May Laity Question, Critisize, or Complain about our Clergy? Vote and Discuss

[MusicMan]

It’s one thing for us to go to Mass and see abuses week-after-week. It’s another thing for us to get bent out of shape because Father occassionally skips over the Creed to help get to his other parish on time for their morning Mass.

It’s one thing for us to demand an end to crazy innovations such as the clown Mass. It’s another to log into a forum such as this and gripe because Father didn’t wear his chasuble at Mass today and it’s 90 degrees outside.

There is another thread out there about how would we feel if a priest wore a T-shirt and blue jeans to Mass. sigh I think we’d only collectively be upset if he didn’t vest over them, yet some people have thrown a fit at the thought of the priest not wearing his clerics underneath. People have further gotten upset when the priest doesn’t wear his clerics to the church-school’s spring cook-out.

All of these instances are unreasonable criticisms. Remember that Jesus told us not to judge each other lest we be judged.

I am grateful that EWTN has a very accessible Q&A Board where the faithful can get information quickly. I am deeply saddened that some people use it to get information in order to “police” their parishes. One of EWTN’s collective complaints is that by the amount of involvement the laity get in the ministries of the current Rite, the line between the laity and clergy has been blurred (things like hordes of EMHCs for example), and the pastor’s authority has been eroded. Yet having a Q&A Board where people can routinely “check up” on their priests behaviors at Mass has just added to the erosion. Sadly, this Forum is also a big contributor to this erosion.

We need to find some middle ground. Yes… we are entitled to an abuse free Mass. No doubt about it. Be we are also obligated to receive our Lord in a state of Grace. If all we ever do is go to Mass and judge, I submit we are no longer properly disposed to receive our Lord because we have lost that state of Grace.

 

[grotto]

But, you seem to be against knowledge and discussion - how does that fit in?

 

[Joysong]

Dear Michael,

I was once forced to deal with a parish that was engaged in several liturgical abuses by taking it to the internet. I said nothing that was untrue, and what I did say was very specific. In spite of the fact the parish was in a liberal diocese noted for turning a blind eye to abuses of the liturgy, posting it on the internet forced the patrish to stop the abuses. It worked.

What I see underlying your statement is that the end justifies the means. Never has this been permitted in Catholic morality. To force a pastor to comply by airing his sins publicly on the internet is not justifiable since the thousands who view this information, are not with valid reason entitled to know it, especially since they have no ability whatsoever to administer correction.

That it fosters lack of trust in the clergy, subsequent policing of their own parishes, potential rash judgment for the listener as he/she struggles to overcome antipathy, are a few reasons these complaints are to be kept private. It is the responsibility of the hierarchy to administer correction, not the laity.

As has been said, we have a duty in charity to report probable abuses, but not by using these means. One CAF member reported yesterday that her parish is without a priest to serve her parish due to constant criticisms and confrontations with the pastors who were assigned. The parishioners were so adamant with a some of them that the Bishop was not able to find anyone willing to serve them, and they are without one. Who suffers with lack of sacraments and liturgy? Yes, the innocents who were not part of the diatribe.

I think it would help all of us to review the implications of the 8th commandment and justice.

Carole

 

[katewithak]

Joysong:

Dear Michael,

What I see underlying your statement is that the end justifies the means. Never has this been permitted in Catholic morality. To force a pastor to comply by airing his sins publicly on the internet is not justifiable since the thousands who view this information, are not with valid reason entitled to know it, especially since they have no ability whatsoever to administer correction.

That it fosters lack of trust in the clergy, subsequent policing of their own parishes, potential rash judgment for the listener as he/she struggles to overcome antipathy, are a few reasons these complaints are to be kept private. It is the responsibility of the hierarchy to administer correction, not the laity.

As has been said, we have a duty in charity to report probable abuses, but not by using these means. One CAF member reported yesterday that her parish is without a priest to serve her parish for this very reason. The parishioners were so adamant with a few priests that the Bishop was not able to find anyone willing to serve them, and they are without one. Who suffers with lack of sacraments and liturgy? Yes, the innocents who were not part of the diatribe.

I think it would help all of us to review the implications of the 8th commandment and justice.

Carole

Excellent, wonderul post. Thank you.

