Why I Didn't Go to Confession Today (a bishop's reaction to liturgical abuse at a mass)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone at my parish told me a story of how she had confessed some particularly embarrassing deeds to a priest at another parish, left the confessional and realized the priest had not said the words of absolution.

So she went back to the rectory, interrupted the priest who was having dinner and told him he never absolved her. He said he did, she said he didn’t and they went back and forth until he reluctantly told her to come in. She repeated her confession and this time he said the words.
 
Wonder if the bishop who witnessed the abuses thought of sending a letter of complaint to the priest’s Ordinary? Would’ve been interesting to see the response if a letter appeared on the priest’s bishop’s desk from another bishop complaining of the abuses he’d witnessed!😃 Having said that, it may have been even more amusing if the bishop who witnessed the abuses had been in his official"uniform" and approached the priest in question after Mass… That’s me needing to go to confession for thinking such thoughts!
 
Thanks for sharing this. Very nicely written.
I especially like that he did not just let it go…He states in his blog…
" I also began to wonder if I should say something to the priest afterwards. I mean, I was just there as a visitor not as his bishop or vicar general. I was also on vacation so … Nevertheless, I didn’t let it go. What I did or did not do, I will leave between me and the priest. I hope it was helpful.
I am heartened to see this and, like him, I hope it was helpful to his fellow priest.

Peace
James
 
I’ve always thought it was unfortunate that whenever the Bishop came to our parish he was the one who celebrated Mass. I wish he could have sat in the pew and seen what we experience each week. Things might have changed. Although the one thing he did see and never corrected was our parish standing for the entire Eucharistic Prayer and not kneeling for the Consecration. In fact, when some parishioners complained to him about it, his response was that it was OK since the Pastor had ordered it.
 
I thought whenever priests attended a mass they had to concelebrate? Can a bishop attend mass just like one of the laity?
 
Well written blog there, I will have to spend some time reflecting on his words and the comments he received.
 
nodito said:
I thought whenever priests attended a mass they had to concelebrate? Can a bishop attend mass just like one of the laity?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not necessary that they concelebrate.
Yes, a bishop can be just a person in the pew. He did say that when he got there it was too late to arrange to concelebrate.
 
Phemie said:
No, it’s not necessary that they concelebrate.
Yes, a bishop can be just a person in the pew. He did say that when he got there it was too late to arrange to concelebrate.
Click to expand...
My pastor once told me that there are some priests - particularly older priests - who actively refuse to concelebrate.

Also, there’s a city church near me with several priests, where they have a scheduled timetable of two or three Masses a day. When they celebrate the principal Mass of a feast, they don’t concelebrate, one of the priests acts as deacon. When I asked why, I was told that the other priest had already celebrated another Mass that day and the “only celebrate one Mass a day” rule applied; he couldn’t celebrate/concelebrate again but could act as deacon.

It’s also possible that as a visitor to the parish, which may have been outside his diocese and not under his jurisdiction, he may not have wanted to walk into the sacristy just before Mass and request to be allowed to concelebrate. He may have felt this would be rude - especially as, being a bishop, it may have resulted in the bishop being principal concelebrant and “bumped” the pastor into second place.

So there could be several reasons why a priest or bishop could attend Mass without celebrating/concelebrating.
 
Mark1970 said:
…
Also, there’s a city church near me with several priests, where they have a scheduled timetable of two or three Masses a day. When they celebrate the principal Mass of a feast, they don’t concelebrate, one of the priests acts as deacon. When I asked why, I was told that the other priest had already celebrated another Mass that day and the “only celebrate one Mass a day” rule applied; he couldn’t celebrate/concelebrate again but could act as deacon.
Click to expand...
True. Religious priests may celebrate or concelebrate an additional Mass at a Conventual Mass (the Mass of their religious house). All priests may celebrate two or three Masses in a day in case of pastoral necessity. November 2nd, All Souls Day, is specifically noted as a day when several Masses may be celebrated–but the second (or more) stipends must be donated to charity. For Holy Thursday Chrism Mass priests are allowed, even strongly encouraged, to concelebrate, even if it is a second Mass.

But they may not celebrate (or concelebrate) a second Mass without a good reason.
 
I thought this was very interesting:

"There is a theological practice of the Church called “Ecclesia supplet” (“the Church provides”) where if a priest inadvertently forgets some of the words of the ritual form or changes them, the “Church” recognizes the good faith of those gathered and their right to valid celebration of the sacraments and provides sacramental validity in the case of a human error or priestly malpractice. This is done for the sake of the people of God and not as an excuse for the sloppy or ‘creative’ celebration of the priest or bishop. "
 
Personally, I think this sort of thing (blog) approaches the level of creating scandal. The Bishop calls into question whether or not a priest might or might not be guilty of abuses in the confessional…and neither confirms nor denies such abuses.

