No. Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically states that these concerns need to be taken to the bishop, not the diocesan worship committee. The bishop is the direct point of contact.

Did you actually read it? It says nothing about the DWC.

But,** RS specifically states the bishop, not anyone else**. The bishop can send it to the liturgy office, but, he has to be the first point of contact.

“…or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.”

No, this is false. RS says:
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. 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.
RS does not say what you’re pretending, which is that you are forbidden from contacting anyone else.

I agree, this seems to be BG’s point, and that’s not what RS is saying.

Mark, have you ever gone through the process? If so, please tell us. I have, helping my father. Unless you have personally been through the process and have had to deal with the CDWDS directly on a matter (past the bishop), with all due respect, your interpretation is absolutely wrong.

So unless someone has actually made a complaint, their reading and interpretation of what RS is saying is invalid? Pulleeze.

I will not argue that you SHOULD bring the issue up with the Bishop before going to the CDWDS. However, I do not see in RS 184 anywhere that states that we MUST go to the Bishop directly. It simply says that we have the right to and that we should talk with him before contacting Rome.

I think you and I are arguing two different issues. You are going with how this law is in practice with the process. I am stating that it does not mandate the process that you are using. A liturgical issue can be fixed by going to someone other than the Bishop. I am trying to read it the way that I think you are reading it and that would mean that if there was an abuse, in order to report it, I have to go straight to the Bishop without even talking with the Priest or Pastor, that is simply not the case.

Pax

Exactly.

With all due respect, BG, your experience with making a complaint has methinks affected your interpretation of what RS clearly states…as DF suggested that it is a matter of “should” and not necessarily “must”.

Yes, we should contact the pastor first, the bishop second and Rome third, but there is no must. Again, with all due respect BG, I’ve read posts where you’ve suggested contacting the bishop first about a problem with an alleged abuse…not mentioning that one should really take it up with the priest before contacting a bishop. Perhaps in context of the thread this was implied, but (and I say this as a compliment) you always are very precise and repetative when you feel it necesary in your posts, and you have given the advice to go directly to the bishop when I would have expected that you’d repeat that the priest is the person to start with.

So it seems to me that in one instance you’re using the “should” and in another the “must”, not that such is essentially wrong, but inconsistant, especially given the wording in RS, of which you appear to be intimately familiar (and again, I say this as a compliment).

 

[benedictgal]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you have been through the process with one diocese. From what I have seen lately, it looks to me like there is little consistency in how one diocese operates from another. So the actual process might be different elsewhere.
A phone call or two to the diocesan office might also shed some light on how to get a complaint noticed.

The process is the same in RS regardless of the diocese. If the priest does not respond to the complaint, then the petitioner goes to the bishop, not some committee or department, but the bishop.

If the bishop does not respond, then the petitioner sends all copies of the correspondence (from the original letter sent to the priest-along with his response, if any, and that sent to the bishop) to the CDWDS.

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[benedictgal]

Did you actually read it? It says nothing about the DWC.

“…or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.”

I agree, this seems to be BG’s point, and that’s not what RS is saying.

So unless someone has actually made a complaint, their reading and interpretation of what RS is saying is invalid? Pulleeze.

Exactly.

With all due respect, BG, your experience with making a complaint has methinks affected your interpretation of what RS clearly states…as DF suggested that it is a matter of “should” and not necessarily “must”.

Yes, we should contact the pastor first, the bishop second and Rome third, but there is no must. Again, with all due respect BG, I’ve read posts where you’ve suggested contacting the bishop first about a problem with an alleged abuse…not mentioning that one should really take it up with the priest before contacting a bishop. Perhaps in context of the thread this was implied, but (and I say this as a compliment) you always are very precise and repetative when you feel it necesary in your posts, and you have given the advice to go directly to the bishop when I would have expected that you’d repeat that the priest is the person to start with.

So it seems to me that in one instance you’re using the “should” and in another the “must”, not that such is essentially wrong, but inconsistant, especially given the wording in RS, of which you appear to be intimately familiar (and again, I say this as a compliment).

My father did send the priest in question a letter. The letter was greeted with billigerency and a barage of verbal abuse. Then, he sent a letter, certified return receipt requested to the bishop, who never responded and never even sent the green card back. My father sent copies of the letters, including the certified paperwork, to the CDWDS. They responded and worked with him.

