The Precious Blood

[benedictgal]

Is this something that should properly be addressed to the Pastor of the Church or the priest directly? I feel I am in an awkward situation here.

The documents state that it should be brought up to the bishop, while there are many opinions nothing that the matter should also be addressed to the pastor. It needs to be taking care of as soon as possible, as this is a grave situation.

 

[Pax1972]

I fail to understand why people feel that they need to run off and find another parish every time there is an issue which upsets them, whether it is legitimate abuse or otherwise.

Our call to love each other is carried out first in the family, and then in the parish. After the family, parish life is where our membership in Christ’s Body becomes real, where the fact that we are all members in Christ’s Body called to love each other is carried out. And love means to put up with, to be patient with, to bear the faults of others, and to put the needs of other’s before our own, and to die for one another if called upon to do so. And that self-sacrificing love - Christ’s love - means that we don’t abandon each other just because something happens that we don’t like, even if it is outright abuse.

That’s the way it was in the earliest Churches - Ephesius, Corinth and Phillipi. These people didn’t have the option of driving to the next zip code to look for a church where abuses didn’t take place. They had to stay there and put up with it, working through it, and correcting it. And they grew as Christians because of their effort, not only as individuals, but as a group, as a parish. It was like a family, and just like a family, they didn’t run off every time they were faced with some difficutly.

When did people start to feel that their parish was something which is disposable or something which was there to serve them instead of the other way around?

This I think, is the perfect solution. Why not serve the parish and the brethren instead of abandoning it. Perhapse God is calling lakotak like he did Abraham and Samuel?

-Tim-

What a blessing it is to read this response. I can’t think of a more appropriate and charitable way to address the OP’s question/concern. Our Lord’s grace abounds.

Peace

 

[lakotak]

The documents state that it should be brought up to the bishop, while there are many opinions nothing that the matter should also be addressed to the pastor. It needs to be taking care of as soon as possible, as this is a grave situation.

I don’t understand why this would have to be brought before a bishop instead of the pastor first. This is a very awkward situation for me. The priest has come home after about 25-30 years in the mission field.

 

[zab]

I don’t understand why this would have to be brought before a bishop instead of the pastor first. This is a very awkward situation for me. The priest has come home after about 25-30 years in the mission field.

It is always best to go through the chain of command. I’m sure the priest in question would rather be spoken to by the pastor before it going to the bishop. But I have to say that I think Tim gave a great answer, too.

 

[lakotak]

It is always best to go through the chain of command. I’m sure the priest in question would rather be spoken to by the pastor before it going to the bishop.

This is what I was thinking.

 

[benedictgal]

This is what I was thinking.

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum states that:

1. The Diocesan Bishop
   [176.] The diocesan Bishop, “since he is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, is to strive constantly so that Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments, and that they may know and live the Paschal Mystery”.285 It is his responsibility, “within the limits of his competence, to issue norms on liturgical matters by which all are bound”.286

[177.] “Since he must safeguard the unity of the universal Church, the Bishop is bound to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws. He is to be watchful lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the Saints”.287

[178.] Hence whenever a local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a religious Institute or of a Society of apostolic life receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, let him carefully investigate, either personally or by means of another worthy cleric, concerning the facts and the circumstances as well as the imputability.

[179.] Delicts against the faith as well as graviora delicta committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which “examines [them] and, if necessary, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law”.288

[180.] Otherwise the Ordinary should proceed according the norms of the sacred canons, imposing canonical penalties if necessary, and bearing in mind in particular that which is laid down by canon 1326. If the matter is serious, let him inform the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

…184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

In the remedy section, the priest is not mentioned in the remedy section as the point of contact. The bishop is.

 

[MusicMan]

Oh, my goodness, is it possible we’re making a mountain out of a molehill here?

First, you cannot self commune, so you receive the host and not the cup. And really, it’s kind of a “big deal, so what” as Jesus is fully present in the host.

Second, don’t go running to the bishop on this until you’ve talked to the priest committing the infraction. If he’s come home from 30 years in the mission, he’s probably used to doing things a bit differently. A little friendly correction might go a lot further than the bishop having to talk with him about it.

