Letting a Jewish synagogue use our church

[JReducation]

With all due respect, Father, just because it’s done in a couple of places, that does not necessarily make it right.

But all they’re doing is praying. This is the part that I can’t see why you believe it’s so serious. They’re not desecrating the church building. They’re not a pagan cult. It’s not even a secular function. It’s a religious function rooted in scripture. The canon does say that you can have other functions in a church, as long as they do not violated the sacredness of the space. I believe that I posted the canon in an earlier post.

What am I missing here?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I believe I explained myself well enough JR. What I have said --has come from long time observance of how you use St Francis.

I must take exception to the manner in which you are addressing Brother JR. It is commonplace on these boards for people to quote saints as backup for their positions and opinions. So there’s nothing wrong with quoting the saints, even if it is just one saint. And on top of that, as a Franciscan, Br. JR is a life commited “student” of St. Francis and would thus be most knowledgable about quoting him in context.

Is there a reason you have to make personal accusations against another person? Also, is there a reason you feel the need to make accusations against a religious who has dedicated his entire life and being to serving the Church?

 

[atxne]

As far as I can tell, allowing a Jewish worship service in a Catholic parish would require approval from the Ordinary or one acting in his place. Unless someone has some proof that this protocal was not followed then the presumption of innocence should remain.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe that something of this magnitude would escape the notice of either a bishop’s office or the office of the administrator. Since there has apparently been no correction issued by the bishop/administrator’s office it is reasonable to assume the proper authority has allowed this to take place.

So unless we’re going to attack the parish priest and the diocese without evidence, I would suggest we presume all proper channels were followed.

First, I am not “attack[ing] the parish priest and the diocese without evidence.” To imply that is simply not reasonable and there is nothing in any of my posts that would suggest same. Nor would that be charitable or truthful.

Perhaps the reason that you have such a difficult time in understanding how such a thing might happen without notice being provided to either the bishop’s office or the office of administrator, and without the proper protocols having been followed, is precisely why many of us are having such a difficult time with this. (Interestingly, you describe this as “something of this magnitude” but your earlier remark appear to downplay this as any significant type of event) As provided in an email response from the diocese dated this past Saturday, the diocese did not learn of this arrangement until the very afternoon on the day before the Jewish celebration was to begin at the church.

The diocese further noted in the same transmittal that discussions did thereafter occur with the parish priest regarding this matter and that the diocese and the priest agreed that in the future the bishop or diocesan administrator should first be included as a part of these initiatives so as to avoid the very situation that has now occurred.

In my opinion you cannot read too much into the fact that no correction was made upon learning of the plans mere hours before the celebration was to begin and thousands of Jewish faithful were prepared to attend at the churc. I certainly do not see this as the diocese’s imprimatur on this matter.

I am hopeful that you now have a better understanding as to both how this issue began, and why it is one that has made many of us uncomfortable.

 

[benedictgal]

Perhaps all 3 dioceses are in the wrong. Or perhaps you are incorrect in how you interpret the Church’s rules. Is that even a possibility in your mind?

Not necessarily, Father. Just because three dioceses are doing something, that does not necessarily make the act right. However, one of the parishes allowed the community to use its balcony, not its sanctuary, and it did not displace the parishioners.

If you were to have read my posts, I indicated that other facilities in a parish’s complex or within the diocese could have been used, not necessarily the church itself.

My alma mater, a Salesian school, allows a Baptist ecclesial community to meet in its grounds; however, the community does not use our chapel. Instead, they use the Kindergarten building.

You can use the facilities of the parish, but, not the sanctuary. That is the main area of concern here, Father, as I see it.

 

[JReducation]

After I posed the above I remembered something else. When we were in the seminary, we attend graduate school at Catholic University of America. CUA holds its commencement in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception twice a year: December and May. On that day, no masses may be celebrated in the main church (the upper church), until the commencement is completed. The sanctuary is used as the stage for the graduation, because it’s high enough so that everyone can see and the graduating class, with all the colleges together, is over 1,000 every year. In Rome our graduation was at St. John Lateran. All the seminarians, priests, and other students at the pontifical universities gathered at St. John’s and it turned into an “auditorium”. I deliberately use quotes, not to offend St. John Lateran. I don’t know if they do that now, under Pope Benedict. I graduated many many years ago.

