When to take a complaint to the Archdiocese

  • Thread starter Thread starter Austringer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Austringer

Guest
Hello all,

I’m wondering if any of you might have some insight on when a person ought to take a complaint about one’s priest to a higher level.

In this particular, circumstance, the priest has terminated a person’s employment because the person in question brought up concerns related to the priest’s obvious emotional attachment to a female staff person (it is NOT sexual, but mutually emotionally dependent). Further, this female staff member then tried to get the former employee dismissed at the parishioner’s place of new employment, the parish school (the priest had related these concerns to the female staffer).

When these punitive actions were brought up to the priest and protested, the priest responded with a letter claiming “threats” were made. A request for what these supposed “threats” were was not replied to. The person was removed from all volunteer activities at the church.

This person is thinking of going to the bishop. The parish council has been contacted, but the parishioner was told that “no one brings up complaints to Father, because they either are afraid of him or don’t think it will do any good”.

The priest is a good orthodox priest. The liturgy is reverent and the preaching is solid and fearless.
 
This would seem to be a “business” matter, rather than liturgical or theological. Therefore, one goes to the priest’s boss, which would seem to be the bishop or one of his assistants.

Not making any judgments here, but parishes are subject to the same legalities in the workplace as are other businesses.

The person in question needs documentation before taking things a step further, otherwise it becomes a he said/she said kind of thing, and they’ll lose that in a second.
 
Chains of command exist for a reason. The Priest answers to his Bishop. If you believe there is a legitimate issue for redress, that is your avenue.

That said, from what you have posted, it sounds like this person was way out of line in making the judgment of an inappropriate, albeit nonsexual, relationship. What seems to be a mutually emotionally dependent relationship to one person may in fact be a close friendship, close working relationship or jealousy thereof on the part of the observer.

I’ve been involved extensively in ministry in the Church in varied capacities for 35 years. There are significant gaps in the story being presented here.:hypno: :hypno: :hypno: Tell this person to proceed in honesty and charity.
 
Gerard,

There are significant gaps in the story as presented for the sake of brevity.

This person discovered, after reaching the conclusion mentioned, that others including staff members, the principal of the school, the choir (they had gone on a trip and this woman was also present) and close friends were well aware of the problem. A number of people, incuding friends of the priest, had attempted to bring the matter up to him – this was met with anger.

If you wanted the entire story spellled out, it is several pages (the person has been documenting the actions) and I would only send it to you privately and with permission.
 
Austringer,

Thanks for the feedback. If this situation is as you say, then the Bishop needs to be contacted. However, in my experience, lots of folks who commiserate about abusiveness head for the tall grass when confrontation time comes about.

Any investigation is going to require documentation of specifics and require witnesses to corroborate each specific allegation. The allegations need to separated into that which is actionable in civil court, possible Canonical offenses, and administrative abusiveness and imprudence.

The next issue is; what is it that you seek? A reassignment? An apology? This woman’s termination? What is it that you want the Bishop to do?

What if the Bishop finds nothing actionable? What will life be like with this priest afterward?

I suggest that you seek out a Canon Lawyer for consultation before approaching the Bishop. This will help focus your argument and bill of particulars. You may also gain some valuable inside information on how well disposed the Bishop might be to your bill of particulars.

God Bless
 
Thank you, Gerard. All that you write is most helpful.

I have asked some of the questions that you raise.

In answer to “what is it that you seek”, the answer given was, “acknowledgement of wrongdoing”. I think this has probably moved past the apology stage, though I suspect that it would have been sufficient at an earlier time.

I would guess that the parishioner also hopes that the relationship between the priest and the female staffer is addressed in some fashion, but I do not have a good idea as to what, if anything, is expected. I suppose that would be a matter for a Bishop to decide. (Personally, after seeing what is going on there in a number of areas, I believe a reassignment might be a good thing. This is a good priest, but I can see how he has surrounded himself with ‘yes men’ , and there is a ‘cult of personality’ that has developed around him – this can’t be good for a priest – such a temptation to pride.)

This person is most concerned with the letter removing the parishioner from all volunteer activities, in which the priest makes mention three times of “threats” that he claims were made. A letter sent in response, denying that claim and asking what specifically was said that constituted a threat, was never answered by the priest. So, the parishioner is concerned that any future employment in the diocese could be affected by this unanswered claim.

I am of your opinion: this person has been told by many (staff members, friends of the priests, the head of the parish council) that they are grateful for the person’s forthrightness in bringing this to Father’s attention as a concern. However, how many of them are going to stand behind this person when push comes to shove? I think they might if they have some assurance of anonymity or protection against retaliation, but is that ethical? Wouldn’t Father deserve to know who it is that is concerned? But then you have the spectacle of one person standing up against a powerful priest. I have been told that priests stick together, and that people who bring up concerns are often made out to be loonies.Hence the concerns about future diocesan employment…

This person is planning on discussiong this matter with a well-respected and holy priest who is also a canon lawyer. That is good advice as well.

Thank you!
 
Austringer:

“brought up” as in “settle with your brother” (Mat) discreetly?

If not, and it involved scandal at the outset, then the case is now a secular one, the accusers having received their reward, and now the option remaining is civil handling. A religious approach from here on if this is the case would be hypocritical. From a religious posture the argument was lost. Scripture describes the protocol.

If all is in accordance with Church teaching, I would designate a virtuous person to do the communication with the Bishop. That means anyone shacking up or popping drugs,etc,etc doesn’t qualify.