 

[zab]

…Our call to love each other is carried out first in the family, and then in the parish. After the family, parish life is where our membership in Christ’s Body becomes real, where the fact that we are all members in Christ’s Body called to love each other is carried out. And love means to put up with, to be patient with, to bear the faults of others, and to put the needs of other’s before our own, and to die for one another if called upon to do so. And that self-sacrificing love - Christ’s love - means that we don’t abandon each other just because something happens that we don’t like, even if it is outright abuse. …

-Tim-

I used to serve as an EMHC. Occassionlly, we had to adjust to visiting priests who did not always do things as they should have been done. Sometimes it was retired elderly priests who may have forgotten something or maybe they were never instructed on the changes that were put into place when Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued, I don’t know. All I know is that we had to adapt when things did not go as they were supposed to. Some priests would kindly accept little nudgings from the altar servers or EMHC on what to do. Other priests made it clear that they were the one in charge. Whatever the situation, the altar servers and the EMHC had to adapt to the situation. I don’t think it would be wise to write the bishop every time we see that something is not done properly. Unless one has a serious concern about the priest, I think we must remember that “beggars can’t be choosers” when it comes to the pastor finding a replacement when he has to be gone. It is best to bring your concerns to the pastor first.
P.S. I took so long to write my post I forgot who I quoted. Tim makes a lot of sense.

 

[lakotak]

I used to serve as an EMHC. Occassionlly, we had to adjust to visiting priests who did not always do things as they should have been done. Sometimes it was retired elderly priests who may have forgotten something or maybe they were never instructed on the changes that were put into place when Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued, I don’t know. All I know is that we had to adapt when things did not go as they were supposed to. Some priests would kindly accept little nudgings from the altar servers or EMHC on what to do. Other priests made it clear that they were the one in charge. Whatever the situation, the altar servers and the EMHC had to adapt to the situation. I don’t think it would be wise to write the bishop every time we see that something is not done properly. Unless one has a serious concern about the priest, I think we must remember that “beggars can’t be choosers” when it comes to the pastor finding a replacement when he has to be gone. It is best to bring your concerns to the pastor first.
P.S. I took so long to write my post I forgot who I quoted. Tim makes a lot of sense.

I guess my question at this point is: am I under any penalty of grave sin if I do not report it to someone in authority?

 

[zab]

I guess my question at this point is: am I under any penalty of grave sin if I do not report it to someone in authority?

No, you are not. The least you could do is to make a little act of reparation. “My Jesus Mercy.”

 

[JRKH]

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum states that:

In the remedy section, the priest is not mentioned in the remedy section as the point of contact. The bishop is.

benedictgal,
While I appreciate your desire to see things done correctly, wouldn’t it be more charitable to simply ask the priest, in all humility, about the matter before “lodging a complaint” with the Bishop.
I’m reminded of Mt 18:15-18 which starts out by saying “go to your brother in private…” before involving others in the matter…

The Bishop’s office in most diocese are quite busy places and if the matter can be resolved quietly and locally, why not do it… Charity first…

Peace
James

 

[benedictgal]

Oh, my goodness, is it possible we’re making a mountain out of a molehill here?

First, you cannot self commune, so you receive the host and not the cup. And really, it’s kind of a “big deal, so what” as Jesus is fully present in the host.

Second, don’t go running to the bishop on this until you’ve talked to the priest committing the infraction. If he’s come home from 30 years in the mission, he’s probably used to doing things a bit differently. A little friendly correction might go a lot further than the bishop having to talk with him about it.

We are not making a mountain out of a molehill, especially, since the Church has already stated that what the OP witnessed was a grave abuse. Second, what I posted is hwo the Church specifies that abuses should be reported and handled.

It’s not a question of running to the bishop. The bishop needs to know that this kind of thing is happening. Perhaps, he can also use this as a teaching moment for his priests so as to remind them that this sort of thing is not to be done. He may also use this time to review both the revised GIRM, RS and all of the other liturgical documents.

 

[MusicMan]

Any time you go over someone’s head without at least trying to resolve the matter with them, there is a danger of making a mountain out of a molehill. This is no different.

I’d recommend that the OP talk to the priest first. The documents you’ve brought up read like you can go to Rome, but start with the Bishop for the formal complaint process. Why not start with an informal resolution process?

 

[Digitonomy]

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum states that…
In the remedy section, the priest is not mentioned in the remedy section as the point of contact. The bishop is.

I would suggest an alternative reading of paragraph 184 is that every Catholic has the right to lodge a complaint to the bishop and to the Holy See - but it is best to go to the bioshp first rather than bothering the Holy See. I don’t think the document precludes complaining to one’s pastor, since he is our point of contact for pretty much any concern one may have.

I know there are other statements from the Church about our right and duty to complain, which you have cited in the past. I’m curious whether any of those contradict this interpretation?

