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

[Lucania]

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.

He didn’t use the words “the sermon stunk.” If you read the whole article, almost to the end it says this: “Father Rios, this is Angel Llavona. I attended Mass on Sunday & I have heard poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records.” This is the way I would have handled it: after I identified myself, I would ask him if we could meet & discuss Sunday’s homily. I would not have said what the Parishoner said. Having said that, I think the Priest was way out of line & should publicly apologize to Mr. Llavona and I, too think a sabatical is in order.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

What is going to be next? Going direct to sSuing because you do not like the homily?

Maybe I should sue my parish because one of the “Mass Setting” music sounds like it came from a 1920’s speakeasy (and I have stated so on the last survey)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m wondering if we in here had actually heard Fr. Rios’s homily, we might be siding with Angel Llavona?

It may be that Angel Llavona reacting toward a homily that was border line heresy.

But we don’t know.

Jim

 

[rlg94086]

I’m wondering if we in here had actually heard Fr. Rios’s homily, we might be siding with Angel Llavona?

It may be that Angel Llavona reacting toward a homily that was border line heresy.

But we don’t know.

Jim

Exactly. We don’t know. The reverse could also be true. If Fr. Rios came into a parish where he had to “clean things up” then Angel Llavona may have been offended by the orthodox preaching.

I think the only thing we can comment on is the priest’s handling of the matter. Clearly, he didn’t handle it well. I have had priests who have referred to correspondance from upset parishioners in their homily, but never by name or with enough info to identify them. Certainly, they never played a tape of the parishioner’s message.

 

[Bennie_P]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

IMHO, I think the secular media is playing lose with the situation, for we don’t have enough information concernig everthing that happen. Maybe they are both wrong, maybe not. this is is the reason why we are instructed as Christians to not “take” each other to court and is something that most likly should have been taken to the Bishop and not the courts. Whatever happen, one thing that is happening now is we are being lead around by the secular world and making judgement on our fellow Christian brothers and making ourselves out to appear foolish to the world, instead of being good witnesses. Can I get an agreement?

 

[rlg94086]

IMHO, I think the secular media is playing lose with the situation, for we don’t have enough information concernig everthing that happen. Maybe they are both wrong, maybe not. this is is the reason why we are instructed as Christians to not “take” each other to court and is something that most likly should have been taken to the Bishop and not the courts. Whatever happen, one thing that is happening now is we are being lead around by the secular world and making judgement on our fellow Christian brothers and making ourselves out to appear foolish to the world, instead of being good witnesses. Can I get an agreement?

AMEN! How’s that for agreement?

 

[Beachcomber]

What a sad situation.

However, what is missing here is, as has been mentioned, the content of the homily that Fr. Rios gave. That would be interesting.

Even if Angel L. did ‘begin’ the situation, it was wrong of Fr. Rios to respond as he did. As a priest, a person in religious life, he’s held to a higher standard. Maybe he should have just blown off the criticism; respond with humility thinking that you can’t please everybody, and get on with his life. But to bring it to the congregation like that–bad idea.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course Angel L isn’t all clean here. He’s bringing a lawsuit, in a civil court. He stands to make some money off of this.

If the priest’s homely was truly offending, or heretical, well, apparently by his actions, Angel L probably wouldn’t know either way. Being a strong Christian Catholic doesn’t seem to be one of his glowing points.

Angel L, instead of bringing a lawsuit, should’ve gone to the Bishop and complained and not look to make a $buck$ out it.

Jim

 

[Leopard]

Exactly. We don’t know. The reverse could also be true. If Fr. Rios came into a parish where he had to “clean things up” then Angel Llavona may have been offended by the orthodox preaching. …

Fr. Rios is not the Pastor. He is the resident Spanish-speaking Parochial Vicar for the Hispanic community of St. Thomas Parish in Crystal Lake.

 

[Jason_Hurd]

First of all, calling a telephone number and leaving a message on an answering machine or voice mail is always fraught with risk. The caller has put something down on recording that anyone might conceivably hear. It’s like e-mail: if you don’t want the world to read it, don’t send it. Second, whether the parishioner used the word ‘stunk’ or declared that the homily ‘broke all records’ is immaterial. The point of the whole thing is his disdain for a priest of his parish, who should always be approached with respect and humility. He is, after all, an ordained man of God. Third, for a parishioner to get so upset over the homily means that they have really lost all perspective as to why they are in church on Sunday in the first place. Mass is not about the homily, or about little kids running around, or about the family that attends in shorts and flip-flops, or about anything else that people like to get het up about. It is about the sacrifice, pure and simple. The homily really is the least important event going on during Mass, and such over-concern with it strikes me as more of a Protestant than a Catholic trait. If there is something a parishioner dislikes about the Mass he attended, be it clothing, homily, music, etc, then leaving a snide message on the presiding priest’s voice mail is not the way to get anything done about it. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Llavona was more interested in the childish thrill of criticising his priest than he was concerned about any irregularity, doctrinal or otherwise, in the homily in question; otherwise, why wouldn’t he have spoken to the priest face-to-face, like a man, instead of leaving a voice mail message?

 

[sea_oat]

Childish behavior from both of them.

 

[Newbie2]

Dittos.

Lawsuit? Sheesh. Grow up and act like a man.

BOTH of you!

 

[Fitz]

The homily really is the least important event going on during Mass, and such over-concern with it strikes me as more of a Protestant than a Catholic trait.

This says it all in a nutshell.

 

[pnewton]

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

I would recommend punishment proportional to their actions; spanking and a time-out.

I do not know we the plaintiff thinks he has a case. There is no expectation of privacy on a recorded phone and there was no libel. The transcript could have been published in the paper.