Priest beaten up in front of his mother for celebrating the Traditional Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Olsen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Praying for the priest. And praying for those who committed this sad action.
 
Prayers for the priest and all involved.

Is there an English translation of the original article?
 
From reading some of the Italian news it looks like that the story might be a little bit different. It appears that the parishoner (76 y/o) had a disagreement with the priest about posting something on the parish wall without the permission of the priest and that things got too heated during the discussion. It appears also true that the local community was in conflict with the priest because he was considered too conservative.

translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lanazione.it%2Ffirenze%2Fcronaca%2F2011%2F07%2F26%2F551131-basta_messa_latino.shtml&act=url
 
I think that the Bishop needs to make a stand and make it clear that the pastor is the one in charge. However, some of the Italian Bishops have been the cause of some of these “cultural” problems.
 
Prayers for the priest, his mother, May God grant them comfort and a forgiving heart.

Prayers for the assailant, that God forgive him for his ignorance and his hatred. May the demon in him be expelled that he might repent and return to God’s Holy Church in humility and be welcomed with Joy.

I noted two things in the linked report…
One - That the threats were signed “your friend Satan”, which leads me to believe there is definitely a demon involved…

Second - that one of the accusations is, “above all, he is not forgiven for distributing communion in the mouth [to the] kneeling [faithful], instead of on the hand, in the same manner as Benedict XVI”. Obviously demonstrating that the person is deceived for our Holy Father DOES give communion on the tongue and kneeling as well as in the hand and standing…
In addition, since it is Pope Benedict XVI who has liberalized the use of the EF, the accuser and assailant are highly confused since they wish to use him as a defense of their position.

May God show this troubled soul the light so that his heart may be softened…

Peace
James

IN all, it is a very sad
 
“Who can lay a hand on the LORD’s anointed and be guiltless?” 1 Sam 26:9.

this was a comment on that link of the news article

Lord have mercy Let us pray for everyone involved
 
I hope the Priest becomes even more galvanized in his ways now. Whiny liberals(heterodox) can’t handle the path the Church is heading. I love it. I spend long hours reading the whiny comments at ncr because it makes me happy. Whenever I read about something the Church is doing wrong from that rag, I know things are heading in the right direction. Keep it up Pope Benedict, I am strongly behind you.
 
hudson said:
I hope the Priest becomes even more galvanized in his ways now. Whiny liberals(heterodox) can’t handle the path the Church is heading. I love it. I spend long hours reading the whiny comments at ncr because it makes me happy. Whenever I read about something the Church is doing wrong from that rag, I know things are heading in the right direction. Keep it up Pope Benedict, I am strongly behind you.
Click to expand...
Wow. What a uselessly divisive attitude. This was a comment posted on the original article and I think it applies in this case:

“There is usually another side to every story. I do not condone an assault like this on anyone, but reading between the lines may it not be that the priest in question alienated his people by imposing his ways on them and ignoring their wishes arrogantly and high-handedly, thus creating hostility towards him? Priests are supposed to serve their people, not dictate to them and impose their own preferences. If most people do not want the TLM should a priest insist they have it?”

The priest should be open to the wishes of the laity in so far as they are allowed by the Church. It seems like you and many others are simply wishing to force your preferences on others and insist your way is better when the Church says they are equal. I see no problem when the choice is between two perfectly acceptable options, but clearly you do.
 
Link0126 said:
Wow. What a uselessly divisive attitude. This was a comment posted on the original article and I think it applies in this case:

“There is usually another side to every story. I do not condone an assault like this on anyone, but reading between the lines may it not be that the priest in question alienated his people by imposing his ways on them and ignoring their wishes arrogantly and high-handedly, thus creating hostility towards him? Priests are supposed to serve their people, not dictate to them and impose their own preferences. If most people do not want the TLM should a priest insist they have it?”

**The priest should be open to the wishes of the laity in so far as they are allowed by the Church. **It seems like you and many others are simply wishing to force your preferences on others and insist your way is better when the Church says they are equal. I see no problem when the choice is between two perfectly acceptable options, but clearly you do.
Click to expand...
The pastor is the parochial authority responsible for the spiritual well being of the faithfuls. He is not a democratic representative of a group. Just because the Church says that some things are acceptable it is erroneous to assume that the Church says that they are equal. Who is being arrogant, the priest or the parishoners? I would never go to my priest and tell him what to do unless what he is doing is clearly against the dictates of the Church. Sometime I would share my preferences, but I would not consider my pastor obliged to accept them.
 
Link0126 said:
Wow. What a uselessly divisive attitude. This was a comment posted on the original article and I think it applies in this case:

“There is usually another side to every story. I do not condone an assault like this on anyone, but reading between the lines may it not be that the priest in question alienated his people by imposing his ways on them and ignoring their wishes arrogantly and high-handedly, thus creating hostility towards him? Priests are supposed to serve their people, not dictate to them and impose their own preferences. If most people do not want the TLM should a priest insist they have it?”

The priest should be open to the wishes of the laity in so far as they are allowed by the Church. It seems like you and many others are simply wishing to force your preferences on others and insist your way is better when the Church says they are equal. I see no problem when the choice is between two perfectly acceptable options, but clearly you do.
Click to expand...
A side to every story? You are dangerously close to out and out condoning violence against a priest.
 