And, yes, I did bring up those issues of liturgical abuse to the priests in question and they dismisssed the matter (especially the one who made up his own collect and had the faithful say it with him and also engaged in some serious anamolies). I brought this up to the bishop a few days later. Whether or not he responded to the problem, I do not know.

 

[momor]

The process is the same in RS regardless of the diocese. If the priest does not respond to the complaint, then the petitioner goes to the bishop, not some committee or department, but the bishop.

If the bishop does not respond, then the petitioner sends all copies of the correspondence (from the original letter sent to the priest-along with his response, if any, and that sent to the bishop) to the CDWDS.

What is so hard to understand about that?

What I am pointing out is that each diocese probably handles these kinds of complaints a little differently. It seems perfectly logical (and smart) to me to call the diocesan office and try to find out what the process is and who to contact in these matters. I mean if a person’s goal is to correct the abuse then it makes sense to work with the local process doesn’t it?

 

[benedictgal]

What I am pointing out is that each diocese probably handles these kinds of complaints a little differently. It seems perfectly logical (and smart) to me to call the diocesan office and try to find out what the process is and who to contact in these matters. I mean if a person’s goal is to correct the abuse then it makes sense to work with the local process doesn’t it?

To borrow a phrase from former President Harry S Truman, the proverbial buck stops with the bishop. The bishop is charged by the authoritative documents of the Church, from Sacrosanctum Concilium to Redemptionis Sacramentum (inclusive of the GIRM), with safeguarding the integrity of the liturgy. A diocesan liturgical office/commission can help him formulate policy and implement it, but, this body only serves as an advisory and has no real authority. It’s not a miniature CDWDS. Even the USCCB’s Office of Divine Worship has no regulatory power.

Thus, the main agent here is the bishop. The liturgy office is not his equivalent. And yes, I served on a diocesan liturgical commission. There is no power there at all. Therefore, all matters of liturgical abuse need to go through the bishop.

Now, the part about the bishop’s “equivalent authority” addresses those dioceses and archdioceses where their particular sees are vacant. For example, in San Antonio, the archdiocesan see is vacant because of the transfer of Archbishop Gomez to Los Angeles. The Apostolic Administrator is Bishop Oscar Cantu who is, obviously, not an archbishop. However, because he is acting in an administrative role, it lies to him to deal with matters of liturgical abuse in San Antonio until such time as Archbishop Gonzalez’s successor is appointed.

 

[momor]

To borrow a phrase from former President Harry S Truman, the proverbial buck stops with the bishop. The bishop is charged by the authoritative documents of the Church, from Sacrosanctum Concilium to Redemptionis Sacramentum (inclusive of the GIRM), with safeguarding the integrity of the liturgy. A diocesan liturgical office/commission can help him formulate policy and implement it, but, this body only serves as an advisory and has no real authority. It’s not a miniature CDWDS. Even the USCCB’s Office of Divine Worship has no regulatory power.

Thus, the main agent here is the bishop. The liturgy office is not his equivalent. And yes, I served on a diocesan liturgical commission. There is no power there at all. Therefore, all matters of liturgical abuse need to go through the bishop.

Now, the part about the bishop’s “equivalent authority” addresses those dioceses and archdioceses where their particular sees are vacant. For example, in San Antonio, the archdiocesan see is vacant because of the transfer of Archbishop Gomez to Los Angeles. The Apostolic Administrator is Bishop Oscar Cantu who is, obviously, not an archbishop. However, because he is acting in an administrative role, it lies to him to deal with matters of liturgical abuse in San Antonio until such time as Archbishop Gonzalez’s successor is appointed.

I don’t dispute any of what you say is the right process to use. But you can be right as rain all day long and still get nowhere. The practical often works better than the ideal.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t dispute any of what you say is the right process to use. But you can be right as rain all day long and still get nowhere. The practical often works better than the ideal.

But, you don’t seem to understand. The process does not involve any of the diocesan committees nor offices; it involves the bishop directly. We need to get out of the American mindset here and go into the Church’s. The office of liturgy at the diocesan level has no authority. The point of contact is the bishop. At the universal level, that is altogether different because that function and authority is granted to the CDWDS.

It is very frustrating in these threads to read people’s posts because, with all due respect, they seem to not understand how the process works. The bishop is the point of contact, not anyone else. Again, what is so hard to understand?

