Movement of the Tabernacle to the Hinterlands?

[Solomonson]

My parish church is a very historic building. I was asked by the local, totally secular historical society to write an article on some aspect of the edifice. Being a lifelong member of my parish I wrote about something that has long been questioned by a large number of people. Namely, the relocation of the church’s tabernacle from the rear center of the sanctuary to a niche (formerly a Marian shrine) located in an addition to the historic church.

I think I did an accurate, scholarly job on the article. In addition to my own recollection, I relied on interviews I conducted with the former pastor (this conversion took place in 1972) when he was long retired back in 1996, a carpenter who actually did the work to move the tabernacle back in the 1980s, two articles in the local paper, one in the former diocesan newspaper and Church documents such as the GIRM. The article was fully footnoted.

The article ran last October. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a historical article, not a commentary. I received positive feedback on it, nothing negative. My reason for this note is that last Monday night I received a very terse email from my pastor (he arrived decades after this change) demanding that we talk about the article. My question is, did I somehow overstep something by writing on such a subject as a layman? Thank you for any insight.

 

[zab]

My parish church is a very historic building. I was asked by the local, totally secular historical society to write an article on some aspect of the edifice. Being a lifelong member of my parish I wrote about something that has long been questioned by a large number of people. Namely, the relocation of the church’s tabernacle from the rear center of the sanctuary to a niche (formerly a Marian shrine) located in an addition to the historic church.

I think I did an accurate, scholarly job on the article. In addition to my own recollection, I relied on interviews I conducted with the former pastor (this conversion took place in 1972) when he was long retired back in 1996, a carpenter who actually did the work to move the tabernacle back in the 1980s, two articles in the local paper, one in the former diocesan newspaper and Church documents such as the GIRM. The article was fully footnoted.

The article ran last October. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a historical article, not a commentary. I received positive feedback on it, nothing negative. My reason for this note is that last Monday night I received a very terse email from my pastor (he arrived decades after this change) demanding that we talk about the article. My question is, did I somehow overstep something by writing on such a subject as a layman? Thank you for any insight.

Why did the local historical society ask you to write the article? Are you a reporter or writer? From your description, it doesn’t seem that you did anything wrong in my opinion. But I have not read the article so I don’t know how it may have come across. I think it would have been better if you had contacted your pastor letting him know that you were writing the article for the historical society. Isn’t that what most reporters do? He may have wanted to be sure that there was no misrepresentations given. But we don’t know what he may or may not be upset about because we have only heard about his email wanting to talk with you about the article.

 

[Solomonson]

Why did the local historical society ask you to write the article? Are you a reporter or writer? From your description, it doesn’t seem that you did anything wrong in my opinion. But I have not read the article so I don’t know how it may have come across. I think it would have been better if you had contacted your pastor letting him know that you were writing the article for the historical society. Isn’t that what most reporters do? He may have wanted to be sure that there was no misrepresentations given. But we don’t know what he may or may not be upset about because we have only heard about his email wanting to talk with you about the article.

Among other things I’m both a historian and a writer and my work is well known to the historical society. I’m definitely not a reporter.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I rather doubt if tabernacle placement is something that a secular historical society would be much interested in. You wrote about this because it is something that you were interested in. “Something that has long been questioned by a large number of people”? “The Hinterlands”? I am guessing that you are one of those people?

It would, indeed, have been a courtesy to notify your pastor before writing publicly about this subject. I would apologize to him, if I were you.

 

[psalm90]

My pastor does not apologize to me for things that upset me. He has total artistic control over everything and I’ve been consulted only once in parish survey.

I wouldn’t hesitate to see the pastor about what was on his mind.

 

[psalm90]

I rather doubt if tabernacle placement is something that a secular historical society would be much interested in. You wrote about this because it is something that you were interested in. “Something that has long been questioned by a large number of people”? “The Hinterlands”? I am guessing that you are one of those people?

It would, indeed, have been a courtesy to notify your pastor before writing publicly about this subject. I would apologize to him, if I were you.

I don’t see what there is to apologize for at this late date.