 

[grotto]

Yes - heavy handedness has happened when the parishoners have expressed their encounters with wrong teaching and illicit and abused Mass and sacraments. In a former diocese the Bishop made it very clear that if the people would not accept the “None” in control of everything then the parish school would be closed. So they tolerate til today! They have tolerated for several years now so it proves that since the school did not deserve to be closed - it wasn’t. Go along to get along and don’t rock the boat! Don’t make waves and all that stuff. How sad that it happened and how prayers are answered that it will soon end!

 

[katewithak]

There is this also. If one continues to do what one can to foster distrust of the clergy rather than trust, than what? What happens with Confession, Consecration, Absolution? There may be those who complain who can claim their faith is strong enough that they have no requirement for visible signs. But the priest, bishop and cardinal are visible signs of the above actions and many need those visible signs. Perhaps those who foster distrust in the clergy have no problem when the priest absolves them of sin, even though they think he is an idiot who is not well schooled enough to know if he should or not. But what about those who still need to believe the clergy knows what it’s talking about?

 

[Joysong]

Grotto,

As MusicMan mentioned, those who complain sometimes have no valid reason for doing so, other than personal preferences for “having a liturgy their way” are not being met. I have to emphasize that there are immutable parts of the liturgy that will never change and will never render the Mass invalid.

In order of severity, some of the alleged abuses are merely perceptions of someone who is not properly educated, or someone who is intolerable of “styles” permitted in order to accomodate a vast number of worshippers into one united Body. Never will the clergy please every person as long as they wear the robe of humanity. To think we can achieve this by forcing one style deemed “perfect” upon everyone else, is laughable.

Our Bishops hear so many of these types of complaints that they must be weary of it all. Contrariwise, if the parish you mentioned is tolerating true abuse, one needs to go higher than the Bishop. I believe the idea of the CD in a previous post was a good beginning.

Carole

 

[katewithak]

It gets sillier. Our priest cancelled Mass in another parish because we were in a huge snow storm, he had no four wheel drive, the highway patrol had closed the roads!!! and the parishioners were scandalized. How does one cancel the REAL PRESENCE of Christ they yelled. I’m not sure how they thought Father was going to get to the other parish. Fly? Anyway one lady was overheard distinctly stating she was writing the bishop- this type of laziness is intolerable! The following week Father asked the Presbyterian minister to drive him to the other parish as only four wheel drive vehicles were allowed and the minister had one and Father did not. The parishioners were again scandalized. He had preferred to ask a protestant minister for help than to ask one of them to drive him. Why they yelled? He could have asked us?
A couple of weeks later Fr. was seen eating in a Mexican restaurant some parishioners were patronizing. A few days later he was seen at a local BBQ joint. “Just throwing his money around when the Church is in such bad financial shape.”
One lady finally compiled all of his faults in one letter to the Bishop. She was suspended from all liturgical ministries for six months. He was transferred to a larger, bigger parish and given more responsibility. Our new priest will arrive in two weeks. But heavens, above, people were hoping for someone who was English speaking first, and American born. The bishop is sending us a — Filipino. My husband and I are taking bets- how long will it take our parish to run this one out of town? The last one was only 16 months. The one before that was 18 months.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

We are called to be loyal to the teachings of the church and the Church Magisterium.

When clergy are not loyal to these, we should inform the appropriate member in their hierarchy about it.

 

[bear06]

If nothing else, publicly posting allegations that have either not been proven, which are personal opinion, or which may damage someone’s reputation at the least border on slander and/or libel, especially when we start seeing words like “dissent” and “heresy”. Keeping in mind James’s clear admonitions about how we use our tongues, it would seem to me that the correct Christian approach is to proceed as RS instructs.

Actually, if you look at the canon, you can also make your concerns known to the laity. We had a website where, as a last resort after approaching the bishop many times over the years, we posted some of the abuses going on in our diocese. Yes, they were well known and documented and we also, on the website and via letter, asked the diocese to correct any errors on the site if there were any. We, of course, never heard from them. We reached many people via this site and it was amazing how many people just wanted help fighting the abuses in their parish. There were many, also, who just wanted to know if there were actually parishes in the diocese that didn’t have abuses that they could attend. Many of the people found us because their liberal pastors actually bashed us in their homilies which actually drove people to find us. They advertised for us. The website didn’t have a lot of commentary either. It was a statement of facts and a whole lot of church teachings. We shut it down after the new bishop arrived. He’s a very faithful man and we didn’t think we needed to do his job for him. If anyone would like the link to the archive, for example, please PM me for the address.