 

[benedictgal]

I would suggest an alternative reading of paragraph 184 is that every Catholic has the right to lodge a complaint to the bishop and to the Holy See - but it is best to go to the bioshp first rather than bothering the Holy See. I don’t think the document precludes complaining to one’s pastor, since he is our point of contact for pretty much any concern one may have.

I know there are other statements from the Church about our right and duty to complain, which you have cited in the past. I’m curious whether any of those contradict this interpretation?

The fact that the priest is not even mentioned as the first point of contact in any of these documents seems to me that the bishop is the initial point of reference. The matters are generally directed to the bishop first and foremost.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The fact that the priest is not even mentioned as the first point of contact in any of these documents seems to me that the bishop is the initial point of reference. The matters are generally directed to the bishop first and foremost.

I work for my diocese, and have frequent conversations with the Bishop and his staff.
In just about all cases where the allegations of “abuses” or illicit practices some up in a particular parish, the ***VERY FIRST THING ***asked by the Bishop’s office is, *“Have you talked to the Pastor about this?” *If the answer is no, the Bishop’s office tells the person- "Do this first and then if there is no response, they should call again. But the complaintant is also told that they must give the Pastor time to investigate, ususally 30 days.

I cannot see why anyone would not want to try to resolve any problems in the easiest, most cordial way. And going over my Pastor’s head, straight to the Bishop, without giving my Pastor the benefit of the doubt just seems very wrong to me.

 

[MusicMan]

The fact that the priest is not even mentioned as the first point of contact in any of these documents seems to me that the bishop is the initial point of reference. The matters are generally directed to the bishop first and foremost.

Yes, in filing a formal complaint.

In terms of getting a situation resolved, you start with the person you’re having the conflict with, and then go up the chain.

 

[JRKH]

I work for my diocese, and have frequent conversations with the Bishop and his staff.
In just about all cases where the allegations of “abuses” or illicit practices some up in a particular parish, the ***VERY FIRST THING ***asked by the Bishop’s office is, *“Have you talked to the Pastor about this?” *If the answer is no, the Bishop’s office tells the person- "Do this first and then if there is no response, they should call again. But the complaintant is also told that they must give the Pastor time to investigate, ususally 30 days.

I cannot see why anyone would not want to try to resolve any problems in the easiest, most cordial way. And going over my Pastor’s head, straight to the Bishop, without giving my Pastor the benefit of the doubt just seems very wrong to me.

 

[benedictgal]

I work for my diocese, and have frequent conversations with the Bishop and his staff.
In just about all cases where the allegations of “abuses” or illicit practices some up in a particular parish, the ***VERY FIRST THING ***asked by the Bishop’s office is, *“Have you talked to the Pastor about this?” *If the answer is no, the Bishop’s office tells the person- "Do this first and then if there is no response, they should call again. But the complaintant is also told that they must give the Pastor time to investigate, ususally 30 days.

I cannot see why anyone would not want to try to resolve any problems in the easiest, most cordial way. And going over my Pastor’s head, straight to the Bishop, without giving my Pastor the benefit of the doubt just seems very wrong to me.

But, in some cases, at least those addressed in Redemptionis Sacramentum, one should not have to wait 30 days to resolve a matter of grave liturgical abuse.

I served on our diocesan liturgical commission for three years. During that time, a matter of an ilicit liturgical practice came up (during nuptial Masses presided by a certain priest). Nobody knew any better. While we were waiting for the rest of the committee to show up, I told the bishop and the diocesan director about the situation. As this has actually happened at my own cousin’s wedding, I offered to show the bishop the tape. He declined, but addressed the matter. The strange ritual did not rear its ugly head again.

On another occasion, after my time on the diocesan liturgical commission had ended, a visiting priest was conducting a mission in a parish where I happened to be at for daily Mass. He was making up his own Collect and other strange abnormalities. The next day, I ran into the bishop at the city Christmas tree lighting event. I told him about it and he was shocked. He thanked me and said that he would address the matter.

While neither of these episodes were conducted via formal written notification, they were addressed.

Oddly enough, when my own father had a serious matter with his pastor and wrote two letters, one to the pastor and the other to the bishop (the latter being sent certified), nothing happened. It was not until he took the matter to the CDWDS that the issue was finally resolved. This particular incident also occurred after my service on the diocesan liturgical committee had ended.

 

[MusicMan]

benedictgal, I don’t quite understand why you want to nail this guy to the proverbial cross so badly.

If a member of the faithful could resolve the matter by a simple conversation, why must a formal complaint be filed?

I know this is a grave matter, but is it one that must be dealt with via channels and the possibility of punishment?

Can’t it just be fixed in house?