 

[pianistclare]

I rather doubt if tabernacle placement is something that a secular historical society would be much interested in. You wrote about this because it is something that you were interested in. “Something that has long been questioned by a large number of people”? “The Hinterlands”? I am guessing that you are one of those people?

It would, indeed, have been a courtesy to notify your pastor before writing publicly about this subject. I would apologize to him, if I were you.

This occurred to me as well. It just sounds off because of the thread title.
I suspect that there’s a point that the OP wanted to be made.
:coffeeread:

I’d be curious as to what the Pastor says, if the OP cares to update this in a few days.

 

[bardegaulois]

He might be unhappy, but what is he going to do, sue you? So long as your essay contained no libel or defamation of character, you should be in the clear. I get the sense, though, that we might have the dynamic here of a more traditional congregation chafing under a more modern pastor, and your article might have moved some aspect of that into a more public forum. Is this the case?

 

[SMHW]

The article ran last October. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a historical article, not a commentary. I received positive feedback on it, nothing negative. My reason for this note is that last Monday night I received a very terse email from my pastor (he arrived decades after this change) demanding that we talk about the article. My question is, did I somehow overstep something by writing on such a subject as a layman? Thank you for any insight.

Without having read the article, it’s hard to know if you said anything that was inappropriate.

I personally do not think it was a problem that you wrote about it but, as others have suggested, your thread title raises a few eyebrows.

Perhaps, knowing that moving tabernacles is a controversial topic in this forum, you simply were anticipating some negative comments and that’s why you chose the thread title. But it may also be that you think moving the tabernacle was a bad idea and your writing reflected that, even if you thought you were remaining neutral.

It’s been my personal experience, that if I read/hear a reporter state that something is “controversial” I jump to the conclusion that the reporter (or his/her employer) disapproves of whatever he/she is reporting. In fact, the reporter may not actually state an opinion but I (correctly or not) perceive the words through a filter which concludes those who point out controversies are neither neutral nor approving.

Perhaps your Pastor also perceives with this filter. Perhaps the Pastor has gotten some kind of backlash from your article. Maybe your Pastor does think you should have contacted him prior to writing. Maybe your Pastor just writes very direct emails. (Your description of the email definitely puts a negative spin on it with words like, ‘demanding’ and ‘terse.’

I guess you will just have to speak with him to find out.

 

[Solomonson]

Without having read the article, it’s hard to know if you said anything that was inappropriate.

I personally do not think it was a problem that you wrote about it but, as others have suggested, your thread title raises a few eyebrows.

Perhaps, knowing that moving tabernacles is a controversial topic in this forum, you simply were anticipating some negative comments and that’s why you chose the thread title. But it may also be that you think moving the tabernacle was a bad idea and your writing reflected that, even if you thought you were remaining neutral.

It’s been my personal experience, that if I read/hear a reporter state that something is “controversial” I jump to the conclusion that the reporter (or his/her employer) disapproves of whatever he/she is reporting. In fact, the reporter may not actually state an opinion but I (correctly or not) perceive the words through a filter which concludes those who point out controversies are neither neutral nor approving.

Perhaps your Pastor also perceives with this filter. Perhaps the Pastor has gotten some kind of backlash from your article. Maybe your Pastor does think you should have contacted him prior to writing. Maybe your Pastor just writes very direct emails. (Your description of the email definitely puts a negative spin on it with words like, ‘demanding’ and ‘terse.’

I guess you will just have to speak with him to find out.

It’s an interesting subject for locals who are interested in history, both Catholic and non-Catholic as the church building is where the city started and remains the center of the city. It’s also a very interesting story with a lot of nuance.

Some of the judgements I’ve receive on this thread are unhelpful. Difficult projections to say the least, but I didn’t know anywhere else to ask this question online.

I do agree that someone might have complained about the article, but I’m not sure who it could be as all the principals have long passed at this point. More importantly, the article is not polemical in construct. I think it has actually quieted the concerns of at least a few.

You suggest that my pastor might feel that I should have contacted him prior to writing the story. That goes to my question. Is asking for permission on a matter like this common or required in the Church?

