A
Aramis
Guest
It’s grave matter. That means that, if the priest knows it’s wrong, and intends to do so before hand, he intends to commit a mortal sin, and thus, his intent for the mass as a whole is questionable…
- Status
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Is this just your own view, or do you have a source for this?
B
benedictgal
Guest
Just because you did not address some of your concerns with the staff, that does not necessarily mean that you should leave them out the letter.
By the way, I would have addressed it:
Your Eminence and Dear Cardinal ------:’
The term Eminence is reserved for Cardinals while Excellence is for bishops and archbishops.
In the future, keep doing what you did. Address it first with the folks at the Catholic center and then, if you reserve a response that runs contrary to the documents, send another letter to the archdiocese. If your letters to the archdiocese get ignored, then, write to the CDWDS.
Q
quiet52
Guest
There is no need to even involve the staff. They have no authority over a priest when it comes to a priest’s liturgical actions. You don’t have no obligation to talk with them, since they can’t do anything about it.
I would suggest you list all the abuses you have witnessed, and chop out the direct citations (mention the section numbers of the GIRM and RS only).
I would suggest you list all the abuses you have witnessed, and chop out the direct citations (mention the section numbers of the GIRM and RS only).
P
pcg2
Guest
So here is the letter I plan on sending, with revisions. I added the bolded part, to include the illicit practice of the priests allowing laity to partake in the Fraction.
Your Eminence and Dear Cardinal Roger Mahony:
Greetings in Christ. I am a student at the University ___________ in your diocese, and a frequent mass attendee at the daily Mass celebrated at our University Catholic Center. As a lifelong Catholic, I am very thankful that these facilities and these Masses are available to strengthen and enrich my faith. However, I am disturbed at the method by which communion is given at these daily Masses: the attendees stand around the altar, and the chalice and the ciborium are passed around the room, from communicant to communicant, with each person expected to self-communicate and then hand the sacred vessels along to another.
I hope that this practice can be ended. It always struck me as unusual and problematic, so I looked into the matter and found confirmation: Paragraph 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal expressly provides, “The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.” The recent instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, given in 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, amplifies that the practice is not to be tolerated:
As you may know, Father ______ and Father _____, both Paulist priests, usually celebrate the daily Mass at our University Catholic Center, and are responsible for continuing the practice I have described, which happens at every weekday Mass I have seen them celebrate there – at least 15 as of this date. Accordingly, I spoke more plainly about these concerns to Father _____ on May 19, showing him the portion of Redemptionis Sacramentum above. He explained that he believes that it is not out of line, that it is the “traditional” way of doing daily masses here at the Catholic Center, and that he would not stop distributing Holy Communion by passing the sacred vessels around the altar to allow each person to self-communicate.
Additionally, at weekend masses, the priests allow EMHC’s to break the bread after the consecration during the Agnus Dei, an illicit practice which is in violation of GIRM Paragraph 83 and Redemptionis Sacramentum Paragraph 73. Both documents clearly state that the rite of the Fraction is reserved to the role of a priest or deacon, not to any layperson.
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.” If I can provide further information, please contact me by email at _____ or by telephone at _____. I have also shown this letter to the staff at the University Catholic Center before sending it and given them a copy. Your Eminence, I have the honor to be
Sincerely yours,
Patrick Gutierrez
What do you guys think? Is it bad that I added the bolded part, or do you think it’s alright? Should I re-word it in any way?
Also, we have regional bishops here in L.A. Should I be sending this to the regional bishop, or still send it to Cardinal Mahony?
Your Eminence and Dear Cardinal Roger Mahony:
Greetings in Christ. I am a student at the University ___________ in your diocese, and a frequent mass attendee at the daily Mass celebrated at our University Catholic Center. As a lifelong Catholic, I am very thankful that these facilities and these Masses are available to strengthen and enrich my faith. However, I am disturbed at the method by which communion is given at these daily Masses: the attendees stand around the altar, and the chalice and the ciborium are passed around the room, from communicant to communicant, with each person expected to self-communicate and then hand the sacred vessels along to another.
I hope that this practice can be ended. It always struck me as unusual and problematic, so I looked into the matter and found confirmation: Paragraph 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal expressly provides, “The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.” The recent instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, given in 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, amplifies that the practice is not to be tolerated:
- It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.
