Priest's alleged response to criticism of his homily leaves parishioner so angry he's suing the church and diocese

[b_justb]

Angel Llavona considered his priest open to honest criticism.

And so after one Sunday mass last year, Llavona telephoned the Crystal Lake priest and left a message that went something like this: Your sermon stunk.

The Rev. Luis Alfredo Rios, a priest at St. Thomas the Apostle Church, then did something equally brazen, Llavona claims. He played the private phone message during Sunday mass and asked his flock, “What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?”

Now Llavona, who was sitting in church when his message was played, is suing Rios and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford. Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered “immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.”

| THE REST OF THE STORY |

 

[Scout]

First of all, why would you call you priest and say, “Your sermon stunk”? Not only is it tactless and down right rude, it’s also disrespectful to the positon the priest has over his flock. If the guy had a problem with the sermon, there were better ways to discuss it with the priest. He could’ve asked for a private audience with the priest and spoke of his concerns, but to call the priest like that was uncalled for.

However, I also do not agree that the priest acted correctly, either. Was there any reason to play that message in front of the whole congregation, except to humiliate the guy who sent it? There would have been no way the congregation knew about the message if the priest hadn’t played it. So, was the priest just looking for revenge against the parishioner? Instead of playing the message to the congregation, the priest also should’ve sat down with the parishioner and spoke one-on-one with him.

It seems that there has been a major breakdown in communication in this parish. It’s sad that the parishioner feels the need to bring legal action against the diocese (as if the Catholic Church needs more of that). I hate to say “He started it”, but he started it. That’s not excusing anyone’s behavior, because it seems to me that they’re all acting like a bunch of whining 3rd graders.

This whole situation is ridiculous.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[b_justb]

Scout:

This whole situation is ridiculous.

[sign1]Amen[/sign1]

 

[Brendan]

Did the priest give the name of the caller? If he did, that was a gross overreaction.

If the message was played anonomously, that would be more acceptable,

The article didn’t say.

 

[Keikiolu]

Angel Llavona considered his priest open to honest criticism.

And so after one Sunday mass last year, Llavona telephoned the Crystal Lake priest and left a message that went something like this: Your sermon stunk.

The Rev. Luis Alfredo Rios, a priest at St. Thomas the Apostle Church, then did something equally brazen, Llavona claims. He played the private phone message during Sunday mass and asked his flock, “What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?”

Now Llavona, who was sitting in church when his message was played, is suing Rios and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford. Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered “immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.”

| THE REST OF THE STORY |

If this wasn’t so awful, this situation would be absolutely hilarious…!

What’s happened to the “deal with it between the two of you” idea? Has the word “PASTOR” come to be meaningless?

In truth, the parishoner WILL win the lawsuit, as the merits (on purely secular grounds) are perfectly sensible and appropriate.

The idiocy of the priest is astonishing…!

“…Send him to HELL”…?

WHAT…!!? Incredible idiocy…

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Angel Llavona considered his priest open to honest criticism.

And so after one Sunday mass last year, Llavona telephoned the Crystal Lake priest and left a message that went something like this: Your sermon stunk.

The Rev. Luis Alfredo Rios, a priest at St. Thomas the Apostle Church, then did something equally brazen, Llavona claims. He played the private phone message during Sunday mass and asked his flock, “What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?”

Now Llavona, who was sitting in church when his message was played, is suing Rios and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford. Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered “immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.”

| THE REST OF THE STORY |

The initial message was inappropriate, if one does not like the homily, there are respectful ways to convey that, in a way one would want others to do if the roles were reversed.

The actions by the “Rev.” Rios is even more inappropriate. A teacher is held to a higher standard, and if he is able to give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, not retaliating with planned and purposeful public humiliation should be even easier to give up. Playing the message back in itself was totally inappropriate. Going further with "“What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?” appears arrogant and inappropriate. He should be the first to offer an apology, set an example. Who cares if his feelings were hurt? Happens all the time with families, friends, aquantances, and others.