But a graduation is not a prayerful event. It’s a secular event. Even when the degrees being conferred are by a pontifical university and are ecclesiastical degrees. It’s still a graduation with applause, music, cheering and everything else that takes place at a graduation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS OK, there was no gum chewing and everyone was properly dressed, unlike graduations today.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Not necessarily, Father. Just because three dioceses are doing something, that does not necessarily make the act right.

I already stated that perhaps all 3 were wrong. I then asked you if you might admit that perhaps you might be wrong.

However, one of the parishes allowed the community to use its balcony, not its sanctuary, and it did not displace the parishioners.

Actually you are confusing two different events in the story. There was one event in which Jews only used the balcony. Then years later the two shared the church for worship for 10 years.

 

[JReducation]

First, I am not “attack[ing] the parish priest and the diocese without evidence.” To imply that is simply not reasonable and there is nothing in any of my posts that would suggest same. Nor would that be charitable or truthful.

Perhaps the reason that you have such a difficult time in understanding how such a thing might happen without notice being provided to either the bishop’s office or the office of administrator, and without the proper protocols having been followed, is precisely why many of us are having such a difficult time with this. (Interestingly, you describe this as “something of this magnitude” but your earlier remark appear to downplay this as any significant type of event) As provided in an email response from the diocese dated this past Saturday, the diocese did not learn of this arrangement until the very afternoon on the day before the Jewish celebration was to begin at the church.

The diocese further noted in the same transmittal that discussions did thereafter occur with the parish priest regarding this matter and that the diocese and the priest agreed that in the future the bishop or diocesan administrator should first be included as a part of these initiatives so as to avoid the very situation that has now occurred.

In my opinion you cannot read too much into the fact that no correction was made upon learning of the plans mere hours before the celebration was to begin and thousands of Jewish faithful were prepared to attend at the churc. I certainly do not see this as the diocese’s imprimatur on this matter.

I am hopeful that you now have a better understanding as to both how this issue began, and why it is one that has made many of us uncomfortable.

But wait a minute. Let’s keep this simple. If the diocesan administrator has already addressed the issue with the pastor and a plan is in place for the future, that they will discuss this and decide together, then there is nothing more to be said. The issue has been addressed and resolved, because there is a future plan in place.

Sometimes, we have to accept these kinds of conclusions to an issue rather than let them eat away at us. Not everything works like a well oiled machine. But when a problem or potential problem is addressed, even if it’s after the fact, there is not much more to be said other than let it go. If it repeats itself contrary to the plan, prior discussion as agreed, then there is something to be concerned about.

In an effort to keep this simple, it has been discuss between the proper individuals. It’s over and done with. Don’t let this take away your peace and your spirit of love for your diocese and your parish. It’s only for a few days. It has been addressed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

First, I am not “attack[ing] the parish priest and the diocese without evidence.” To imply that is simply not reasonable and there is nothing in any of my posts that would suggest same. Nor would that be charitable or truthful.

To imply that someone has acted improperly without proof is an attack. And up until this point I don’t recall seeing any mention of the diocese claiming to have been in the dark.

As provided in an email response from the diocese dated this past Saturday, the diocese did not learn of this arrangement until the very afternoon on the day before the Jewish celebration was to begin at the church.

Up until this point I do not recall anyone mentioning communication from the diocese on this issue.

The diocese further noted in the same transmittal that discussions did thereafter occur with the parish priest regarding this matter and that the diocese and the priest agreed that in the future the bishop or diocesan administrator should first be included as a part of these initiatives so as to avoid the very situation that has now occurred.

Yet the diocese did not state the sharing of the space should not have happened.

I certainly do not see this as the diocese’s imprimatur on this matter.

Well, yes and no. Clearly the diocese appears to have wanted more (name removed by moderator)ut but it did stop short of saying that this would never happen again.

 

[benedictgal]

I already stated that perhaps all 3 were wrong. I then asked you if you might admit that perhaps you might be wrong.

Actually you are confusing two different events in the story. There was one event in which Jews only used the balcony. Then years later the two shared the church for worship for 10 years.

I misread that part. Nonetheless, as I read it, the use of the “worship space” sets a bad precedent. Even though it is Jewish, it is still non-Christian, Father.

The article was also a feel-good piece, as I read it. In fact, both of them were.

RS prohibits us from using a Jewish synagogue, a mosque or some other non-Christian place of worship for the Mass. The converse should be the same.