Cristiano said:
The pastor is the parochial authority responsible for the spiritual well being of the faithfuls. He is not a democratic representative of a group. Just because the Church says that some things are acceptable it is erroneous to assume that the Church says that they are equal. Who is being arrogant, the priest or the parishioners? I would never go to my priest and tell him what to do unless what he is doing is clearly against the dictates of the Church. Sometime I would share my preferences, but I would not consider my pastor obliged to accept them.
Click to expand...
There must be a balance struck here. While the pastor is, as you say, the parochial authority responsible for the spiritual guidance of the faithful, this does not make him the only authority nor does allow him to act in a grossly autocratic manner.
But know this - Church (Ekklesia) means community. In Mt 18:15-18 Jesus tells us to take obstinate disagreements and “Tell it to The Church” and that we need to "Listen to The Church.
You ask - who is being arrogant, the priest or the parishioners? The truth is that we cannot answer that question from the info in the linked article…However I suspect it may be a bit of both. OR it may just be one unbalanced person who has caused this trouble.

The pastor, if he is intelligent and wise and a true shepherd, will take into account the feelings of his flock and the flock will likewise take into account the authority of the shepherd.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
There must be a balance struck here. While the pastor is, as you say, the parochial authority responsible for the spiritual guidance of the faithful, this does not make him the only authority nor does allow him to act in a grossly autocratic manner.
But know this - Church (Ekklesia) means community. In Mt 18:15-18 Jesus tells us to take obstinate disagreements and “Tell it to The Church” and that we need to "Listen to The Church.
You ask - who is being arrogant, the priest or the parishioners? The truth is that we cannot answer that question from the info in the linked article…However I suspect it may be a bit of both. OR it may just be one unbalanced person who has caused this trouble.

The pastor, if he is intelligent and wise and a true shepherd, will take into account the feelings of his flock and the flock will likewise take into account the authority of the shepherd.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I think that a priest acknowledging someone feelings does not imply acting in response to them; however, saying that the flock takes in account the authority of the shepherd implies obedience and not physical aggression. Padre Pio did not go around banging heads to have his way.

I also think that you are showing a very good insight when you say “OR it may just be one unbalanced person who has caused this trouble”. Just from reading the daily news from Italy, it seems to me that the escalation of confrontational violence for stupid reasons is becoming more and more part of the Italian culture. I just got back from Italy and both my father and a stranger made comments about that, suggesting not to take stands for what could be a non critical right because of the risk of being killed. I am talking about something as basic as trying to cross a street on a pedestrian crosswalk with the expectation of being killed. BTW two days ago a senior motorist killed a man in his thirties for that reason. I think that Italy is further developing “the rats in a cage” syndrome, and I have seen it getting worst in the last two decades.
 
Link0126 said:
Wow. What a uselessly divisive attitude. This was a comment posted on the original article and I think it applies in this case:

“There is usually another side to every story. I do not condone an assault like this on anyone, but reading between the lines may it not be that the priest in question alienated his people by imposing his ways on them and ignoring their wishes arrogantly and high-handedly, thus creating hostility towards him? Priests are supposed to serve their people, not dictate to them and impose their own preferences. If most people do not want the TLM should a priest insist they have it?”

The priest should be open to the wishes of the laity in so far as they are allowed by the Church. It seems like you and many others are simply wishing to force your preferences on others and insist your way is better when the Church says they are equal. I see no problem when the choice is between two perfectly acceptable options, but clearly you do.
Click to expand...
If most people don’t want the TLM then they don’t have to go to it. I bet you that both forms of the Mass are offered and he probably celebrates the OF Mass with lots of reverence. There are tons of people that do not like how their(not all) OF Mass is celebrated with no reverence, but I haven’t heard any stories of them beating up their Priest. The Priest should lead his flock and not worry what a bunch of know nothing modernist think.
 
I read the article from the Italian news paper. I’m fluent in Italian, as I studied in Rome for several years. The news says that the preist had problems with the faithful, because he had “imposed” the EF on them and other traditionalist practices.

From where I sit, this is not a sin or a crime. It is imprudent to impose it, unless you have authority to back you up, such as a bisop or a religious superior who commands you to do so. The Holy Father has never said that this is to be imposed.

It also says that the assault was by a single man and the author describes this man as a very problematic and antagonistic person. In other words, he wasn’t just complaining. He decided to take matters into his own hands. I couldn’t help feeling that I was reading about these folks who are culpable of Road Rage.

While, the priest may have acted imprudently, NO ONE should ever be subjected to violence. What this man did is wrong to the extreme. It violates the dignity of another human being. It violates the dignity of the priest. It violates Church law, that’s why we have a chain of command in place. Every priest has either a bishop, if he’s diocesan or a religious superior, if he’s a regular priest.

There is no justification for this kind of behavior

Fortunately, Father is going to be OK.

Our prayer must be that men and women will always respect the dignity of another person, regardless of their point of view. The individual dignity, given to a human being by his Creator is inviolable, no matter how right and just you feel that your cause may be. There are no causes that surpass the inherent dignity of the human person. Therefore, there is never a justification to violate someone’s dignity in word or in action.

Whether we agree or disagree with the priest’s approach, his approach becomes a moot issue once the other person assaults him either verbally or physically.

While clericalism is to be avoided, it is not always a sin. Verbal and physical abuse are alwasy intrinsically evil. Abuse is not the same as self-defense. We must first address the evil that has been done, then deal with the pastoral approach of the priest, which may need some polishing. At this point, that’s secondary.

The message that has to go out to all Catholics is that no one has the right to attack another human being, either with words or actions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top