Rome is not asking you to contact any diocesan commission, office or committee. She is asking you to contact the bishop. If you do not have a bishop because of a vacant see, then, you contact the Apostolic Administrator who is the equivalent of the bishop and is acting in place of a bishop until such time as a new one is named.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But, you don’t seem to understand. The process does not involve any of the diocesan committees nor offices; it involves the bishop directly. We need to get out of the American mindset here and go into the Church’s. The office of liturgy at the diocesan level has no authority. The point of contact is the bishop. At the universal level, that is altogether different because that function and authority is granted to the CDWDS.

It is very frustrating in these threads to read people’s posts because, with all due respect, they seem to not understand how the process works. The bishop is the point of contact, not anyone else. Again, what is so hard to understand?

I don’t think you’re understanding what they’re saying. Apparently in one diocese the DWC spoke for the Bishop in a particular instance. If that’s how it works in that diocese then its probably easiest to go that route in that dicoese. Bishops often delegate such things to other priests or committees. Most complaints never reach any Bishop’s desk because someone else is sorting the mail and responding to it.

What you are saying is true in the overwhelming majority of dicoese. However, apparently, some Bishops set up a priest or committee to respond to these issues and they have his permission speak in his name. If someone calls the Bishop’s office and they say to contact the DWC then that’s what should be done and go from there.

 

[MarkThompson]

But, you don’t seem to understand. The process does not involve any of the diocesan committees nor offices; it involves the bishop directly. We need to get out of the American mindset here and go into the Church’s. The office of liturgy at the diocesan level has no authority. The point of contact is the bishop. At the universal level, that is altogether different because that function and authority is granted to the CDWDS.

It is very frustrating in these threads to read people’s posts because, with all due respect, they seem to not understand how the process works. The bishop is the point of contact, not anyone else. Again, what is so hard to understand?

Rome is not asking you to contact any diocesan commission, office or committee. She is asking you to contact the bishop. If you do not have a bishop because of a vacant see, then, you contact the Apostolic Administrator who is the equivalent of the bishop and is acting in place of a bishop until such time as a new one is named.

Look, all you are doing is unnecessarily confusing people. If you want to suggest that peope ignore liturgy committees because it’s not helpful to deal with them, that’s one thing. You obviously can’t speak for every diocese in the country, but you’re entitled to have your opinion about it. But this is a separate issue from the question whether Rome forbids people from writing to such committees if they feel like it. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence that they do.

I noticed that you vanished from the conversation immediately after I asked the following, so I’ll ask it again, although I doubt you want to answer:
To help explain this, and because you keep avoiding it, let me ask you straight up: if I have issues with a parish’s associate priest, is it okay if I bring it up with the parish pastor? Or does Redemptionis Sacramentum mean that I must go to straight to the bishop because, as you’ve said, “he has to be the first point of contact”?

 

[benedictgal]

Look, all you are doing is unnecessarily confusing people. If you want to suggest that peope ignore liturgy committees because it’s not helpful to deal with them, that’s one thing. You obviously can’t speak for every diocese in the country, but you’re entitled to have your opinion about it. But this is a separate issue from the question whether Rome forbids people from writing to such committees if they feel like it. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence that they do.

I noticed that you vanished from the conversation immediately after I asked the following, so I’ll ask it again, although I doubt you want to answer:
To help explain this, and because you keep avoiding it, let me ask you straight up: if I have issues with a parish’s associate priest, is it okay if I bring it up with the parish pastor? Or does Redemptionis Sacramentum mean that I must go to straight to the bishop because, as you’ve said, “he has to be the first point of contact”?

Mark, with all due respect, you are the one who is misleading people and misreading what the document states. And, I did not vanish immediately from the conversation because last night I had a very bad migraine and needed to tend to that. So, unless you know my situation, please refrain from personal attacks.

Again, unless any of you have been in the process, whatever you are saying is merely speculative and, not necessarily accurate. Again, the point of contact is not some diocesan office or commission, it is the bishop himself. He is the one charged with handling the situation, not anyone else.