As you may know, Father ______ and Father _____, both Paulist priests, usually celebrate the daily Mass at our University Catholic Center, and are responsible for continuing the practice I have described, which happens at every weekday Mass I have seen them celebrate there – at least 15 as of this date. Accordingly, I spoke more plainly about these concerns to Father _____ on May 19, showing him the portion of Redemptionis Sacramentum above. He explained that he believes that it is not out of line, that it is the “traditional” way of doing daily masses here at the Catholic Center, and that he would not stop distributing Holy Communion by passing the sacred vessels around the altar to allow each person to self-communicate.
Additionally, at weekend masses, the priests allow EMHC’s to break the bread after the consecration during the Agnus Dei, an illicit practice which is in violation of GIRM Paragraph 83 and Redemptionis Sacramentum Paragraph 73. Both documents clearly state that the rite of the Fraction is reserved to the role of a priest or deacon, not to any layperson.
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.” If I can provide further information, please contact me by email at _____ or by telephone at _____. I have also shown this letter to the staff at the University Catholic Center before sending it and given them a copy. Your Eminence, I have the honor to be
Sincerely yours,
Patrick Gutierrez
What do you guys think? Is it bad that I added the bolded part, or do you think it’s alright? Should I re-word it in any way?
Also, we have regional bishops here in L.A. Should I be sending this to the regional bishop, or still send it to Cardinal Mahony?
R
revert_jen
Guest
I think it’s good that you added the additional part. The only re-wording I would consider would be changing this part at the end:
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.”
to this:
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this grave matter.
It’s just that you said the other part before, and it sounds better to me not to repeat it. But if you like it, leave it in.
If you mean the episcopal vicars (which I think you do), I believe you would still send it to the Cardinal. His office will quite possibly hand it off to the episcopal vicar, but I think I’d let them do that. However, if you mean you are in one of the suffragen dioceses (e.g. Fresno, Monterrey, etc.) then you would send it to the bishop of that diocese.
Then if you don’t get a useful response you can wait until next year and send it to Archbishop Gómez. (kidding!)
–Jen
B
benedictgal
Guest
Actually, a cardinal-archbishop is not an ordinary; he is the Metropolitan of an Archdiocese. So, I would take out the word Ordinary and replace it with Metropolitan. If you do not get a response in a couple of months, forward the letter and the certified mail receipt to the CDWDS.I think it’s good that you added the additional part. The only re-wording I would consider would be changing this part at the end:
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.”
to this:
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this grave matter.
It’s just that you said the other part before, and it sounds better to me not to repeat it. But if you like it, leave it in.
If you mean the episcopal vicars (which I think you do), I believe you would still send it to the Cardinal. His office will quite possibly hand it off to the episcopal vicar, but I think I’d let them do that. However, if you mean you are in one of the suffragen dioceses (e.g. Fresno, Monterrey, etc.) then you would send it to the bishop of that diocese.
Then if you don’t get a useful response you can wait until next year and send it to Archbishop Gómez. (kidding!)
–Jen
P
pcg2
Guest
I honestly have no idea if I’m in one of the suffragen dioceses. How would I find out if I am? Thank you for your responsesI think it’s good that you added the additional part. The only re-wording I would consider would be changing this part at the end:
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.”
to this:
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this grave matter.
It’s just that you said the other part before, and it sounds better to me not to repeat it. But if you like it, leave it in.
If you mean the episcopal vicars (which I think you do), I believe you would still send it to the Cardinal. His office will quite possibly hand it off to the episcopal vicar, but I think I’d let them do that. However, if you mean you are in one of the suffragen dioceses (e.g. Fresno, Monterrey, etc.) then you would send it to the bishop of that diocese.
Then if you don’t get a useful response you can wait until next year and send it to Archbishop Gómez. (kidding!)
–Jen
P
pcg2
Guest
What is a certified mail receipt? For give my ignorance lol I really don’t ever send mail
B
benedictgal
Guest
Take the envelope, sealed, to the post office on Tuesday. Tell them that you want to send this certified mail, return receipt requested. They will affix a green label on it. The recipient (or his secretary) will send you the card back to acknowledge that they received it. It will cost you about $3, but, it is worth it. That is your proof that they got your letter.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Based on where you said you go to school, you are in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The archdiocese comprises the City of Los Angeles as well as the California counties of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Ventura.