Observances aren’t priestly rules, they come from higher up, and Jesus also takes an interest in the state of complainers.

Andy
 
“brought up” as in “settle with your brother” (Mat) discreetly?/
Click to expand...
Yes, it was done discreetly and privately. This person is not a gossip, and indeed ignored the usual scuttlebutt that tends to fly around a parish. Thus, apparently it was a bit of a surprise when this was seen to be the case.
Scripture describes the protocol.
Click to expand...
Yes, and this parishioner tried that route, precisely because of the direction given by Scripture. The priest would have none of it.

It is a sad situation. The priest is solid in his teaching and preaching, but seems to have a disconnect in how he conducts himself in regards to criticism, no matter how well constructive or well-intentioned.
 
I think there are a couple of ways to look at this. And both are important.

First of all, you already seem to be looking at this from the point of view as to whether the actions of the woman and the priest are in keeping with Catholic principles.

But secondly, you need to imagine such a scenario in a secular organization. What would be a reasonable course of action for a fired employee? What kind of redress could/would such an employee expect? In the business world such things are generally settled by money, not words. And a monetary settlement doesn’t necessarily imply an admission of guilt on the part of the supposed offender. It is more a matter of finding money to be the simplest end to a matter of inconvenience

Most of us think the Church should be held to a higher standard than a secular business but in reality the legal aspect of things is pretty much the same. If this person is looking to point out a problem to the bishop that is fine. But I would caution this person not to expect any kind of public acknowledgment in return. No thank you. No apology. Consider this a case when the reward will come in the next life rather than this one.
 
The problem here is that the woman took her action as a parishioner, not as an employee. It would be totally improper and none of her business in an employee/employer relationship to mention anything about private relationships and affections and such.

She was insubordinate to the priest as an employee to her boss, but not as a parishioner. That said, there is no distinction between parishioner and employee for staff people.

Churches are terrible places to work, from what I can see. Once you take a job in your parish, you are an employee always, and all of your actions are viewed through that lens. Priests are not really good at running million dollar companies (in my view) and most parish staffs are pretty dysfunctional. Your mileage may differ - that’s just my observation.
 
The problem here is that the woman took her action as a parishioner, not as an employee.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I’m a bit confused: who is “the woman” here? If you are speaking of the female staffer who tried to get the parishioner dismissed at the parish school by using her influence as Father’s “special friend”, then I’m not sure what is specifically marks that action as coming from a parishioner as opposed to that of a staffer. Either way, I think the action was out of line, myself, and I’ve gone so far as to verify the story with the principal – not that I didn’t believe the parishioner, but it is good to verify after all.

Thanks, all of you, for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am thinking that the archdiocese needs to be informed, though I agree with SMHW: “But I would caution this person not to expect any kind of public acknowledgment in return. No thank you. No apology. Consider this a case when the reward will come in the next life rather than this one.”

The parishioner did speak to a priest/canon lawyer yesterday, one whose discretion is well-known. His advice, apparently, was to try one last time to discuss the matter with Father, and then go to the bishop (or, since the bishop is a busy man, to go to his Vicar General).

How sad this all is – this is what happens when shepherds forget that they are shepherds and not CEOs or kings. We need to pray for our priests: no doubt the temptation to lord it over the sheep can be a strong one.
 
Austringer said:
Sorry, I’m a bit confused: who is “the woman” here? If you are speaking of the female staffer who tried to get the parishioner dismissed at the parish school by using her influence as Father’s “special friend”, then I’m not sure what is specifically marks that action as coming from a parishioner as opposed to that of a staffer. Either way, I think the action was out of line, myself, and I’ve gone so far as to verify the story with the principal – not that I didn’t believe the parishioner, but it is good to verify after all.
Click to expand...
I thought you said that the ‘the priest has terminated a person’s employment’ (at the parish) and then the female staffer (with the relationship with the priest) tried to get the complainer fired from the parish school, where he/she landed after being fired from the parish.

If that’s not right, I’m sorry.

I’m confused as to how many players there are in this, but the Archdiocese needs to be informed.
 
I’m sorry, Paul – I know I’m being vague here and it is hard to keep track of the players!! But yes, you are essentially correct: Father terminated the part-time employment of the person who had raised some concerns with him about the dependency of the female staffer. This was done with no advance warning or any discussion: the person found out that they had been terminated at a parish party when another parishioner happened to mention that she’d been asked to do the job.

Apparently that wasn’t good enough for the female staffer/special friend of the priest: she then went to the parish school and tried to have the whistleblower dismissed. The whistleblower was part-time at the school and part-time at the parish – both jobs were being done simultaneously.

I’m not sure that one could say that the female staffer’s actions were done as a “parishioner” versus “church staff and priest’s special friend”.

Thanks, Paul – I apologize for my vagueness.
 
Austringer, no problem. I understand your need to be a little vaugue to protect people.

You’ve hit upon one of the subjects about the Church that I am most cynical about. Things that go on in some parishes are just plain unchristian. It’s like being “on staff” absolves people from being professional, much less charitable and Christian.

We deserve better, but, until there is a “Pastor Class” at the Diocesan level to teach new Pastors how to handle HR, Finance, and other business issues, I don’t think it’s going to get better.
 
Paul,

Yes, you are correct. However, it does show that our faith has to be in Christ, and cannot be sidetracked by excessive dependence upon our priests, no matter how holy!

I had some harsh things to say to the priest involved here. I told him that the Catholicism he preached to those of us in the pews apparently did not apply to him or his staff.

Needless to say, I didn’t score any points with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top