I do agree that the evidence must be a last resort, free from slander, etc.

 

[George_Waters]

Leisa:

I would have to say that complaining about clergy with just cause is okay if done with the proper respect. That being said I do feel too many people (including many from this site) spend entirely too much time nit-picking any little thing they can find to complain about.

God Bless

I whole-heartedly concur!

 

[bear06]

What I see underlying your statement is that the end justifies the means. Never has this been permitted in Catholic morality. To force a pastor to comply by airing his sins publicly on the internet is not justifiable since the thousands who view this information, are not with valid reason entitled to know it, especially since they have no ability whatsoever to administer correction.

Actually, Joysong, another benefit of our website was that many more people gave us evidence of abuses in their own Church to send off to Rome. Besides that, many didn’t even know what they were seeing was an abuse and they were able to learn about it via the teaching section of the site. We were even contacted by the media which became a further outlet to educate.

That it fosters lack of trust in the clergy, subsequent policing of their own parishes, potential rash judgment for the listener as he/she struggles to overcome antipathy, are a few reasons these complaints are to be kept private. It is the responsibility of the hierarchy to administer correction, not the laity.

Like I’ve said before, there is certainly a chain of command that needs to be approached before such action is taken.

As has been said, we have a duty in charity to report probable abuses, but not by using these means. One CAF member reported yesterday that her parish is without a priest to serve her parish due to constant criticisms and confrontations with the pastors who were assigned. The parishioners were so adamant with a some of them that the Bishop was not able to find anyone willing to serve them, and they are without one. Who suffers with lack of sacraments and liturgy? Yes, the innocents who were not part of the diatribe.

I’m from the diocese with clown masses. I’m from the diocese that was using the abuse scandal to “women priests, married priests and a discussion of human sexuality”. We didn’t have small abuses here.

I think it would help all of us to review the implications of the 8th commandment and justice.

I think it would also be good to review canon law. There can become a problem when we try and interpret scripture ourselves. All scripture must be seen in the light of Church teachings.

 

[Shoshana]

Aside from liturgical abuse or other glaring abnormality, I believe that there are so many people who tear apart their priest for whatever reason. I see it all the time in my parish and elsewhere…

Jesus told a couple of Saints that when we criticize our priests, we criticize Him. Prayer would be the better way to go. Only my thoughts…:twocents:

 

[WanderAimlessly]

It’s okay if it’s done very carefully and respectfully

Also, if it is done through the proper channels.

PF

 

[bear06]

Aside from liturgical abuse or other glaring abnormality, I believe that there are so many people who tear apart their priest for whatever reason. I see it all the time in my parish and elsewhere…

I think it very careful not speak ill of a priest for anything that he has permission to do. In our diocese, we had those who would bash the bishop for communion in the hand and altar girls. While these are not my cup of tea, the bishop did have the permission to do so, albeit after years of doing it without permission.

Jesus told a couple of Saints that when we criticize our priests, we criticize Him. Prayer would be the better way to go. Only my thoughts…:twocents:

I think prayer is needed too. The saints were all called to do things different ways. We are too. While prayer may be the main way to go for some, others may be called to do more.

 

[MusicMan]

grotto:

But, you seem to be against knowledge and discussion - how does that fit in?

I am all for knowledge and discussion.

However, a very good priest once told me that a little knowledge can be dangerous. He said it in reference to a college student in our parish who was studying to be a liturgist. The young student would come back at the end of each semester and presume to chastise Father and all of the lay ministers for every “abuse” he believed they were committing. He would then instruct everyone on how he believed the Mass was to be properly said. The operative word in the previous two sentences was “believed.” I had to go to confession for the lack of charity in the language I used on him when he finished chastising me, however he did finally back off.

