women not allowed to distribute the Precious Body?

[RyanBlack]

But hey, if you are comfortable calling your pastor “wicked” and accusing him of “grave and scandalous sin” who am I to stop you?

Is racism not wicked? Is it not a grave and scandalous sin?

 

[Corki]

No, I’ve never heard of a priest excluding EMHCs on the basis of race, and would be shocked were I to encounter such a thing–and I’m generally shock-proof. If such a hypothetical were to happen, how would you respond to such a scandalous evil?

IF, and it’s a big “if”, such a thing were to happen and IF, an even bigger “if”, I were in the position of discussing it with the priest, I would do so with charity and humility, giving him a chance to explain and encouraging him to make a change to his practice. I wouldn’t go blustering in accusing him of “wickedness”, “evil” or “sin”.

 

[RyanBlack]

IF, and it’s a big “if”, such a thing were to happen and IF, an even bigger “if”, I were in the position of discussing it with the priest, I would do so with charity and humility, giving him a chance to explain and encouraging him to make a change to his practice. I wouldn’t go blustering in accusing him of “wickedness”, “evil” or “sin”.

I realize that we’re talking about a hypothetical that is not likely to happen. Why is it not likely to happen? Well, because it is so obviously wicked, evil, gravely sinful, etc. When is there ever a time for calling what is so obviously evil and gravely sinful, well, evil and gravely sinful? How bad would it have to get?

 

[Corki]

I realize that we’re talking about a hypothetical that is not likely to happen. Why is it not likely to happen? Well, because it is so obviously wicked, evil, gravely sinful, etc. When is there ever a time for calling what is so obviously evil and gravely sinful, well, evil and gravely sinful? How bad would it have to get?

For me to have such a conversation with a pastor, something actually wicked would have to have occurred. Choosing EHMCs, for whatever reason, even a bad reason, isn’t wicked. It might be sinful, that’s between the priest and his confessor. It could very well be a bad decision and a poor pastoral act but that wouldn’t be a good reason for me to be rude and uncharitable to my pastor.

Is racism not wicked? Is it not a grave and scandalous sin?

Racism isn’t wicked per se; it’s a warped state of mind, a wrong way of thinking. Certain acts, motivated by racism, may be grave sin or scandalous, even “wicked”. I am not sure that your hypothetical rises to that level. We have lots of evil in the world. Picking person A instead of Person B to be an EMHC is pretty minor in the larger scheme of things.

 

[RyanBlack]

For me to have such a conversation with a pastor, something actually wicked would have to have occurred. Choosing EHMCs, for whatever reason, even a bad reason, isn’t wicked. It might be sinful, that’s between the priest and his confessor. It could very well be a bad decision and a poor pastoral act but that wouldn’t be a good reason for me to be rude and uncharitable to my pastor.

Racism isn’t wicked per se; it’s a warped state of mind, a wrong way of thinking. Certain acts, motivated by racism, may be grave sin or scandalous, even “wicked”. I am not sure that your hypothetical rises to that level. We have lots of evil in the world. Picking person A instead of Person B to be an EMHC is pretty minor in the larger scheme of things.

Let me clarify something. I wouldn’t assume that just because at any given Mass I saw no African-American EMHCs that the pastor was intentionally excluding them. In such a case, I would say nothing. I wouldn’t say anything even after having witnessed such a thing many times. I might get suspicious, but I wouldn’t assume anything. After all, it’s possible that no African-Americans had expressed any interest in serving as an EMHC.

If I knew that the pastor were intentionally excluding African-Americans because of their race (and again, I agree that this hypothetical is extremely unlikely), my conscience would not permit me to remain silent, because excluding people on the basis of their race is a grave offense against their inherent dignity as humans created in the image of God. It is a grievous offense against the body of Christ. Picking Person A instead of Person B to be an EMHC is fairly minor. However, entirely excluding Race A is in no way minor. How could the exclusion of an entire race of people not rise to the level of evil, or wickedness?

Finally, I see nothing rude or uncharitable in pointing out to a priest in such circumstances, the extremely scandalous and gravely sinful nature of his conduct. A priest, of all people, should know that to exclude an entire group of people from service on the basis of their race is gravely sinful. Pointing out to him the necessity that he repent and amend his conduct for the sake of his own soul, as well as for the sake of the Church to give witness to the Gospel is neither rude nor uncharitable. Rather, it would be a duty.

 

[Corki]

I guess I look at it a little differently. Redemptions Sacramentum, for example sets out guidelines as to when a person should act decisively in response to liturgical abuse. There are some offenses that are really serious and others much less so.

When it comes to racism, sexism or any other form of bigotry, I am much more concerned about protecting individual rights. People have a right to employment, to vote, to have access to public accommodations. Discrimination in these areas is a big deal. NO ONE has a “right” to be an EMHC. So, discrimination in that regard, even if wrong, is a much less serious matter.

To compare it to the OP’s original issue … Some priests might actually be sexist. Others might just prefer men in liturgical roles. Since no one has a right to any of these positions, it’s not a huge issue and it’s really not important to dig and dig to try to find out the pastor’s “true” motives. It’s certainly not something that would reach the level of “wickedness” or “evil”.