As a previous poster indicated, apparently the diocese was not notified about the arrangements until some hours before the service was to begin. Even though you can infer that the Texas diocese in question “seemed” to not have any objection to what happened, I don’t see any thing that indicated that they welcomed the move either. The whole matter was not handled properly. The fact that it is troubling to quite a few people who have very good reasons for thinking that way should be an indication that maybe this was not the best course of action to take.

I stand by what I have written.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I misread that part. Nonetheless, as I read it, the use of the “worship space” sets a bad precedent. Even though it is Jewish, it is still non-Christian, Father.

So there’s no possibility you could be incorrect?

As a previous poster indicated, apparently the diocese was not notified about the arrangements until some hours before the service was to begin.

And as Brother JR pointed out, apparently all the proper authorities have reached agreement on this issue. Thus, all that’s left is obedience.

I stand by what I have written.

How Pontius Pilate of you

 

[benedictgal]

So there’s no possibility you could be incorrect?

And as Brother JR pointed out, apparently all the proper authorities have reached agreement on this issue. Thus, all that’s left is obedience.

How Pontius Pilate of you

There is no need for sarcasm, Father. I have tried to be respectful of you throughout this thread.

There is no indication that the diocese was receptive to the notion either. The only thing they agreed on was that the parish would let the diocese know if any of this should happen again.

Disagreement, when one in good conscious believes that he is corrrect is not disobedience. There is nothing wrong with the faithful contacting the proper authorities if they have legitimate concerns. In fact RS guarantees that right.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There is no need for sarcasm, Father. I have tried to be respectful of you throughout this thread.

I apologize if you felt I was being sarcastic or disrespectful. It was simply an attempt at humor.

Once again, I will ask if you are even open to the possibility that you might be interpreting canon law and RS incorrectly?

 

[JReducation]

RS prohibits us from using a Jewish synagogue, a mosque or some other non-Christian place of worship for the Mass. The converse should be the same.

.

But the converse is not the same.

Here is what canon law says.

Can. 1210 Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden. In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.

The Jewish high holy days promote worship, piety and religion. They are consonant with the holiness of the place, since those holy days are found in our scriptures. The only contraversy here is that these are not Catholic rites. But the law does not say that they must be Catholic rites. It says that they must promote worship. They certainly fulfill that obligation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[atxne]

To imply that someone has acted improperly without proof is an attack. And up until this point I don’t recall seeing any mention of the diocese claiming to have been in the dark.

Please, just once, show me where I made any attack on the impropriety of someone’s actions. Simply stating it as so does not make it so, as you did, and those types of actions are, in my opinion, inappropriate, to say the least.

Also, I find it interesting that you somehow cast aspersion that no one said anything about the diocese not knowing about the plans that had been made. I find it even more disturbing that you would attempt to lay blame on someone who may have not even been aware of this. Moreover, your lack of understanding the true state of facts did not stop you from stating your positions on this matter as strongly as you have stated them to to others. Now you are upset because what you have stated does not comport with the true state of facts? Please.

Up until this point I do not recall anyone mentioning communication from the diocese on this issue.

I just came across this thread late yesterday and did not read all posts, but I found it remarkable that someone would take the positions that have been taken, and take issue and yes, attack others, without knowing most of the facts. And then have the nerve to accuse others of making attacks when that simply has not occured.

Yet the diocese did not state the sharing of the space should not have happened.

You are correct, that statement has not appeared in any written form. Do you take this as diocesan approval? Is it asking too much to have that question directly answered? Is it just the parish priest’s church, or the diocese’s church? I’ve always thought of all Catholic churches as mine but perhaps I am uninformed. Should I not be concerned when out of the ordinary happenings are observed at a church, do we just turn and look away?

Well, yes and no. Clearly the diocese appears to have wanted more (name removed by moderator)ut but it did stop short of saying that this would never happen again.

No it did not say it would never happen again. Again, do we not have the right to know the answer to this question, or is this just something that we have to wait around for to see if it happens again?

 

[benedictgal]

But the converse is not the same.

Here is what canon law says.

**Can. 1210 Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; **anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden. In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.

The Jewish high holy days promote worship, piety and religion. They are consonant with the holiness of the place, since those holy days are found in our scriptures. The only contraversy here is that these are not Catholic rites. But the law does not say that they must be Catholic rites. It says that they must promote worship. They certainly fulfill that obligation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

But, it is still a non-Christian service. And, this particular worship, whether one wants to admit it or not, is not consonant with Christianity.