He writes that he’s “pretty sure it was a valid mass”. If a Bishop cannot tell whether or not a mass is valid…

He says he wanted to go to confession after the mass…but does not make the parenthetical statement as to whether or not he felt he was in mortal sin. Anyone reading the blog might assume it was OK to go to mass and receive the Eucharist as long as they went to confession after mass.

He implies that having the Tridentine Rite would take care of all liturgical abuses. This is silly. and insulting to priests who celebrate the OF in a licit and valid manner, methinks.

If this was Joe parishioner, I’d have no problem with it. But as a Bishop, he used his office to give gravitas to his comments. After all, he attended mass as a “Joe Parishioner”, not as a Bishop, but then wonders aloud whether or not he should use the weight of his office to help affecte positive change. :confused:!

And it’s not clear what or how he addressed the issue; as a vacationing parishioner who shrugs his shoulders as “oh, well, I’m glad we don’t do that in our Parish” or as a Bishop, who although doesn’t have the same authority outside his diocese, nonetheless would seem to have a greater responsibility to the Church than Joe Parishioner.

While it’s not clear if he addressed the Archbishop of that particular diocese or not, it seems to me that the whole ordeal smacks of letting something go and complaining about it, then using the experience as evidence to support his personal preference to the Trintidine form.

Kinda like a politician blaming the other side for the problem, but not addressing it himself. Seems to me that rather than air the Church’s dirty laundry and giving good reason for non-Catholics to point out disorder and criticize the RC Church hierarchy, there would have been a more charitable and discreet way of handling this situation.
 
Newbie2 said:
Personally, I think this sort of thing (blog) approaches the level of creating scandal. The Bishop calls into question whether or not a priest might or might not be guilty of abuses in the confessional…and neither confirms nor denies such abuses.

He writes that he’s “pretty sure it was a valid mass”. If a Bishop cannot tell whether or not a mass is valid…

He says he wanted to go to confession after the mass…but does not make the parenthetical statement as to whether or not he felt he was in mortal sin. Anyone reading the blog might assume it was OK to go to mass and receive the Eucharist as long as they went to confession after mass.

He implies that having the Tridentine Rite would take care of all liturgical abuses. This is silly. and insulting to priests who celebrate the OF in a licit and valid manner, methinks.

If this was Joe parishioner, I’d have no problem with it. But as a Bishop, he used his office to give gravitas to his comments. After all, he attended mass as a “Joe Parishioner”, not as a Bishop, but then wonders aloud whether or not he should use the weight of his office to help affecte positive change. :confused:!

And it’s not clear what or how he addressed the issue; as a vacationing parishioner who shrugs his shoulders as “oh, well, I’m glad we don’t do that in our Parish” or as a Bishop, who although doesn’t have the same authority outside his diocese, nonetheless would seem to have a greater responsibility to the Church than Joe Parishioner.

While it’s not clear if he addressed the Archbishop of that particular diocese or not, it seems to me that the whole ordeal smacks of letting something go and complaining about it, then using the experience as evidence to support his personal preference to the Trintidine form.

Kinda like a politician blaming the other side for the problem, but not addressing it himself. Seems to me that rather than air the Church’s dirty laundry and giving good reason for non-Catholics to point out disorder and criticize the RC Church hierarchy, there would have been a more charitable and discreet way of handling this situation.
Click to expand...
Following your own argument, have you considered talking about your concerns to the bishop who posted these comments on his blog?
 
Mark1970 said:
Following your own argument, have you considered talking about your concerns to the bishop who posted these comments on his blog?
Click to expand...
If he were from my diocese, or if I followed his blog, I would. I’ve simply got too much else to worry about than to police the clergy. 😃
 
Newbie2 said:
If he were from my diocese, or if I followed his blog, I would. I’ve simply got too much else to worry about than to police the clergy. 😃
Click to expand...
Didn’t stop you complaining about him here, though! 😃
 
nodito said:
I thought whenever priests attended a mass they had to concelebrate? Can a bishop attend mass just like one of the laity?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe a priest is required to concelebrate at every mass he attends.
 
Mark1970 said:
Didn’t stop you complaining about him here, though! 😃
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, good point, but I was already here. I wouldn’t have bothered to read the blog otherwise. However, mine was not a complaint, rather an observation, lol.
 
Newbie2 said:
He says he wanted to go to confession after the mass…but does not make the parenthetical statement as to whether or not he felt he was in mortal sin. Anyone reading the blog might assume it was OK to go to mass and receive the Eucharist as long as they went to confession after mass.
Click to expand...
He had no need to make any parenthetical statement as it is no one’s business to know this.

Only those who think that the Sacrament of Penance is only for those who have mortal sin (which it is not) would assume such a thing and the biggest issue here is the assumption. Making assumptions is never a good thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top