What problem could you possible have with my response to you then? I simply stated I agree but clarified that nobody said it was OK to bear false witness. I agree with everything you’ve said above. So, where’s the beef?
Bear- the abuses you are talking about are extremely serious. Yes, you have every right to physically protect the people in your parish even if it includes going on public. I don’t think you will get an argument on that. What the original thread topic concerned was the right of the laity to criticize or correct period. Taht would include: sexual misconduct, the priest wearing jeans under his liturgical clothing, etc. It is a broad question and each one has to be addressed differently. For instance, I don’t think it is necessary to burn a CD of priests wearing jeans to Mass, although others might disagree. I don’t think it is necessary to take an audio tape of our priest refusing to drive in the snow to a Mass one time when he did not have chains and so on. It may be necessary to catch on CD a priest who is fondling a child in a confessional though. Do you understand where I am coming from? The OQ was more general and not limited to your case.Sorry. These abuses were always public record. They were definitely not possessed only by members of a particular community. In fact, some were actually published on the front page or our diocesan newspaper!
Once again, I’d probably agree with you. I didn’t even bother answering the poll because, while I believe in criticizing, complaining, questioning, I believe that there are limited reasons why it is allowable. Like a I said before, griping just to gripe is useless. I think where I disagree with you lies in posts #23 and #24. I disagree with Joysong that taking to the internet is the wrong way to go. Yes, I think you can do it poorly but I think a lot of great good can come of it. I agree with you that you should pray and think about why you’re doing it. For instance, if one is doing it just to spread scandal than it’s pointless. If one is trying to reach the hierarchy of the Church and urge others to do the same, than it is good. If one is trying to collect evidence to provide to Rome, it’s another good thing. Etc., etc., etc. To complain and complain about something that will never be heard by those who can do something about it is like spitting into the wind!
Perhaps I’m simply still reacting to being called syrupy sanctimonious and feigning piety in the Mahoney thread. My apologies if you were offended.
For the first two, you have an obligation to discuss your concerns with him. for the first one, what you do from there depends on the definition of minor, remembering that minor can lead to major, or can be a one time accident. If it continues without correction, you might want to ask for assistance from the Chancery.
No worries. Someone once said you have to be related to me to offend me.
Thank you, Bear. This does make a difference. I misunderstood that your group had made it public by taking out a website and disseminating the information yourselves, which is a different picture.
I agree that we must all take care to only act in accord with our knowledge. There are many times where I have to correct people who are critical of a priest when the priest is in the right. I think that we must strive for truth in all things. If the clergy is wrong about something it is no different then the guy next to me being wrong about something. I have an obligation to approach the issue with humility and not over step my knowledge - I must govern myself or else my work of mercy becomes a sin against truth.
I agree with you completely.
I’m not offering an opinion on the validity of criticizing or complaining as phrased by the OP. Rather, I am submitting an additonal help for forming one’s conscience in light of Catholic teaching, beyond that which has already been posted previously. All of us need to weigh carefully how the gossip or venting conforms to one’s pure motivation of love and concern.
Jesus gave us the means to address issues. We are obligated to address the person who is in error first in charity. Then if he does not capitulate then you bring a witness and if he still does not budge then it is necessary to take the issue to the Church. If this formula is followed then virtue is held in tact.
Yes, excellent, exactly.
Excellent theologian, I’m a great fan of his work. Especially when he urged D.C. Cardinal O’Boyle to fly to Rome and resign rather than allow dissenting priests to operate in his diocese
I could not agree more. I would also be very hesitant to say anyone here has NOT been offering anything but correction in a spirit of fraternal love, just as Dr. Grisez encourages.
I think this attitude has done much harm to the church and will continue to do so in the future. My feeling is that it results from a basic misunderstanding of Christ and His mission on Earth. Christ was not a politically correct, feel good, I love you you love me, we’re a happy family type of person. He was a by all acounts a very forceful, strong willed man who spoke the truth as He saw it and let the pieces fall where they may. He did not back down for fear of hurting others feelings or creating a disturbance. If people were wrong, and I mean anybody, HE TOLD THEM SO…He didn’t try to find a nice way to say it, He told them bluntly they were wrong, that they were in error, that they were hypocrites, etc.
Good points…good post. It is all a matter of balance and that is something I think that only The Holy Spirit achieves in us…and we remain human and at times not sensitive to The Spirit…we make mistakes…our clergy and heirarchy too and we need to allow them to be human and err just as we do! We ask pardon for ourselves, hence owe forgiveness to others and that is only just. And if we have a justified negative observation to make it in the way that seems appropropriate according to circumstances prevailing. But I thought you insighted Jesus aptly! And at times and I’m sure you know this He was outstandingly compassionate, insightful, understanding and forgiving…