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

[Denise1957]

Actually, this is another example of two things happening that should not happen.

1. The priest handled the situation poorly. Anyone who has been through the seminary knows that we never assume that people know what to do when something is new. The EF is new to most Catholics. There are other options here. The priest can simply ask the person to kneel and put out his tongue. If he feels that this may be distracting, he can proceed to give him communion in the hand and say, “See me after mass.” Then you explain the rules. This happens all the time to people who travel to different places. They may go to another diocese or may enter mass at a religious house that uses another form. They simply don’t know that they must do something like kneel. The person may be thinking that he has a choice here as well. Walking past the person without saying a word is poor pastoral practice.

I remember a case where a young man attended mass at our novitiate. During the Eucharistic prayer he stayed at his seat. I believe he knelt. This was several years ago. In any case, the brothers were all standing around the altar, as has been our custom for conventual masses for 800 years. After the mass, one of the novices asked him why he did not join the brothers. He said that he did not know that he was allowed to do so. He was used to the OF where people stay put. We all felt badly, because no one signaled him to join us. We just assumed that because we knew the appropriate thing to do, everyone who entered our chapel knew. Wrong assumption!

1. That being said, the man was completely out of order. If I’m understanding this, to have to be escorted out, you must really be making a scene, not just mumbling under your breadth. What the man did was escalate the situation instead of help it. I’m sure that Father never expected this reaction either. The angry man may not have been well wrapped. Even when you don’t know what to do, you may be chagrined for a moment, but you don’t cause such a scene that you are booted out.

I was not there, so I don’t know. If the priest had said, “Please kneel,” and the man had refused, then the priest has to make a judgment call as to whether the man is properly disposed for Holy Communion. He may not be a Catholic, for all the priest knows. At least the priest took some pastoral step in the right direction. The rule, when giving out Holy Communion is that you never deny anyone Holy Communion, unless you have a reason to believe that there is something wrong (not a Catholic, a public sinner whom the bishop has asked not to receive, a child that is too young to have made his Holy Communion, drinking, etc).

However, I close with the same comment as I did in the Italian case. The fact that the priest was not quick on his feet is no justification for such behavior. People need to learn that we don’t throw tantrums and become verbally and physically aggressive, because we don’t get what we want. Unfortunately, we’re living in a world that teaches entitlement. Entitlement is a slippery slope. When people are not well wrapped and they feel entitled, beware.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I do not judge this priest as handling the situation poorly. We don’t know all the details. I heard about it second-hand from two people. It’s easy to say what the priest ‘should’ have done. But we are not priests. You believe that it’s poor pastoral practice to pass the person up, but it should also be remembered that the priest is giving the Body of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. He must act prudently because of this fact.

 

[Denise1957]

I suppose they could set up a Vernacular Mass Society and travel long distances to the nearest OF, if they feel slighted by their local priest for wanting CITH, versus populum, folk hymns and to be EMHCs.

Priceless!

 

[JReducation]

I do not judge this priest as handling the situation poorly. We don’t know all the details. I heard about it second-hand from two people. It’s easy to say what the priest ‘should’ have done. But we are not priests. **You believe that it’s poor pastoral practice **to pass the person up, but it should also be remembered that the priest is giving the Body of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. He must act prudently because of this fact.

The bold is mine.

This is not what I believe. This is what we were taught.

If the post is second hand or third hand information, there can be facts missing. The priest may have done what he was taught to do. However, the post simply says that he passed him up and went on to the next person. That is NOT what we’re taught to do or how we’re taught to handle these situations. The poster must be careful not to misrepresent the priest too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fidi]

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.

And another whinny liberal speaks. The priest was assaulted physically and harassed via ‘satan’ for his traditional views and you want to blame the priest for it? Really? “Its society’s fault not the criminals.” Awesome. Ive seen a lot of ugly banal NO masses. None of em made me want to hurt the priest. Maybe a stern Paul like rebuke but hitting a priest? A 76 year old priest at that? This spirit of modernism needs to be put down like a rabid dog. Yes, the crimes of communion on the tongue and Gregorian chant instead of hippie guitar music. The reason they would react this way is indeed because they are not true Catholic Christians. They are swayed easily by passions and resort to cowardly violence and intimidation.(Cowardly violence such as this, not the act of a Marine killing Mohammedan terrorists or a civilian killing an intruder in his home) Now we all are prone to sin, but these actions are outright malice. They hated the fact that they were having to deal with true Catholicism for the first time, and it was not the banal, irreverent paganism they were used to. So in their mob mentality they threatened and attacked a priest who wanted to put Christ back into the church. This isnt about a priest dictating over humble and meek parishioners. This is about a priest who is doing the right thing, and they hated and resented him for it. If they did it to St. Benedict, and even Christ the Lord, then they will do it to priests or ‘lesser’ statue. If the priest wishes to institute something that isnt in conflict with the magisterium or with the discipline of his Bishop or the Bishop of Rome, then he is in his full right to carry out such things as he sees fit. This is NOT a democracy. When the NO was first instituted, and abuses galore carried out, but no one beat up priests. There was complaints and church attendance dropped from 70% to 30%, but there was submission by the true faithful and they stuck it out and are fighting the modernism heresy as they did Arianism, Modialism, Iconoclastism etc… in the first millennia and the Church is coming back as it always had. These people dont want Christ or the Church Christ instituted, they want their own ‘religion’. Not anything remotely orthodox.