I remember about two years ago in San Juan going to daily Mass, and the first time the priest added several words to the Eucharist prayer. After Mass I was a bit nervous to ask, yet kindly asked if it was appropriate to be adding the addition words. He did not address my question, and responded “Have a good day”. The next day at daily Mass in his homily, he mentioned the “audacity” of someone questioning his words during Mass the previous day. I just sat there and smiled. Not only had I been correct concerning his “Liturgical abuse” the day before, but his purposeful abuse of his position, especially during a homily, spoke for itself. The “funny” part is, that some, if not most, of those listening might have thought he had be wronged, and good for him speaking up for the truth.

God bless,

Michael

 

[b_justb]

I wonder how many priests have wanted to do something like this but just didn’t. I can imagine hearing people whine and complain all the time can get on your nerves, priest or otherwise.

 

[anamchara]

Just to get the facts straight here. The man in question did annouce who he was in the phone message and from what I read he never actually used the word stunk. Here is the message from the link: “Father Rios, this is Angel Llavona. I attended mass on Sunday and I have seen poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records.”

Then the priest turned around and did this:

"Llavona then says in his lawsuit that he tried to arrange a meeting with Rios, but the priest refused. Then, Llavona claims, Rios played the phone message on Oct. 1, 2006, during two Sunday mass services. According to Llavona, Rios told the congregation, “This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That’s why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That’s why we didn’t get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?”

I think what the priest did was horrible. Sounds like the man wanted to meet with him privately to talk about it. I think the priest had decided already he didn’t like this man and used this to go after him. And he is a priest? :nope: what part of seminary taught him that public flogging was still all the rage?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Nobody in this story acted with much wisdom, but a wise judge would just throw this out as frivolous.

This didn’t happen in a confessional. Where is the expectation of privacy? The priest didn’t distort the message; he played it back. The remarks on the tape were not about the parishionner, but about the priest.

Sounds to me like the Bishop should sit the two of them down, in turn, and set them straight.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[He_Man]

Nobody in this story acted with much wisdom, but a wise judge would just throw this out as frivolous.

This didn’t happen in a confessional. Where is the expectation of privacy? The priest didn’t distort the message; he played it back. The remarks on the tape were not about the parishionner, but about the priest.

Sounds to me like the Bishop should sit the two of them down, in turn, and set them straight.

Blessings,

Gerry

Yep. Is this idiotic and foolish? Yes.

Is this worthy of a lawsuit? Give me a break.

A Catholic with a well formed conscience (who happens to be an authority on homilies as well, apparently) can’t rightly believe they deserve reparation for this.

 

[anamchara]

Nobody in this story acted with much wisdom, but a wise judge would just throw this out as frivolous.

This didn’t happen in a confessional. Where is the expectation of privacy? The priest didn’t distort the message; he played it back. The remarks on the tape were not about the parishionner, but about the priest.

Sounds to me like the Bishop should sit the two of them down, in turn, and set them straight.

Blessings,

Gerry

I sort of disagree. The expectation is that a priest would not react as he did. A simple phone call back to set up a time to talk it over would have been the decent thing to do. What it sounds like you are saying is that the priest didn’t really do anything wrong because he just played back what was said on the tape. It seems as though you feel he did nothing wrong. Did you miss the part where the priest says this: “This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That’s why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That’s why we didn’t get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?”

I think the priest needs to grab a clue and read his catechism, perhaps this section to start with:

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

I think the man should have just called and made an appointment to talk with the priest in person about his homily but to his credit he did want to meet with the priest. The priest is the one who needs a long sit down with the Bishop and perhaps a very long sabbatical.

 

[anamchara]

Yep. Is this idiotic and foolish? Yes.

Is this worthy of a lawsuit? Give me a break.

A Catholic with a well formed conscience (who happens to be an authority on homilies as well, apparently) can’t rightly believe they deserve reparation for this.