All of this is already assuming that the individual (as in the OP) has already addressed the matter with the priest and has not taken any action whatsoever. When that happens (or, in the case of where the priest still persist in engaging in the abuse), then, the next step is to go to the bishop.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark, with all due respect, you are the one who is misleading people and misreading what the document states. And, I did not vanish immediately from the conversation because last night I had a very bad migraine and needed to tend to that. So, unless you know my situation, please refrain from personal attacks.

Sorry about your headache last night, but I asked the question at 3:27 in the afternoon, so unless night comes super early in Texas these days, I’m not following your point.

All of this is already assuming that the individual (as in the OP) has already addressed the matter with the priest and has not taken any action whatsoever. When that happens (or, in the case of where the priest still persist in engaging in the abuse), then, the next step is to go to the bishop.

My question is not, should you talk to the priest himself. My question is, if you have a problem with an associate priest at a parish, may you bring it to the attention of the parish pastor before contacting the bishop? (You really, really don’t want to answer the question, do you?)

 

[benedictgal]

Sorry about your headache last night, but I asked the question at 3:27 in the afternoon, so unless night comes super early in Texas these days, I’m not following your point.

My question is not, should you talk to the priest himself. My question is, if you have a problem with an associate priest at a parish, may you bring it to the attention of the parish pastor before contacting the bishop? (You really, really don’t want to answer the question, do you?)

If you really must know, I left work after my last post for the day on this thread (and on others).

As I said, if the priest/pastor does not respond or continues to engage in the liturgical abuse, then, you go to the bishop, not a committee, not an office, but, to the bishop, himself.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I don’t think you’re understanding what they’re saying. Apparently in one diocese the DWC spoke for the Bishop in a particular instance. If that’s how it works in that diocese then its probably easiest to go that route in that dicoese. Bishops often delegate such things to other priests or committees. Most complaints never reach any Bishop’s desk because someone else is sorting the mail and responding to it.

What you are saying is true in the overwhelming majority of dicoese. However, apparently, some Bishops set up a priest or committee to respond to these issues and they have his permission speak in his name. If someone calls the Bishop’s office and they say to contact the DWC then that’s what should be done and go from there.

Exactly!!!

BenedictGal, I have no intention of debating what the proper prodedure is, but you have brought it up. There are 2 issues now at hand: is RS 184 mandating a certain procedure and can a Bishop delegate the responsibilities for liturgy.

RS 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. 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.

I believe this is hear because many would go to the Pastor and stop there. Or the Pastor might say that he is the final authority on the liturgy in his parish. This was possibly to debunk that and make sure that the faithful know their rights.

RS 184 does not mandate a certain practice. I agree that your process is the correct one, with one addition, if the Bishop has delegated such matters to a department in the Chancery, then one is supposed to contact them, while still maintaining that a person CAN go straight to the Bishop. Again, this is liturgical law and liturgical law CAN NOT mandate procedural or administrative law outside of providing certain rights as RS 184 has done. BenedictGal, you seem to be saying that your way is the only way things can be handled, and that is just not true. It has happened another way for me. You may be talking about another document here regarding the procedure. If so, please link to it. I believe though that the issue is only pertaining to RS 184. RS 184 does not mandate anything apart from the fact that the faithful have a right to bring liturgical abuse to the Bishop and no one has the right therefore to get in the way of that.

Can you agree with that?

Pax!

 

[Melchior_1]

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. 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.

I don’t see anything here about forbidden talking to anyone outside of the Bishop. In fact, could the “competent Ordinary equivalent” ever not be a Bishop?

I think, BG, what some people are saying is that if the committee has been empowered by the Bishop to be responsible then are you not practically going to the Bishop anyway?

Anyway, what would the harm be if he went to the Bishop AND went to one of them committees? Squeaky wheels and all of that. Lets say the progression went like this;

Priest ----> Bishop ----> Rome ------> Pope.
----> Diocese Worship Committee

And this isn’t even counting how this would work if it was an Order, not within a Diocese level.

We might need to land some Visio flow charts at this rate.

 

[benedictgal]

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. 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.

I don’t see anything here about forbidden talking to anyone outside of the Bishop. In fact, could the “competent Ordinary equivalent” ever not be a Bishop?

I think, BG, what some people are saying is that if the committee has been empowered by the Bishop to be responsible then are you not practically going to the Bishop anyway?