Were we to subscribe to your line of thought, then, what about Islam? It is not Christian. Would you then be advocating that the sanctuary be used for the Muslim form of worship? Or, what about Budhists or Hindi? Neither of them are Christian? At what point do you draw the line?

The Jewish holy days promote the practices of the Jews. They are not Christian. Having the Torah on the altar is not the same as having the Book of the Gospels. Furthermore, we should not have to cover our religious images and make apologies for that which we hold to be True and sacred. With all due respect, I do not think you are seeing the point.

 

[zab]

But, it is still a non-Christian service. And, this particular worship, whether one wants to admit it or not, is not consonant with Christianity.

Were we to subscribe to your line of thought, then, what about Islam? It is not Christian. Would you then be advocating that the sanctuary be used for the Muslim form of worship? Or, what about Budhists or Hindi? Neither of them are Christian? At what point do you draw the line?

The Jewish holy days promote the practices of the Jews. They are not Christian. Having the Torah on the altar is not the same as having the Book of the Gospels. Furthermore, we should not have to cover our religious images and make apologies for that which we hold to be True and sacred. With all due respect, I do not think you are seeing the point.

Rabbi’s Message bethshalomaustin.org/PDF%20Docs//BethShalom_HHD_2009.pdf

 

[JReducation]

But, it is still a non-Christian service. And, this particular worship, whether one wants to admit it or not, is not consonant with Christianity.

Were we to subscribe to your line of thought, then, what about Islam? It is not Christian. Would you then be advocating that the sanctuary be used for the Muslim form of worship? Or, what about Budhists or Hindi? Neither of them are Christian? At what point do you draw the line?

The Jewish holy days promote the practices of the Jews. They are not Christian. Having the Torah on the altar is not the same as having the Book of the Gospels. Furthermore, we should not have to cover our religious images and make apologies for that which we hold to be True and sacred. With all due respect, I do not think you are seeing the point.

But the rule does not say that the worship or activity has to be Catholic. It says that it has to promote holiness. Praying to God the Father is holy, in any religion.

As to covering up the images, I don’t think that’s an apology. I think it’s an accommodation done in charity. I can understand how it would upset some people, because they have their devotions. But we have to keep it in perspective. There is not apology involved in being accommodationg. I’m thinking of an analogous situation. This is old, but it may work. When Maximilian Kolbe went to Japan he wrote a letter to our brothers in Poland. These were brothers who were to follow him to the missions. You have to remember that this was pre-Vatican II. Max wrote to the brothers to shed their habits and wear secular clothing, because it would make their travel through the East easier. I don’t think that Max was asking them to apologize for being friars or to hide the truth. But he was asking them to accommodate to the local culture.

In this case, the pastor is accommodating to his tenants or guests. I’m not sure if they rented the church or not. That part is not clear.

Again, the issue has been discussed by those who needed to discuss it and there is a plan for the future. I’m not sure what else there is to be discussed at this point of the game. The High Holy days are almost over too.

I think people are losing their peace and quiet over something that is going to go away and not do permanent harm, unless one becomes so scrupulous as to worry about what is not even a sin. I say, let’s keep our spiritual lives simple. Life has enough complications.

I’ll only add one more thing. You really should consider Father’s question. Is it possible that you may be wrong in your application of the RS in this case? Maybe you’re taking it differently. It’s just a thought.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Please, just once, show me where I made any attack on the impropriety of someone’s actions. Simply stating it as so does not make it so, as you did, and those types of actions are, in my opinion, inappropriate, to say the least.

Ok, I just went back over our back and forth. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. You asked why I assumed the proper authorities had approved. I stated that there was no proof to the contrary so in charity I am obliged to not assume someone violated rules/laws. I said to do so without evidence would amount to an attack. And up until recently no one had presented anything that said proper channels were not followed.

Also, I find it interesting that you somehow cast aspersion that no one said anything about the diocese not knowing about the plans that had been made. I find it even more disturbing that you would attempt to lay blame on someone who may have not even been aware of this. Moreover, your lack of understanding the true state of facts did not stop you from stating your positions on this matter as strongly as you have stated them to to others. Now you are upset because what you have stated does not comport with the true state of facts? Please.

I simply stated that unless evidence is provided to the contrary it is wrong to assume somone has done something wrong. I will make that same statement on any number of issues because its what Christian ethics demand of us.