I was fascinated that a 19 year-old thought he knew the GIRM and the spirit of the liturgy better than a priest of 40 years. I expect that once this young person finishes his bachelors and masters degrees in liturgy and pastoral music, he will have a much better understanding of the Mass, and as a 26 year-old liturgist, will likely be quite embarassed at his behavior at the tender age of 19. He will be a good member of a large parish’s lay staff and will do great things for his priest and congregation. However, at 19, he simply didn’t have the training to apply his knowledge. He was, sadly, dangerous.

EWTN’s Q&A Board and the CA Forums have created the same dangerous situation within a large slice of the faithful. We can get the knowledge from these internet sites, but many of us lack the training to apply it properly. On the one hand, we do have a right to an abuse-free Mass, but on the other, what determines when that right has been trampled?

I’ve seen enough complaints on both sites that I can conclude there are too many Catholics out there who think their right to an abuse-free Mass has been utterly destroyed by their priest any time he skips the Creed and/or the Gloria because he HAS to get to his next parish in time to say Mass(and he’s been ten minutes late the last two weeks because his first parish has done the Gloria and the Creed). These same people also blow a gasket when the mercury hits 90 degrees and the priest says Mass in his alb and stole. Never mind that they’re standing there in a short-sleeved shirt and khaki-colored shorts. Yes… these are abuses. No, they’re not justified in ANY interpretation of the GIRM. However, they don’t invalidate the Mass, and they really don’t prevent me from hearing the Word of God, Receiving Jesus, and Praising and Worshipping the Holy Trinity.

We can question, criticize, and complain all we want, but we needn’t be petty. There are larger issues that should be dealt with.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to these sites. They are an excellent repository of knowledge and place for discussion/debate. I’m opposed to misusing the information contained therein. RS may have decreed the faithful have a right to an abuse-free Mass, but it didn’t deputize us to be the “liturgy police.”

 

[tee_eff_em]

Posters such as Joysong make me long for the days when we could heap reputation points upon each other… :clapping:

tee

 

[mosher]

MusicMan:

I was fascinated that a 19 year-old thought he knew the GIRM and the spirit of the liturgy better than a priest of 40 years. I expect that once this young person finishes his bachelors and masters degrees in liturgy and pastoral music, he will have a much better understanding of the Mass, and as a 26 year-old liturgist, will likely be quite embarassed at his behavior at the tender age of 19. He will be a good member of a large parish’s lay staff and will do great things for his priest and congregation. However, at 19, he simply didn’t have the training to apply his knowledge. He was, sadly, dangerous.

EWTN’s Q&A Board and the CA Forums have created the same dangerous situation within a large slice of the faithful. We can get the knowledge from these internet sites, but many of us lack the training to apply it properly. On the one hand, we do have a right to an abuse-free Mass, but on the other, what determines when that right has been trampled?

I’ve seen enough complaints on both sites that I can conclude there are too many Catholics out there who think their right to an abuse-free Mass has been utterly destroyed by their priest any time he skips the Creed and/or the Gloria because he HAS to get to his next parish in time to say Mass(and he’s been ten minutes late the last two weeks because his first parish has done the Gloria and the Creed). These same people also blow a gasket when the mercury hits 90 degrees and the priest says Mass in his alb and stole. Never mind that they’re standing there in a short-sleeved shirt and khaki-colored shorts. Yes… these are abuses. No, they’re not justified in ANY interpretation of the GIRM. However, they don’t invalidate the Mass, and they really don’t prevent me from hearing the Word of God, Receiving Jesus, and Praising and Worshipping the Holy Trinity.

Music man I cannot assent to a single word that you have thus far said. Let me explain briefly why this is so.

First, to presume that a priest of 40 years knows more about the liturgy than a 19 year old student is preposturous. Many times it is the 40 year long priests that have no respect for liturgical norms. It is a constant complaint of seminary professors that once a priest leaves his educational formation he never picks up another encyclical or instruction from Rome. Many times it is the students and seminarians that have a clearer and more precise understanding of the liturgy and to discount a person because of their age is idocy with respect to the history of the lives of the saints. Experience does not equate to knowledge it only equates to experience which at times is not consistant with truth. Perhaps his youth did not allow him the ability to present his position with the finese necessary to convert the masses “so to speak” but that does not make him wrong.