 

[PRmerger]

Some priests might actually be sexist. Others might just prefer men in liturgical roles.

If it is the former, then he ought not be permitted to put his sexist views into policy.

If it is the latter, then what’s with offering women only the cup? Isn’t that as much a liturgical role as the host?

 

[Corki]

If it is the former, then he ought not be permitted to put his sexist views into policy.

Why not? If it’s something that is not a “right” but simply an option? He’s not inflicting harm on anyone nor is he depriving anyone of any right.

If it is the latter, then what’s with offering women only the cup? Isn’t that as much a liturgical role as the host?

That’s the thing about** personal **preferences. They are personal. I have been to parishes where only males were altar servers but women were readers and another where women were EMHCs but only men were ushers. Pastor’s choice. Maybe it’s habit, maybe tradition, maybe something else. Some parishes have women as sacristans, others limit the role to men; some have men on Sundays but women during the week. It doesn’t really matter.

 

[PRmerger]

Why not? If it’s something that is not a “right” but simply an option? He’s not inflicting harm on anyone nor is he depriving anyone of any right.

For the very same reason that he ought not put his racist views into policy.

That’s the thing about** personal **preferences. They are personal. I have been to parishes where only males were altar servers but women were readers and another where women were EMHCs but only men were ushers. Pastor’s choice. Maybe it’s habit, maybe tradition, maybe something else. Some parishes have women as sacristans, others limit the role to men; some have men on Sundays but women during the week. It doesn’t really matter.

And personal preferences can be questioned as well as admonished.

A policy that all altar servers have the middle name of “Pat” is also a personal preference, but it is one that ought to be questioned.

 

[Corki]

And personal preferences can be questioned as well as admonished.

A policy that all altar servers have the middle name of “Pat” is also a personal preference, but it is one that ought to be questioned.

Question all you want and “admonish” all you want. But in the end, if the pastor just smiles at you - he’s right. The pastor has the right to determine how Mass is said and that includes who is chosen for liturgical roles. You have the right to question him about those choices but he is under no obligation to respond and he certainly doesn’t have to endure “admonishment”. Now, of course, he should be charitable but being pastor doesn’t mean that he has to passively endure verbal abuse.

 

[PRmerger]

Question all you want and “admonish” all you want.

Well, that’s what I’m doing, eh?

 

[RyanBlack]

I guess I look at it a little differently. Redemptions Sacramentum, for example sets out guidelines as to when a person should act decisively in response to liturgical abuse. There are some offenses that are really serious and others much less so.

When it comes to racism, sexism or any other form of bigotry, I am much more concerned about protecting individual rights. People have a right to employment, to vote, to have access to public accommodations. Discrimination in these areas is a big deal. NO ONE has a “right” to be an EMHC. So, discrimination in that regard, even if wrong, is a much less serious matter.

To compare it to the OP’s original issue … Some priests might actually be sexist. Others might just prefer men in liturgical roles. Since no one has a right to any of these positions, it’s not a huge issue and it’s really not important to dig and dig to try to find out the pastor’s “true” motives. It’s certainly not something that would reach the level of “wickedness” or “evil”.

Regardless of the lack of any right to serve, it is gravely sinful to exclude people on the basis of their race. It is scandalous, it harms the ability of the Church to teach the Gospel, it is an offense against human dignity. It is evil, and a priest who would do such a thing is unworthy of the office.

 

[RyanBlack]

Question all you want and “admonish” all you want. But in the end, if the pastor just smiles at you - he’s right. The pastor has the right to determine how Mass is said and that includes who is chosen for liturgical roles. You have the right to question him about those choices but he is under no obligation to respond and he certainly doesn’t have to endure “admonishment”. Now, of course, he should be charitable but being pastor doesn’t mean that he has to passively endure verbal abuse.

A priest’s rights do not excuse unjust discrimination.

 

[RyanBlack]

I guess I look at it a little differently. Redemptions Sacramentum, for example sets out guidelines as to when a person should act decisively in response to liturgical abuse. There are some offenses that are really serious and others much less so.

I’m not looking at this as a matter of liturgical abuse. I’m looking at it as a matter of abuse of power and the denial of the equal dignity of all mankind, regardless of race. I find entirely unacceptable the idea that racial discrimination with respect to who is permitted to serve in the Church is somehow not that big of a deal in the Church, since no layperson has a right to serve. No one has a right to ordination either. Would we justify a racist bishop’s refusal to ordain men who are not white simply because that is his preference, and there is no right to ordination? I would hope not. If it were known that a bishop were refusing to ordain African-American men, it would cause grave scandal (and rightly so), both to those within the Church, as well as to those without. No doubt, people would fall away from the faith, and there would be those contemplating coming into the Church who would quickly change there minds. Using the reasoning that such behavior, however misguided, ultimately just has to be accepted because bishops can ordain whomever they choose would only serve to increase the scandal. If a bishop actually were systematically doing this and it became widely known, I strongly suspect that Pope Francis would remove him.

