Parishioners billed $72,000 for TLM (not a joke)

[KathleenElsie]

In my parish they do write $5 cheques.

The anonymous cash donations in our parish each week are anywhere from 20 -25% of the collection.

Last year 1/4 of the 420 families used envelopes. Envelopes represented 75% of donations, 25% of the donations came from anonymous cash in the collection plate.

1 family gave more than $2000; 8 gave over $1000; 19 gave less than $100.

I don’t claim to know what the average family gives weekly. We are not rich and have little savings but the money for Holy Mother Church is pledged and set aside no matter what. I do know what we contribute in the average year and it is no small amount for a family of seven and well over what you say one one family gave. Beyond that we sing in the choir, cantor, altar serve, do voluntary work and are on call for other needs when needed.

I believe that if our family and the 15 or so others just in our parish were to leave there would be a huge gap in money, time and talents at our present parish.

On the other hand we would be well on our way to a stable and self supporting community of our own.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You still don’t get it? Midnight Mass attendees and Saturday vigil Mass attendees are part of a parish – both are ALREADY paying via the weekly collection.

This is a separate chaplaincy designed to cover a far larger geographic area. Why should one existing parish within that area pay for the chaplaincy?

If you actually understand, your attempts at misdirection are not fooling anyone.

I understand perfectly. Maybe my sarcasm was not apparent.

Point is I hate seeing catholics labeling eachother.

As far as the $18K. Would you suggest all TLM wannabe attendees withold their weekly donations until the $18K is saved?

Ask you pastor what he thinks.

 

[Spiller]

I understand perfectly. Maybe my sarcasm was not apparent.

Point is I hate seeing catholics labeling eachother.

As far as the $18K. Would you suggest all TLM wannabe attendees withold their weekly donations until the $18K is saved?

Ask you pastor what he thinks.

I have NEVER seen worse labelers than the self-labeled “traditonalists.”

No, I would not advise to withhold as they are still using the services of whatever Mass/parish they are attending. The $18K is to get started (and I suspect to gauge real commitment) But of course if they started attending the ef, their weekly offering would go to the EF and not their old parishes.

 

[Spiller]

These parishiners did not all of a sudden apear. They are and have been supporting the OF parish for years. So not I guess that their tith and other donations should go exclusivly to support the EF.

Sure – ONCE they start making use of the services offered by the chaplaincy and not their former parishes.

If another priest were to be added to the parish his expense would need to be paid also by the whole parish. Or do you believe that only those that desire the EF will gain the benefit of a new priest?

It sounds like the priest will be dedicated to serving the chaplaincy.

Who is supposed to pay for them if not those making use of the chaplaincy? How much will the receipts of the local OF parish go down at the same time?

What?!? Those making use of the chaplaincy should pay the $72K/year. The $72K will come from the different parishioners who join the chaplaincy. This chaplaincy might well cover the geographic area of many, many parishes – lessoning the impact to them. But that’s not your problem – paying for the chaplaincy is.

We have been paying our fair share of the costs all along.

So? No one said you have not.

A better way is to ask for everyone that would attend the EF to mark their current envelopes and donations as designated for the EF only. We would then only be obligated to support one ministry.

No – because you are still using the parish resources. Only once you begin using the chaplaincy resources should you shift your donations.

 

[RobbyS]

I have NEVER seen worse labelers than the self-labeled “traditonalists.”

No, I would not advise to withhold as they are still using the services of whatever Mass/parish they are attending. The $18K is to get started (and I suspect to gauge real commitment) But of course if they started attending the ef, their weekly offering would go to the EF and not their old parishes.

I have no dog in this fight, but in the interest of fairness, may I remind some people that a huge amount of money was spent during the implementation of the new mass back in the '70s. All for a reform that was never demanded by the majority of Catholics. I was in favor of the reforms but not in the way they was implemented. The opinions, the feelings, of many Catholics, especially older ones, were totally disregarded. All sense of continuity with the past was disregarded. The worst sort of clericalism was evident in the actions of many who decried the clericalism of the past. Our way or the highway. Stupidity that can now be seen as stupidity, except by aging revolutionaries who will cling to their enthusiasms until they die.

Anyway, this type of squabbling reminds me too much of the squabbles in the Holy Sepulcure. Unseemly.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Sure – ONCE they start making use of the services offered by the chaplaincy and not their former parishes.

It sounds like the priest will be dedicated to serving the chaplaincy.

What?!? Those making use of the chaplaincy should pay the $72K/year. The $72K will come from the different parishioners who join the chaplaincy. This chaplaincy might well cover the geographic area of many, many parishes – lessoning the impact to them. But that’s not your problem – paying for the chaplaincy is.