Anyway, what would the harm be if he went to the Bishop AND went to one of them committees? Squeaky wheels and all of that. Lets say the progression went like this;

Priest ----> Bishop ----> Rome ------> Pope.
----> Diocese Worship Committee

And this isn’t even counting how this would work if it was an Order, not within a Diocese level.

We might need to land some Visio flow charts at this rate.

The diocesan worship committee/office is not part of the equation here, Melchior, even though you and others seem to want it to be. Perhaps you did not read my post where I stated that the bishop’s equivalent is the Apostolic Administrator, who does not necessarily have to be a bishop, but, have his same authority until such a time as the new Ordinary is appointed. I cited Bishop Oscar Cantu as an example. Another example occurred in Austin, where a monsignor was appointed Apostolic Administrator until such time as the new Bishop of Austin was appointed and installed.

Even the section from RS that you and others have quoted does not even mention any other diocesan office. The proverbial buck stops with the bishop at the diocesan level.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I don’t see anything here about forbidden talking to anyone outside of the Bishop. In fact, could the “competent Ordinary equivalent” ever not be a Bishop?

The Ordinary is th equivalent to the Bishop. This is of no issue here. This could mean an Abbot or Archabbot, Superior General, or in a vacant diocese Apolstolic administrator. Melchior, this part of 184 has nothing to do with the issue at hand since we are talking about a right. This sentance is basically talking about the canonical equivalent to a Bishop. A committee or Worship office is NEVER at an equal footing of the Bishop.

I think, BG, what some people are saying is that if the committee has been empowered by the Bishop to be responsible then are you not practically going to the Bishop anyway?

Replace “committee” with “diocesan office” and I can agree with that statement. The committee/commission as set up at Vatican 2, is advisorial only. I will not concede that the committee has any power, besides power of influence. Yes, technically a Bishop could say for these issues to go to the committee, but to me that is just not logical. I am fairly certain, since there are universal rules for the diocesan committee, the Bishop can not give it power. A curial office however is a different matter.

For the sake of arguement, lets not use “committee” and just use “office.” Can we agree on at least that? LOL

Pax!

 

[MarkThompson]

If you really must know, I left work after my last post for the day on this thread (and on others).

Then why did you have to accuse me of being insensitive about your nighttime migraine, when the real reason was just that you had left work? I don’t get it.

As I said, if the priest/pastor does not respond or continues to engage in the liturgical abuse, then, you go to the bishop, not a committee, not an office, but, to the bishop, himself.

You still haven’t answered the question, just avoided it with the slash in “priest/pastor.” The question is, if you have a problem with the associate priest, may you bring it up with the parish pastor before you go to the bishop? If you say no, BG, then you risk standing up for a silly and intuitively wrong proposition. If you say yes, then, since there’s no instruction in Redemptionis Sacramentum to “go to the priest’s boss at the parish,” you risk exposing as false your previous insistence that a layman cannot approach anyone about liturgical abuses except those parties expressly stated in RS.

Do you see what I’m getting at here?

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Even the section from RS that you and others have quoted does not even mention any other diocesan office. The proverbial buck stops with the bishop at the diocesan level.

I completely agree! The buck stops at the Bishop. BUT, it doesn’t have to start there! Also, the Worship committee and worship office are two completely different things in almost every diocese. Also, RS does not have to state other offices since it is talking about a RIGHT of the people to go to the highest level in the diocese. Please try reading RS 184 without remembering the process that you used in your father’s situation.

 

[benedictgal]

I completely agree! The buck stops at the Bishop. BUT, it doesn’t have to start there! Also, the Worship committee and worship office are two completely different things in almost every diocese. Also, RS does not have to state other offices since it is talking about a RIGHT of the people to go to the highest level in the diocese. Please try reading RS 184 without remembering the process that you used in your father’s situation.

It does not state other offices because the bishop is the point of contact. What the bishop does with your letter is his choice. However, the letter needs to go to him, not anyone else, that is what, with all due respect, most of you fail to understand.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

It does not state other offices because the bishop is the point of contact. What the bishop does with your letter is his choice. However, the letter needs to go to him, not anyone else, that is what, with all due respect, most of you fail to understand.

I understand what you are saying and agree that that is the best way of doing things. HOWEVER, that is NOT what RS 184 says.

So, BenedictGal, yes or no… in your opinion does RS 184 mandate a certain procedure?

All in Christian charity!