Also, with all respect to Benedictgal (and I’m willing to be proven wrong), I believe that Cardinal Mahony is an Ordinary with respect to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and a Metropolitan with respect to the ecclesiastical Province of Los Angeles, which you don’t need to worry about. Being a Metropolitan gives you almost no power over the day-to-day running of anything – it’s being the (arch)bishop of a diocese that gives you control over what happens in that (arch)diocese. As Canon 381 §1 of the Code of Canon Law says, “A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.” Cardinal Mahony is your diocesan bishop, so he has all ordinary power, except as described.
Your added paragraph seems fine, and Jen’s revision seems like a good idea.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Mark, he is the Metropolitan. Not all archbishops are Metropolitans. Only Metropolitans have archdiocesan sees. Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the Apostolic Nucnio is an archbishop, but, he is not a Metropolitan because he is not in charge of an Archdiocese. Archbishop Pietro Marini, the former Papal MC, was raised to the rank of archbishop, but, he does not oversee an archdiocese.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Yes, I know. I think he’s also the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. For instance, the (metropolitan) see of Chicago lists Former Ordinaries of the Archdiocese of Chicago – they’re Ordinaries of the Archdiocese, Metropolitans of the province.
B
benedictgal
Guest
However, I stand by my statements, Mark. I would still address him as the Metropolitan of Los Angeles.
P
pcg2
Guest
Thank you guys The only problem with all this is that school gets out in less than two weeks, and I’ll be home the whole summer. I won’t have any way to tell if anything actually changes until late September, unfortunately 
Hopefully I won’t have to start this all over again then…
The only problem with all this is that school gets out in less than two weeks, and I’ll be home the whole summer. I won’t have any way to tell if anything actually changes until late September, unfortunately Hopefully I won’t have to start this all over again then…
B
benedictgal
Guest
I would still send the letter. You might want to ask a trusted friend to monitor the situation for you. And, you might also want to include your home address in the letter so that your correspondence will reach you at home. Cover all of your bases.Thank you guys
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Fair enough; however, in asking the Cardinal to take specific pastoral actions within his diocese, he’s being asked to exercise the power he has by virtue of being the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, not the (highly limited) power he gets by virtue of being the Metropolitan of the Province of Los Angeles.
A
Aramis
Guest
Agreed. As Metropolitan of the province, he does not have the authority to end the abuse; as Ordinary of the Archdiocese, he can end it within the Archdiocese (but not the suffragans).
P
pcg2
Guest
I emailed the Catholic Center staff (which includes the two priests who work there) to tell them of my intentions to contact the bishop and to give them a copy of the letter I intend to send. One of them emailed me back this:
I would recommend you talk to Fr. ______, the Director of the University
Catholic Center, before taking any action on your concerns, unless your
objective is to remove the Paulists from the University Catholic Center.
Otherwise the Catholic principle of subsidiarity would recommend dealing
with the issue as locally as possible, which is typically what bishops do when
receiving such letters. They typically forward them back to the pastor.
I don’t know what “subsidiarity” is, and I certainly don’t want to remove the Paulists. Does what he is saying hold any merit?
I would recommend you talk to Fr. ______, the Director of the University
Catholic Center, before taking any action on your concerns, unless your
objective is to remove the Paulists from the University Catholic Center.
Otherwise the Catholic principle of subsidiarity would recommend dealing
with the issue as locally as possible, which is typically what bishops do when
receiving such letters. They typically forward them back to the pastor.
I don’t know what “subsidiarity” is, and I certainly don’t want to remove the Paulists. Does what he is saying hold any merit?
B
benedictgal
Guest
With all due respect, that was a huge tactical error. You do not write the staff to tell them what you are doing. You simply do it. You have already tried to deal with the situation locally. The priest, in question, decided to perpetuate the abuse. Your next recourse is the Archdiocese. If the Archdiocese does not respond in a timely manner, you then write to the CDWDS.
What the staff is trying to do is to dissuade you from the course of action you are about to take. Again, should this ever happen again, please do not write to the staff. Just move up the chain. This goes for anyone else trying to pursue a legitimate complaint.
- Status