So? No one said you have not.

No – because you are still using the parish resources. Only once you begin using the chaplaincy resources should you shift your donations.

So then until everything is set up those that will transfer to the new chaplaincy should pay twice. Once for the current and once for the possible new one?

 

[pnewton]

So then until everything is set up those that will transfer to the new chaplaincy should pay twice. Once for the current and once for the possible new one?

i see no problem giving their weekly donations to the new community, then attending their old parish in the gap. That truly would be the least the parish could do for them if they do not offer the TLM. Someone mentioned earlier voting with their feet. What we really vote with is our wallet. No parish should be inconvenienced if a few families do this. If a parish had a large TLM contingency, which I doubt, where the TLM was never offered, then all I can say is they a day late and a dollar short. They should have ministered to them.

 

[Auntie_M]

Traditional Catholics are known to be far more generous, on average, than the average Catholic.

I would really like to see some verified FACTS. All I see is more complaining about anything you can come up with. EVERY mass is supported by contributions. Whether it is “startup” money or continuing funds, our church is not exempt from paying its bills.
I have never heard your above statement before. Where are your facts that trads are more generous. In the last forty years, I don’t think the church has “gone without” any of its necessities. There were “average catholics” paying the bill then, ???

 

[universalindult]

Originally Posted by universalindult

Traditional Catholics are known to be far more generous, on average, than the average Catholic.

I would really like to see some verified FACTS.

Facts? Sorry, just anecdotal from talking to lots of priests.

After you talk to a fair number of priests who have offered both the OF and the EF for a number of years, you’ll understand.

 

[JReducation]

I know nothing about the cost of living in Maine. But I do know about parish ministry having served in parishes and at diocesan levels and Catholic education.

The rule in the Church is that you cannot establish a new parish unless you can afford to keep it going. The way this chaplaincy is being setup it’s like a parish without walls.

It has all of the usual expenses of a parish.

I remember working with a religioius community to start a shelter in a diocese. The religious were going to run the shelter. They simply needed the bishop’s permission to enter the diocese. It took a year before it happened. The religious had to prove that they had the financial means to run the shelter. And religious don’t get paid salaries, don’t have life insurance, medical, dental and vision insurance, retirement plans or get paid salaries. Any ministry run by religious is much cheaper than those run by Diocesan priests.

In this case, if the priest is a secular priest, the parish (in this case the chaplaincy) must pay the following:

1. His salary.
2. Medical, vision and dental insurance.
3. Retirement plan.
4. Part of his auto insurance, mileage and maintenance for his car when he uses it for his employer, the faithful.
5. Obviously he needs a place out of which to work, this requires an office, which has overhead.
6. He needs housing, because it’s part of his salary. A diocesan priest’s salary is not much compared to what the rest of us make. Let’s not talk about poverty. Diiocesan priests are not bound to poverty. That only applies to members of religious orders. Diocesan priests do not make a vow of poverty.

Someone mentioned foreign language masses, such as Spanish mass. This is not the same. The priest who celebrates the mass in Spanish or in Maine, they probably have mass in French in some of the northern parishes, these priests are part of the parish staff. They perform other functions in the parish. These people are part of the parish, they make regular contributions to the parish. They are not starting a new ministry.

Once this chaplaincy gets rolling, it will run like any other parish. Those who belong to it will fiance it, just as they finance their current parishes.

Also, if you notice the letter, Father says that the members will enroll and eventually get envelopes like any other parish.

He’s talking about the annual cost being $72K, but the startup cost is what the community has to come up with. I believe that ws $18K. The title of this thread is really misleading. The parishioners are not being billed $72K.

This is not an existing parish. This is an independent ministry. They are using someone else’s property to celebrate the mass.

If my parish decided to take out an Of mass and replace it with an EF mass it would be ridiculous to have a separate budget, because the priest, the staff and the facilities are already being payed for by the weekly contributions.

However, if you’re taling about starting an entirely independent ministry from the local parish, that parish has no obligation to finance it. The ministry does not belong to the parish.

If you look at the letter again, a priest is being taken from somewhere and assigned to this ministry full-time. His expenses can no longer be charged to his former parish or where ever he served. That would not be fair to them. He is no longer on their staff.

This would happen in any organization. If person leaves an organization to begin a new one, the new organization is responsible for financing the cost.

Again, they are not being charge $72K. They are being informed of what it will cost to run this ministry. They have to come up with the startup cost, which is 18K. The rest will come from weekly donations.

What’s so unusual about this? This is the way all autonomous ministries begin.