 

[RyanBlack]

When it comes to racism, sexism or any other form of bigotry, I am much more concerned about protecting individual rights. People have a right to employment, to vote, to have access to public accommodations. Discrimination in these areas is a big deal. NO ONE has a “right” to be an EMHC. So, discrimination in that regard, even if wrong, is a much less serious matter.

It’s bad enough to face these things in the secular workplace. To encounter unjust discrimination within the Church is more serious matter, not a less serious matter, since it comes with great potential to cause grave spiritual harm to people.

 

[Corki]

Regardless of the lack of any right to serve, it is gravely sinful to exclude people on the basis of their race. It is scandalous, it harms the ability of the Church to teach the Gospel, it is an offense against human dignity. It is evil, and a priest who would do such a thing is unworthy of the office.

And again, when have you ever encountered a priest doing this? You have lots of bad things to say about these hypothetical priests who are hypothetically “evil” and “wicked”. Your posts use language that insinuates that this is actually happening but you present absolutely no proof or even any examples., This is just another sneaky way to bash priests.

 

[PRmerger]

And again, when have you ever encountered a priest doing this? You have lots of bad things to say about these hypothetical priests who are hypothetically “evil” and “wicked”. Your posts use language that insinuates that this is actually happening but you present absolutely no proof or even any examples., This is just another sneaky way to bash priests.

Oh, brother.

We are talking hypotheticals here. And what the correct thing to do would be, if a priest manifests racism/sexism and enforces it into policy.

It’s a “what would you do if” conversation.

 

[Corki]

Oh, brother.

We are talking hypotheticals here. And what the correct thing to do would be, if a priest manifests racism/sexism and enforces it into policy.

It’s a “what would you do if” conversation.

It’s a worthless conversation because the “what if” keeps moving. My son’s theology teaches has mentioned that every year there are a couple of students who take every single topic to a ridiculous extreme with “but what if” questions. This is just like that.

There is no “correct thing to do” because there is no real context. There are many incorrect things to do, including maligning priests and attributing evil motives to what could very well be innocent acts.

IF you have a priest who manifests (whatever form that takes) racism and enforces it (how do you enforce racism?) into policy (what kind of policy? who is affected? what are the possible ramifications?) you decide 1) are you the best person to approach the priest about it? 2) do you have the ability and will to do so charitably and respectfully? 3) what are you prepared to ask the priest to change? and 4) what are you going to do if he does not change?

And none of this “what would you do” “conversation” has anything to do with the situation in the OP.

If you want to propose an valid hypothetical situation to discuss, propose it with context.

 

[Corki]

A priest’s rights do not excuse unjust discrimination.

Unjust discrimination involves depriving someone of a **right **due to a characteristic (such as race). Since being an EMHC isn’t a right, choosing one person over another can’t be unjust discrimination. It can be a poor decision. It can even be a decision with a gravely wrong motive but it’s not “unjust discrimination”. Housing, employment, food, education - these are rights. Being an EMHC isn’t.

Frankly, the priest shouldn’t have to explain his choices to anyone. If someone feels slighted by his decision, they should speak to him privately but it’s not anyone else’s place to do so.

 

[RyanBlack]

And again, when have you ever encountered a priest doing this? You have lots of bad things to say about these hypothetical priests who are hypothetically “evil” and “wicked”. Your posts use language that insinuates that this is actually happening but you present absolutely no proof or even any examples., This is just another sneaky way to bash priests.

No, it is not just another way to bash priests (something I’m not interested in doing), and I’ve not insinuated that it’s actually happening. I have not encountered such a thing, and I’ve repeatedly stated that this is a hypothetical that is very unlikely to happen. However, if it were to happen, it would be evil and wicked.

Let’s put some flesh on this hypothetical. Take someone who is an older African-American Catholic who actually experienced the Jim Crow South has served as an EMHC for years, along with several other African-Americans in the same parish. A new pastor arrives and excludes all of the African-Americans from serving as EMHCs. She says to you, “You know, I went to segregated schools. I had to drink from water fountains and use restrooms designated for coloreds. I couldn’t eat in most restaurants or stay in most hotels. I’ve been discriminated against when applying for jobs, while on the job, and when applying for loans. I’ve witnessed other African-Americans beaten, simply for being black. I saw a burning cross in our neighborhood as a child. I remember the murder of Emmett Till. I had to sit at the back of the bus. But I never imagined my own Church would do this to me–not in this day and age. What this new priest is doing to us blacks in the parish is truly wicked. I’m going to report this to the bishop.” In this hypothetical situation (one I’ve never witnessed and one I agree is extremely unlikely to happen), would you tell this lady that she shouldn’t feel this way, because she and the other African-Americans have no right to serve in the first place, but that the pastor does have a right to exclude them, or anyone else, for whatever reason? Would you tell her that she is the one being uncharitable for calling the actions of the priest evil? Would you tell her that being excluded on the basis of her race is not really that big of a deal, because, after all, it’s not like she’s being denied a job or the right to vote?