I just came across this thread late yesterday and did not read all posts, but I found it remarkable that someone would take the positions that have been taken, and take issue and yes, attack others, without knowing most of the facts. And then have the nerve to accuse others of making attacks when that simply has not occured.

I think what you’re missing is that no one had any facts on this thread. There were plenty of assumptions being thrown around but no facts. And yes, I do stand by my statements that I don’t see anything wrong with the arrangement the parish has made and I think its well within the rules. Perhaps I am wrong.
But if you take the time to read this thread thoroughly you would see that many have accused the parish of breaking all sorts of rules when there’s no clear evidence that they have. Perhaps some individuals disagree with the parish, but there’s no reason for several here to accuse the pastor of “serious” violations of the sacred space.

You are correct, that statement has not appeared in any written form. Do you take this as diocesan approval?

I take it for what it is: a nonstatement. The diocese could have issued a statement that this should not have happened and will not happen again. But it did not. Instead it issued a vague nonstatement that it reached an agreement to be kept in the loop on such issues in the future. Its rather noncommital.

No it did not say it would never happen again. Again, do we not have the right to know the answer to this question, or is this just something that we have to wait around for to see if it happens again?

Apparently you’re going to have to wait. I don’t see any violations of Church law or rules but others interpret things differently. We’ll have to wait and see.

And of course, I have no idea what the diocese has actually said. I have only your word to go on. I will, in Christian charity, assume that you have no axe to grind with this priest and that you are being truthful. See, that door swings both ways

 

[JReducation]

Rabbi’s Message bethshalomaustin.org/PDF%20Docs//BethShalom_HHD_2009.pdf

It’s a beautiful message and very similar to the message that our Holy Father has been preaching to Catholics. I also like the idea that the Rabbi and the priest are going to speak on God’s forgiveness together and share the similarities and discuss the differences between the two faiths. This is the proper way of doing ecumenism. Find the points of similarity and discuss the points of divergence. Then you let the heart respond according to the gifts of grace.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictgal]

But the rule does not say that the worship or activity has to be Catholic. It says that it has to promote holiness. Praying to God the Father is holy, in any religion.

As to covering up the images, I don’t think that’s an apology. I think it’s an accommodation done in charity. I can understand how it would upset some people, because they have their devotions. But we have to keep it in perspective. There is not apology involved in being accommodationg. I’m thinking of an analogous situation. This is old, but it may work. When Maximilian Kolbe went to Japan he wrote a letter to our brothers in Poland. These were brothers who were to follow him to the missions. You have to remember that this was pre-Vatican II. Max wrote to the brothers to shed their habits and wear secular clothing, because it would make their travel through the East easier. I don’t think that Max was asking them to apologize for being friars or to hide the truth. But he was asking them to accommodate to the local culture.

In this case, the pastor is accommodating to his tenants or guests. I’m not sure if they rented the church or not. That part is not clear.

Again, the issue has been discussed by those who needed to discuss it and there is a plan for the future. I’m not sure what else there is to be discussed at this point of the game. The High Holy days are almost over too.

I think people are losing their peace and quiet over something that is going to go away and not do permanent harm, unless one becomes so scrupulous as to worry about what is not even a sin. I say, let’s keep our spiritual lives simple. Life has enough complications.

I’ll only add one more thing. You really should consider Father’s question. Is it possible that you may be wrong in your application of the RS in this case? Maybe you’re taking it differently. It’s just a thought.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have already answered Father’s question. I told him that I stand by what I have written. There is also the case where one can loosely interpret something and stretch it to a place where it was never meant to go.

I do believe that what has happened in this case sets a bad precedent, a very bad one. Furthermore, nothing in what atxne wrote indicated that the diocese gave its approval to this. I have a dear friend who attends the parish. I will call her later on today to ascertain what happened, although I have no reason to doubt what the OP and atxne have posted. I am also familiar with the parish.

I also believe that this goes back to relativism. While I respect our Jewish brothers and sisters, their form of worship is not consant with the Church’s. One form of prayer is not as good as another. What happens in our sanctuary is something entirely different than what goes on in their synagogue. Furthermore, we proclaim Christ and hold him as our Redeemer, our Messiah. They have not yet been brought to that fulfillment.

The Jewish congregation is not the only one in Austin. I am curious as to why the other congregation and the one at UT did not offer to share their resources.