These consistant examples concerning the omitting of the Gloria or the Creed or the lack of proper vestments are the same minimalst and excuse making arguments that have been used and abused for years. The point is that the priest has an obligation a duty and a command to celebrate his rite according to the norms set for him. He does not have a right to modify in any way for any reason (save grave necessity - and even that in limits) a single iota of the rubrics. If he is late to the next mass then he needs to plan better. If it is very hot then he can deal with it or purchase some lighter material vestments for such a purpose. While you are correct is asserting that such things do not effect or affect the validty of the mass it is also true that it does nt make them right and it does in fact violate my right as a catholic concerning a faithful liturgy. Ommission or commission due to ignorance or human error is one thing. Deliberate modification of the liturgy is not only wrong but is sinnful.

As a side note we have been deputized as liturgical police by virtue of our baptism not for any other reason.

 

[katewithak]

mosher:

Music man I cannot assent to a single word that you have thus far said. Let me explain briefly why this is so.

First, to presume that a priest of 40 years knows more about the liturgy than a 19 year old student is preposturous. Many times it is the 40 year long priests that have no respect for liturgical norms. It is a constant complaint of seminary professors that once a priest leaves his educational formation he never picks up another encyclical or instruction from Rome. Many times it is the students and seminarians that have a clearer and more precise understanding of the liturgy and to discount a person because of their age is idocy with respect to the history of the lives of the saints. Experience does not equate to knowledge it only equates to experience which at times is not consistant with truth. Perhaps his youth did not allow him the ability to present his position with the finese necessary to convert the masses “so to speak” but that does not make him wrong.

These consistant examples concerning the omitting of the Gloria or the Creed or the lack of proper vestments are the same minimalst and excuse making arguments that have been used and abused for years. The point is that the priest has an obligation a duty and a command to celebrate his rite according to the norms set for him. He does not have a right to modify in any way for any reason (save grave necessity - and even that in limits) a single iota of the rubrics. If he is late to the next mass then he needs to plan better. If it is very hot then he can deal with it or purchase some lighter material vestments for such a purpose. While you are correct is asserting that such things do not effect or affect the validty of the mass it is also true that it does nt make them right and it does in fact violate my right as a catholic concerning a faithful liturgy. Ommission or commission due to ignorance or human error is one thing. Deliberate modification of the liturgy is not only wrong but is sinnful.

As a side note we have been deputized as liturgical police by virtue of our baptism not for any other reason.

By virtue of our baptism, it would seem we would want to police ourselves first, not the priest and everyone else at Mass. If charity begins at home, with one’s own soul, why not the policing?
This sickens me after a while. Simply because the priests sit in the Confessional week after week hearing the laity confess the same sins that the laity want to “police” out of the clergy.
Somewhere on this forum there is a poster who is outraged that as a volunteer for a youth group, he was asked to submit his fingerprints to the Diocese. He feels that is unfair because he is not a priest- he is donating his time for free therefore should not have to submit his fingerprints. Only the priests should. Since when did priests become the only sinners in the Church? The nitpicking, policing, self righteousness has got to stop before it threatens to tear the Church apart more than the scandals have done. It is just too much. People police yourselves, please.

 

[Joysong]

Hello, Bear06,

Actually, Joysong, another benefit of our website was that many more people gave us evidence of abuses in their own Church to send off to Rome. Besides that, many didn’t even know what they were seeing was an abuse and they were able to learn about it via the teaching section of the site. We were even contacted by the media which became a further outlet to educate.

Again, as you stated, you achieved a good end no doubt about it! Educating others to abuse, getting media coverage, filing more submissions of abuse to Rome … WOW! God must have been pleased, huh, now that more people were scrutinizing His priests for violations?

Yet no matter how GOOD the end was, as you see it, this action was not a viable moral means of effecting it. Posting your “remedy” on this thread now, and citing how wonderful the effects were, gives incentive for others to adopt the error, without realizing how seriously wrong it is. Truly, we should have a thread on this, for in our faith, it is never justified to use a sinful means to obtain a good end.

For example, this is the root evil of euthanasia. In administering a lethal dose of medication to obtain a “good end” of relieving someone of intolerable suffering, knowing they are terminal anyways, is morally evil and never permitted.

Carole