One last example. In our diocese we have a new religious community of women. They applied to the bishop for status as a diiocesan congregation. The bishop recognized them as an association of the faithful, but will not recognize them as a congregation until they can prove that they can support themselves and that they can draw vocations.

This is called sustainability. The diocese in Maine is asking the community to prove that it is sustainable. It has to have enough members to keep it going and the necessary finances.

Where is the unreasonable part?

JR

 

[Swiss_Guard]

I have no problem whatsoever with those who attend the TLM to have to contribute to its support. I don’t believe there is any “traditionalist” who would disagree.

I find two things troubling with this situation:

1. The arbitrary amount of $72,000
2. The chaplaincy itself

The arbitrary amount of $72,000. How did the bishop arrive at this figure? Why $72,000? Will this be enough? Is it too much?

The real question in my mind is what happens when the $72,000 is raised. Will the bishop decide it’s not enough and raise his price next year? I used to work for an organization that promotes the Tridentine Mass. This is an all too common situation. The bishop agrees to a Tridentine Mass but does everything he can to sabotage it. This sounds like the bishop is throwing an obstacle in the way. He can no longer suppress the Tridentine Mass, thanks to the motu proprio, so he does something else. Maybe next year it goes up to $90,000. Then it goes up to over $100,000. Keep raising the price until it becomes too expensive and then claim not enough people want the Tridentine Mass.

2. The chaplaincy itself. Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprioto not only promote the use of the Tridentine Mass, but also to put it on equal footing with the Novus Ordo. He clearly states there are two forms to the Latin rite. This chaplaincy treats those who want the Tridentine Mass as second class citizens. The bishop is saying we’re going to gather together all those Catholics still living in the 15th century and put them all in one place. I can’t imagine the bishop doing this for a Spanish Mass, a Polish Mass, or any other language. I can’t even imagine the bishop doing this for a charismatic Mass. Only the Tridentine Mass gets held in contempt.

Please don’t use the excuse that it’s the “extraordinary form” and the a Novus Ordo Mass in a language other than English is the “ordinary form.” Pope Benedict XVI is clear that we have two equal forms of Mass in the Latin rite.

What is even more disturbing are the Catholics on this board who are in favor of these obstacles to the Tridentine Mass. These are the ones who always tell the “traditionalists” to be obedient to the Holy Father. Yet they aren’t obedient to him when it comes to the motu proprio. They say they’re in favor of the Tridentine Mass but turn around and denigrate it and those who want it. They turn a deaf ear to the Holy Father when he says the Tridentine Mass is equal to the Novus Ordo. They hate the Tridentine Mass so it’s perfectly acceptable to them to disobey the Holy Father.

I find it hypocritical of those who support the bishop creating a chaplaincy for the Tridentine Mass and charging an arbitrary amount for it. They would be screaming discrimination if the bishop did the same thing for the Spanish Mass community. They would say how wrong it is for the bishop to treat Spanish speaking Catholics as second class citizens. Somehow, when it comes to the Tridentine Mass, Catholics who speak out against being treated as second class citizens are told to shut up, pay up, and obey the bishop by these people.

I see discrimination and disobedience being practiced by Catholics but it’s not the “traditionalists” who are practicing it.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

This is called sustainability. The diocese in Maine is asking the community to prove that it is sustainable. It has to have enough members to keep it going and the necessary finances.

Where is the unreasonable part?

JR

My parish has three Spanish Masses every weekend. We have a Saturday evening anticipated Mass and two Masses on Sunday. The Saturday evening Mass and the 8:30 Sunday Mass are the two least attended Masses every weekend. Yet we still have them.

Why are we able to sustain them? It’s due to those who attend the four English Masses and the one Tridentine Mass. We are the ones keeping those Masses financially viable.

Should my pastor tell the Spanish community that you’re only going to have the 1:00 Mass on Sunday because you’re not financially supporting those other two Masses? Should he say sorry, not enough of you attend those Masses so we’re going to discontinue them?

I would say that anyone who would say shut down those Masses would be labelled as a racist and a bigot. I would hear comments that we have to evangelize to all peoples. We should be reaching out to people rather than pushing them away. These people have a right to the Mass in their own language.

Yet, when it comes to the Tridentine Mass, no obstacle is too great and no demand is too unreasonable. We shouldn’t reach out to Catholics who want the Tridentine Mass. These Catholics don’t have a right to their Mass, even though Pope Benedict XVI says otherwise.

Once again, the real disobedience comes from the anti-Tridentine Mass crowd. The ones who are always telling others to obey the Holy Father turn around and disobey him when it suits their pleasure.

I wonder if these Catholics realize there was a Catholic Church prior to 1965?