I will talk to my pastor tomorrow at Mass if he is the celebrant. Thanks for your comments.

 

[Solomonson]

He might be unhappy, but what is he going to do, sue you? So long as your essay contained no libel or defamation of character, you should be in the clear. I get the sense, though, that we might have the dynamic here of a more traditional congregation chafing under a more modern pastor, and your article might have moved some aspect of that into a more public forum. Is this the case?

There’s no libel or defamation of character in the article. I’m not worried about that. I think the article appeals most to those interested in local history, architectural history and those that actually were around when the change took place, which are fewer and fewer all the time.

As I type this you make me think of something. It’s possible, but not likely that he has felt pressure from someone to move the tabernacle back based on my article. That’s a long shot, but it’s the only thing I can think of that would make him send a terse email.

 

[goout]

Our bishop has required the tabernacles come back to the altar if any substantial renovations are done.
You can go round and round on this one, but the change is in response to the times we live in, which are severely disconnected from the “substance” of faith.

 

[SMHW]

Our bishop has required the tabernacles come back to the altar if any substantial renovations are done.
You can go round and round on this one, but the change is in response to the times we live in, which are severely disconnected from the “substance” of faith.

This may be true but I’m not sure how this applies to OP’s situation other than as a possible sore subject for the Pastor.

 

[Solomonson]

I don’t see what there is to apologize for at this late date.

I have nothing to apologize for. It’s a well-crafted and documented article that went through a rigorous editing process. That much I am certain about.

 

[TheDoctor]

I have nothing to apologize for. It’s a well-crafted and documented article that went through a rigorous editing process. That much I am certain about.

Link please? If not on line, can you scan and post? It would help to give you an opinion if we could actually read the piece.

 

[zab]

It’s an interesting subject for locals who are interested in history, both Catholic and non-Catholic as the church building is where the city started and remains the center of the city. It’s also a very interesting story with a lot of nuance.

Some of the judgements I’ve receive on this thread are unhelpful. Difficult projections to say the least, but I didn’t know anywhere else to ask this question online.

I do agree that someone might have complained about the article, but I’m not sure who it could be as all the principals have long passed at this point. More importantly, the article is not polemical in construct. I think it has actually quieted the concerns of at least a few.

You suggest that my pastor might feel that I should have contacted him prior to writing the story. That goes to my question. Is asking for permission on a matter like this common or required in the Church?

I will talk to my pastor tomorrow at Mass if he is the celebrant. Thanks for your comments.

It is not necessary to ask for permission to write on the history of your historical church building. I am not sure who you are referring to in “some of the judgements” you have received on this thread. I am just trying to point out that I think it is just a good idea to talk to the present pastor about an article that you intend to write about his parish church, not only out of courtesy but he may also have some additional information that you do not have. I think many pastors are also interested in their parish church’s history and have read up about it. I also am very interested in reading historical information about the old Catholic Churches, not only my own parish, but some of the oldest parishes in our country and in the nation’s capital. But I would like to get to the facts straight and not some misleading or misrepresented information. Did you check on the accuracy of those old newspaper articles? It can be interesting to hear comments from the previous pastor. However, was all of the information from the memory of the old pastor who had “long been retired” accurate and without error? I am not criticizing your article which I have not read and have no knowledge of it’s accuracy. All that I am saying is that it would have been a good thing to interview your present pastor and perhaps go over the information you have to ensure that it is accurate. I’m just assuming that it is your pastor since you have mentioned “My parish church…” in your opening post. However, I did notice that you have identified yourself as “Christian” instead of being more specific. I like to be more accurate.