A public apology from the priest would be in the right thing to do. The priest is in a position to teach his parishioners humility. He made things worse by taking their disagreement public and misused his position to do it. It really is rather sickening.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

A public apology from the priest would be in the right thing to do. The priest is in a position to teach his parishioners humility. He made things worse by taking their disagreement public and misused his position to do it. It really is rather sickening.

Excellent points. I agree that a public apology would be appropriate, and model humility to others. I was tempted to say that would be Christ-like, then remembered Jesus did nothing that needed an apology, only thankfulness.

CCC # 1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ."

God bless,

Michael

 

[b_justb]

Gerry Hunter:

This didn’t happen in a confessional. Where is the expectation of privacy? The priest didn’t distort the message; he played it back. The remarks on the tape were not about the parishionner, but about the priest.

Maybe it’ll fall under the Linda Tripp laws

 

[rpp]

Did the priest give the name of the caller? If he did, that was a gross overreaction.

If the message was played anonomously, that would be more acceptable,

The article didn’t say.

From the article

Llavona then says in his lawsuit that he tried to arrange a meeting with Rios, but the priest refused. Then, Llavona claims, Rios played the phone message on Oct. 1, 2006, during two Sunday mass services. According to Llavona, Rios told the congregation, “This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That’s why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That’s why we didn’t get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?”

So apparently yes, he did identify the caller. Besides, people who would know the man may have recognized his voice on the recording.

 

[rlg94086]

A public apology from the priest would be in the right thing to do. The priest is in a position to teach his parishioners humility. He made things worse by taking their disagreement public and misused his position to do it. It really is rather sickening.

I agree wholeheartedly. It looks like a form of vengence on the part of the priest to me.

 

[mpb74]

The complainant should rightfully win the suit, As in Leon Uris’s QB VII, He should receive payment of one dollar. I suggest it be paid in 4 Quarters so that the next time he dislikes a sermon, he will be able to call somebody who cares about his poorly worded opinion. He will have enough money left over to buy and read the paper on his lonely Sunday mornings.

As for Father Rios, while not quite the resurrection of Torquemada, I believe a man going by the title of Father should be able to behave like a grown-up instead of pretending to be a martyr to his ministry. I wish he went to grammar school with me as Sister Grace Anthony would have rightly and appropriately boxed his little ears until his oversized ego came down to a size more befitting a man preaching the good news of our Saviour. FWIW Dan

 

[Rebelecka]

I wish he went to grammar school with me as Sister Grace Anthony would have rightly and appropriately boxed his little ears until his oversized ego came down to a size more befitting a man preaching the good news of our Saviour. FWIW Dan

Outstanding!!

 

[Holly3278]

It seems to me that both are in the wrong here. First of all, the parishioner should not have called and left a message saying the sermon stunk. That is just downright rude and there are more tactful ways to get such a point across. Second of all, the priest should not have done what he did. He may have just done it as a joke but what he did was wrong and insensitive. That said, the parishioner was rather insensitive as well.

 

[Nohome]

The complainant should rightfully win the suit, As in Leon Uris’s QB VII, He should receive payment of one dollar. I suggest it be paid in 4 Quarters so that the next time he dislikes a sermon, he will be able to call somebody who cares about his poorly worded opinion. He will have enough money left over to buy and read the paper on his lonely Sunday mornings.

If he can demonstrate injury, he could collect a lot more. He was defamed in public, this could make getting a job difficult and he may nolonger feel welcome in the church. I agree that on the surface this looks like nothing, but there is a potential for real financial liability.

As for Father Rios, while not quite the resurrection of Torquemada, I believe a man going by the title of Father should be able to behave like a grown-up instead of pretending to be a martyr to his ministry. I wish he went to grammar school with me as Sister Grace Anthony would have rightly and appropriately boxed his little ears until his oversized ego came down to a size more befitting a man preaching the good news of our Saviour. FWIW Dan

This priest personifies the clerical mindset of the priesthood. If we ran the church like a business, he would be fired. I suspect, at most, he would be relocated.

Nohome