 

[JReducation]

And another whinny liberal speaks. The priest was assaulted physically and harassed via ‘satan’ for his traditional views and you want to blame the priest for it? Really? “Its society’s fault not the criminals.” Awesome. Ive seen a lot of ugly banal NO masses. None of em made me want to hurt the priest. Maybe a stern Paul like rebuke but hitting a priest? A 76 year old priest at that? This spirit of modernism needs to be put down like a rabid dog. Yes, the crimes of communion on the tongue and Gregorian chant instead of hippie guitar music. The reason they would react this way is indeed because they are not true Catholic Christians. They are swayed easily by passions and resort to cowardly violence and intimidation.(Cowardly violence such as this, not the act of a Marine killing Mohammedan terrorists or a civilian killing an intruder in his home) Now we all are prone to sin, but these actions are outright malice. They hated the fact that they were having to deal with true Catholicism for the first time, and it was not the banal, irreverent paganism they were used to. So in their mob mentality they threatened and attacked a priest who wanted to put Christ back into the church. This isnt about a priest dictating over humble and meek parishioners. This is about a priest who is doing the right thing, and they hated and resented him for it. If they did it to St. Benedict, and even Christ the Lord, then they will do it to priests or ‘lesser’ statue. If the priest wishes to institute something that isnt in conflict with the magisterium or with the discipline of his Bishop or the Bishop of Rome, then he is in his full right to carry out such things as he sees fit. This is NOT a democracy. When the NO was first instituted, and abuses galore carried out, but no one beat up priests. There was complaints and church attendance dropped from 70% to 30%, but there was submission by the true faithful and they stuck it out and are fighting the modernism heresy as they did Arianism, Modialism, Iconoclastism etc… in the first millennia and the Church is coming back as it always had. These people dont want Christ or the Church Christ instituted, they want their own ‘religion’. Not anything remotely orthodox.

I agree with you 100% that no one has the right to abuse another person. Abuse is never the moral choice.

Having said that, I am also reading in your thread a verbal attack toward someone with another opinion. Verbal attacks are also abuse. We have to combat abuse by explaining what is wrong and what should be done instead.

In this case, if the parishioners felt that the priest was pushing something on them, they have an alternative to abusing the poor man. If he’s a diocesan priest, he has a bishop. If he is a regular priest, he has a religious superior.

It is not true that a parish priest may impose on his parishioners. He must follow diocesan policies. I don’t live in that diocese. I have no idea what their policies are. I have no idea if the priest did or did not follow the policies. The people who were angry, needed to verify.

Also, the article did not say that it was the congregation that abused the priest. It clearly says that it was one disgruntled person. Apparently, there were many people in the congregation who were unhappy, but they did not abuse the priest. We have to careful here not to equate the two. Being unhappy is allowed. Abuse is never allowed. We should never attempt to condemn people for being unhappy. These are their feelings and they have a right to have them. They also have a duty to respond to them appropriately. This man failed to do so. That’s the crime here.

The question that the bishop or the religious superior has to deal with, when Father is back and feeling well, is whether or not Father followed diocesan policies. If he did, the case is closed. The man is guilty and there is nothing more to say.

If Father did not follow diocesan policies, then my guess would be that the civil authorities would deal with the attack on the priest, I hope so, and the bishop will try to work with the priest to see what can be done to improve the relations between the people and their parish priest. They’re two seprate issues. Do you see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And another whinny liberal speaks.

You lose all credibility when you start a post like this.

 

[Denise1957]

The bold is mine.

This is not what I believe. This is what we were taught.

If the post is second hand or third hand information, there can be facts missing. The priest may have done what he was taught to do. However, the post simply says that he passed him up and went on to the next person. That is NOT what we’re taught to do or how we’re taught to handle these situations. The poster must be careful not to misrepresent the priest too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No one is being misrepresented here.

I didn’t know that you are a priest…I thought you were a brother. Since you were taught that when you yourself give communion you are to never pass a person up, does this mean that there is never any sort of situation where a person cannot be passed up? Never? What about if a politician, for example, is known to publically support ideas that go against Church teaching, and the priest does not give out communion when he or she presents him or herself for communion. Does this go against what you were taught? I think it must.

 

[JReducation]

No one is being misrepresented here.

I didn’t know that you are a priest…I thought you were a brother. Since you were taught that when you yourself give communion you are to never pass a person up, does this mean that there is never any sort of situation where a person cannot be passed up? Never? What about if a politician, for example, is known to publically support ideas that go against Church teaching, and the priest does not give out communion when he or she presents him or herself for communion. Does this go against what you were taught? I think it must.

Wait a minute. I do not want you to be misled. I’m not a priest. I did study theology all the way through. I’m a religious brother. In many religiuos families, religious brothers study Master’s and Doctorates in theology. They go through the same formation program as their brother priests. That’s how I know about this point.

To answer your question . . . probably, the simplest course of action is not to walk past the person, but to ask them to see you later, then you may keep going. This does not mean that you’re not going to run into someone who is not well wrapped. It can certainly happen, even when you try to be discrete and polite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jnewaz]

I wish I was at that Mass. My heart tells me that like Peter in Gethsemene, violence is not the answer, and we should just stand by and let them take the Lord.

But in all honesty, I would’ve pummeled that guy into the ground.

Maybe thats my vice.

 

[jesuspsr]

I wish I was at that Mass. My heart tells me that like Peter in Gethsemene, violence is not the answer, and we should just stand by and let them take the Lord.

But in all honesty, I would’ve pummeled that guy into the ground.

Maybe thats my vice.

Yeah I’m with you jnewaz. I don’t think I could have just sit there and watch as this priest is being assulted either.

God bless

jesus g