 

[Solomonson]

It is not necessary to ask for permission to write on the history of your historical church building. I am not sure who you are referring to in “some of the judgements” you have received on this thread. I am just trying to point out that I think it is just a good idea to talk to the present pastor about an article that you intend to write about his parish church, not only out of courtesy but he may also have some additional information that you do not have. I think many pastors are also interested in their parish church’s history and have read up about it. I also am very interested in reading historical information about the old Catholic Churches, not only my own parish, but some of the oldest parishes in our country and in the nation’s capital. But I would like to get to the facts straight and not some misleading or misrepresented information. Did you check on the accuracy of those old newspaper articles? It can be interesting to hear comments from the previous pastor. However, was all of the information from the memory of the old pastor who had “long been retired” accurate and without error? I am not criticizing your article which I have not read and have no knowledge of it’s accuracy. All that I am saying is that it would have been a good thing to interview your present pastor and perhaps go over the information you have to ensure that it is accurate. I’m just assuming that it is your pastor since you have mentioned “My parish church…” in your opening post. However, I did notice that you have identified yourself as “Christian” instead of being more specific. I like to be more accurate.

I wasn’t referring to you as when I mentioned judgements.

The sources for the articles are my own recollection (I have an excellent memory), the priest who was the pastor at the time, the carpenter/contractor who actually did the work, the newspaper articles plus interviews with a number of people who have attended this parish church for years. In other words, the sources were seriously triangulated with one another to form a concrete basis for the article.

The one person I would have liked to interview back when I interviewed the former pastor, was the newly ordained curate who was the real driver behind the change. He had already passed by 1996. The current pastor of my parish is decades removed from this change. He wouldn’t know if my writings were accurate or not.

For what it’s worth, it’s a Latin Rite Catholic parish and I am most certainly a confirmed Catholic Christian.

 

[felsguy]

May I ask, since I too found the use of the word “hinterlands” in the title of this thread offputting, was it used in the body or the title of your article or might it be a reflection of the tone of your article?

On the other hand some pastors, like many CEO’s, can be quite protective of what they see as their “turf.”

Just conjecturing here what may have prompted.your pastor’s “request ” for a discussion.

 

[zab]

I wasn’t referring to you as when I mentioned judgements.

The sources for the articles are my own recollection (I have an excellent memory), the priest who was the pastor at the time, the carpenter/contractor who actually did the work, the newspaper articles plus interviews with a number of people who have attended this parish church for years. In other words, the sources were seriously triangulated with one another to form a concrete basis for the article.

The one person I would have liked to interview back when I interviewed the former pastor, was the newly ordained curate who was the real driver behind the change. He had already passed by 1996. The current pastor of my parish is decades removed from this change. He wouldn’t know if my writings were accurate or not.

For what it’s worth, it’s a Latin Rite Catholic parish and I am most certainly a confirmed Catholic Christian.

You seem to get easily annoyed at the suggestion to inform your pastor of the writing that you have been asked to do about his parish. I don’t understand your reaction to my posts. What response did you expect to get from people who do not know anything about you, have not read your article, do not know your pastor or even why he wants to meet with you?

 

[MarkInOregon]

My parish church is a very historic building. I was asked by the local, totally secular historical society to write an article on some aspect of the edifice. Being a lifelong member of my parish I wrote about something that has long been questioned by a large number of people. Namely, the relocation of the church’s tabernacle from the rear center of the sanctuary to a niche (formerly a Marian shrine) located in an addition to the historic church.

I think I did an accurate, scholarly job on the article. In addition to my own recollection, I relied on interviews I conducted with the former pastor (this conversion took place in 1972) when he was long retired back in 1996, a carpenter who actually did the work to move the tabernacle back in the 1980s, two articles in the local paper, one in the former diocesan newspaper and Church documents such as the GIRM. The article was fully footnoted.

The article ran last October. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a historical article, not a commentary. I received positive feedback on it, nothing negative. My reason for this note is that last Monday night I received a very terse email from my pastor (he arrived decades after this change) demanding that we talk about the article. My question is, did I somehow overstep something by writing on such a subject as a layman? Thank you for any insight.

You have a very historic church building and were asked to write on some aspect of the edifice. I’m not sure how the moving of the tabernacle fits with that request. It’s certainly not what I would have been expecting. But that’s between you and the historical society. I doubt that you did anything wrong, but obviously haven’t read the article. It would be interesting to know what your priest thinks needs to discussed.

The peace of Christ,
Mark