 

[JReducation]

My parish has three Spanish Masses every weekend. We have a Saturday evening anticipated Mass and two Masses on Sunday. The Saturday evening Mass and the 8:30 Sunday Mass are the two least attended Masses every weekend. Yet we still have them.

Why are we able to sustain them? It’s due to those who attend the four English Masses and the one Tridentine Mass. We are the ones keeping those Masses financially viable.

Should my pastor tell the Spanish community that you’re only going to have the 1:00 Mass on Sunday because you’re not financially supporting those other two Masses? Should he say sorry, not enough of you attend those Masses so we’re going to discontinue them?

I would say that anyone who would say shut down those Masses would be labelled as a racist and a bigot. I would hear comments that we have to evangelize to all peoples. We should be reaching out to people rather than pushing them away. These people have a right to the Mass in their own language.

Yet, when it comes to the Tridentine Mass, no obstacle is too great and no demand is too unreasonable. We shouldn’t reach out to Catholics who want the Tridentine Mass. These Catholics don’t have a right to their Mass, even though Pope Benedict XVI says otherwise.

Once again, the real disobedience comes from the anti-Tridentine Mass crowd. The ones who are always telling others to obey the Holy Father turn around and disobey him when it suits their pleasure.

I wonder if these Catholics realize there was a Catholic Church prior to 1965?

Please re-read my entire post. I clearly said that if you were putting the Tridentine mass into an existing parish structure, there should be no additional cost, because the parish is already up and running.

The problem here is that an entirely new ministry is being created.

Maybe this is not the way to go. Maybe the Tidentine mass should be slid into a parish’s schedule. For example, if you have three English language masses, but you have enough people for one Tridentine mass, cut back to two English language masses and one EF.

For reasons, that I’m not privy to, I don’t know if you are, they chose to make this an independent ministry. That’s why there is an additional cost to it.

It’s not because it’s Tridentine, it’s because it’s an independent ministry. Maybe that’s not the way to go. If you do go that route, it will cost money. The priest’s salary alone is at least one third of that $72K. Which if I think about it, it’s a lot less than my salary.

They’re getting someone with a Master’s Degree, X number of years of experience, dedicated to this chaplaincey 24/7 for $18K. The $72K was the anual cost, not the startup cost.

I would ask the bishop if it has to be an independent ministry. That’s the question, not the cost. All ministries cost money. Maybe the Bishop can ask some parishes to include a Tridentine mass in their schedule using their staff. This would have no startup costs, because the parish is up and running. The overhead is already covered by the parish.

Do you see what I mean?

JR

 

[pnewton]

2. The chaplaincy itself. Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprioto not only promote the use of the Tridentine Mass, but also to put it on equal footing with the Novus Ordo.

Where in *Summorum Pontificum *does it state that they are on equal footing? I remember it still being called the extraordinary form in the document and the word “equal” not being used any where.

I do not view the money as an obstacle, nor am I anti-TLM. While I think there are those out there that are truly anti-TLM, I think they are few and far between. Most of us who believe in obedience to the Holy Father do believe that obedience begins with us.

 

[JReducation]

I see one of two choices here:

1. Give up the chaplaincy and wait until the individual parishes have enough people who want the EF and a priest who wants to celebrate it. This way there are not extra costs, because the priest is already part of the parish staff and is getting paid his salary and the overhead is covered by the parish form the revenues that it takes in from the entire congregation.
2. Accept the chaplaincy as an independent ministry of the diocese and pay for the startup costs. The letter does not say that those who desire the chaplaincy have to come up with $72,000.00 to get it going. It’s saying that they need $18,000.00 to get it going and that it will cost $72,000.00 a year to keep it going. It is very clear in the letter that the balance is going to come from the Sunday collection
3. Find a religious priest. Religious do not get paid a salary, do not own cars, may not have any kind of insurance or retirement plans. They may not own a home or live outside the religoius community, unless the ministry provides the housing. The only expense is to give the religious community a monthly stipend and provide transportation for the religoius. This would lower the cost per annum.

Maybe some people need to read the thread in the sub-forum Liturgy and Sacraments on religious and secular priests to understand why it costs money to have an independent ministry.

Secular priests are called secular because they do not take a vow of poverty. They do not live in a religious community where their needs are taken care of. They do not have a place to go when they retire. They are secular men just like most of us are.

They need a salary to live. They need a home. They need a car. They need medical, dental, vision insurance. They need a retirement plan because they have to provide for themselves when they retire. They pay for car expenses and insurance. They pay rent or mortgage if they live outside a rectory or if they live in a rectory that belongs to a parish that they do not serve, they have to pay rent to the parish to live there.

If you stop and consider, as I said in a previous post, that the group is getting a priest with a Master’s degree, 24/7 who does not have any financial income other than his priestly ministry, $72,000.00/year is not a lot of money considering that there are overhead costs included in this amount, not just the priest’s salary and insurance, retirement, and a stipend for the use of his personal car to care for this community. If an independent ministry uses a parish’s facilities it has to pay rent to the parish.

For example, I know a group of cloistered nuns who took over an abandoned convent that belongs to a parish, after the sisters in the school had left. The cloistered nuns do not serve the parish. But they live on parish property. They have to pay rent to the parish and utilities. That building costs the parish money to maintain and the nuns are not part of the parish staff or the school’s staff. They simply live on the premises.

You can’t get a professional with a Master’s Degree to work for for less than $40,000.00 in any other field. And these professionals are not available 24/7, nor do they lend their cars for company use at their expense, nor do they work without benefits such as insurance and retirement plans. Not even school teachers work for less than this, with this level of educaton and experience.

I’m not sure how this is discrimination.

I am not against the EF. If a group wants a separate parish, which is what this sounds like, a parish without walls, before it gets off the ground they will have to gather the money to get it going.

If this is a great financial burden ($18,000.00) I would repeat my suggestion. Ask the bishop to delay the idea of a chaplaincy and ask if there are established parishes where there are priests willing to celebrate an EF mass. The expenses would already be covered.

It’s not the mass that this group is being asked to pay for. That’s simony. It’s the expense of having a priest to themselves 100% of the time.

I’ll offer another example. Priest who are hospital chaplains get paid a salary from the hospital, not from parish funds. All of their insurance and car expenses are covered by the hospital, as well as housing expenses or the hospital pays them a full professional salary and they can pay their own car expenses and their own housing. Nonetheless, their other benefits are covered by the hospital.

The same goes for priests who teach. Colleges and schools pay them salaries and fringe benefits like any other educator.

These are considered independent ministries. They are under the jurisdiction of the diocese, but not the financial oblgiation of the diocese.

I hope this helps clarify the misunderstanding.

JR

 

[Joannm]

We have a large Korean community in our diocese. They do not have their own church and do rent out local parish facilities on a Sunday. They support their own priests who pay rent to the parish where they reside. This has been going on for years. Why don’t they become part of just one local parish? Well because they come from all over each Sunday and they do not get involved in parish life at all, as they pretty much have their own CCD and other programs. So why should a particular parish support them? They are self supporting and are very happy to not be beholding to any one parish, in fact they are not even considered part of our diocese and do not come under the authority of our Bishop (I’m not sure how that works out, they are under a bishop in Korea).

 

[ProVobis]

That’s simony.

As long as we’re talking major moneychanging events here, maybe a better solution then is to forego the collection plate and just send bills out to all the parishioners, NO or otherwise, in every parish. I certainly don’t want to put $100 in the collection plate and then get another bill later. This is really against the spirit of freewill donations that non-exempt organizations are supposed to adhere to. Otherwise the IRS may have other ideas about how to define this parish and/or diocese.

Hey, I only see myself as the messenger here. Bill at your own risk.

 

[agr4028]

Let’s be honest here. ANY perceived impediment to implementation of a TLM anywhere is going to be seen as confrontational or obstructive on the part of the Church by the TLM crowd, from what I read here.

 

[Sure]

If they don’t want to pay that much, get more families.

100 families need to contribute $13.85 per week to support this. Don’t have 100 families? Maybe that isn’t enough to fulfill the definition of existing “stably.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Traditional Catholics are known to be far more generous, on average, than the average Catholic.

It has been so many years in so many dioceses since the TLM was said, that very few would even remember it, let alone have any dedication to it. It seems odd to me that this diocese is putting up a barrier to younger people by expecting major financial support right up front. Seems to me the idea is to dissuade any who are not already TLM supporters, from becoming so.

Not only that, it is treating those who want the TLM as if they are some kind of separate Church that is not really part of the parish or the diocese. They wouldn’t do this if, say, there were a lot of Maronites in the diocese who wanted to use diocesan facilities for their liturgies and there was a priest who could do it. No, they would jump through their noses to make them feel welcome and to make them feel a part of the diocese.

And they wonder why the SSPX flourishes in places.

I would be very curious to know how they came up with the $72,000 figure. The diocese might well come to regret this move. If the TLM folks come up with the money, they’re likely to insist that it be used only to support the TLM effort and demand an accounting. If, indeed, TLM people are more generous than most, the diocese is going to wish it hadn’t done this.