Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Priest-most Important Person In The Parish?; Two tier laity?
Topic Started: Wednesday, 11. October 2006, 23:24 (1,522 Views)
Alan
Member Avatar

There are several matters on which I wish to have an input in this subject.

1 Bishops.

Since childhood which was before Vatican 2 I always remember that The Lenten and Advent Pastoral letters were always signed as "Daniel" then "Cornelius" Bishop of Cork and in my Present Diocese Brian" Bishop of Shrewsbury. So this is always the accepted Practice.

I would never dare call our Bishop by his Christian Name, I will always show him the courtesy due to his Office.

My PP I will address as Father in public and by his Christian name in private, I know many Priests now prefer to be addressed as Father (Christian Name).

All PP's are responsible to the Bishop for what goes on within their Parish, whether it be Spiritual, Social or fundraising. No Lay Person is entitled to inform their "PP" that this is how it is done here.

Some years ago, on receiving information that ourr PP was bein replaced The Chairman of the Pastoral Council convened a meeting to arrange a collection and presentation to our departing PP. I objected on the basis that only the New PP could invite the former PP back to such a presentation. Our Chairman told the council that I was talking rubbish. I requested that my objection was noted in the minutes and a date was made for the presentation.

At our next meeting (with the new PP present) when approval of the minutes were asked for, I objected because my Objection to the previous decision had not been noted. So I was assured that the minutes would be amended.

The new PP said no way as he was abolishing the Council for exceeding its authority.

That is what should happen in every Parish where the laity exceed their authority.

The PP is the only person responsible to the Bishop for what happens in the Parish. A good Parish committee is an aid to the PP nothing more.

God Bless all who visit this forum,

Alan.

Add Catholic CyberForum to your favourites
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Eve
Former Admin/Moderator
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=3517
Catholic News Service
 
N.Y. priests' council issues statement of support for Cardinal Egan


NEW YORK (CNS) -- The New York Archdiocesan Priests' Council Oct. 16 declared its confidence in New York Cardinal Edward M. Egan and said it was "appalled" at an anonymous letter circulating "among some of the priests and in the media" that denounces the cardinal.

Cardinal Egan called a special meeting of the council and met with it for two hours Oct. 16, five days after the critical letter became public.

"We are appalled that the letter was sent anonymously and that it can and has been used by those who seek to damage the church," the priests' council said in a statement it issued after meeting with the cardinal.

The letter said priests' morale in the archdiocese was the worst in living memory and urged priests at their next deanery meetings to hold formal votes of "no confidence" in the cardinal. It said his relationship with his priests has been "defined by dishonesty, deception, disinterest and disregard."

"We are also upset and dismayed that our archbishop has been personally vilified in this manner," the council added. "At today's meeting, the members of the priests' council reiterated their support for His Eminence. We stand with him in confidence and look forward to his continued ministry."

"As today's meeting has shown, it is possible to meet and discuss any issue with Cardinal Egan, and if any priest has a concern he can raise it and discuss it at any time," the council said.

The letter was written by a group that called itself "A Committee of Concerned Clergy for the Archdiocese of New York."

The letter noted that next April Cardinal Egan turns 75, the age at which canon law requires bishops to submit their resignation to the pope. It argued that if the priests of the archdiocese gave an overwhelming vote of "no confidence" in him, the Vatican might begin looking for a successor quickly and accept his resignation right away rather than holding off another two or three years.

It claimed that "at no time has the relationship between the ordinary (archbishop) and the priests of the archdiocese been so fractured and seemingly hopeless as it is now."

Rocco Palmo, U.S. correspondent for the British Catholic weekly magazine The Tablet, obtained a copy of the anonymous letter and posted it Oct. 11 on his Web log, or blog, called "Whispers in the Loggia." New York newspapers quickly picked up on it.

One claim in the letter was that Cardinal Egan left town two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The New York Times repudiated that claim Oct. 15, reporting that in the days following the attacks Cardinal Egan "visited ground zero, presided at memorial Masses and spoke at an interfaith service at Yankee Stadium on Sept. 23. He went to Rome that October to help run a Vatican conference."

Cardinal Egan was general reporting secretary of the Synod of Bishops held in Rome that October. He said at the time that he attended out of obedience to the pope. But he also left the synod five days before it ended to return to his "hurting" flock, and in the days that followed he attended several funerals and met with families of those who had died in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

- - -

Here is the full text of the Oct. 16 statement of the New York Archdiocesan Priests' Council:

The priests' council of the Archdiocese of New York met for two hours today with His Eminence, Edward Cardinal Egan. As representatives of the clergy of the archdiocese, we came together to meet with our archbishop and to discuss with him the letter that has circulated among some of the priests and in the media.

We are appalled that the letter was sent anonymously, and that it can and has been used by those who seek to damage the church. As today's meeting has shown, it is possible to meet and discuss any issue with Cardinal Egan, and if any priest has a concern he can raise it and discuss it at any time. A letter of this sort does a grave disservice to the entire church, and to this archdiocese in particular.

We are also upset and dismayed that our archbishop has been personally vilified in this manner. At today's meeting, the members of the priests' council reiterated their support for His Eminence. We stand with him in confidence, and look forward to his continued ministry to the clergy, religious and laity of the Archdiocese of New York.
Howdy Folks. Has anybody seen my husband lately?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
According to the Universe, a reliable UK Catholic paper, the cardinal has written to all priests in the Archdiocese, claiming the accusations originated from disgruntled priests who have been accused or found guilty of abuse.

What happened to courage and integrity? There is only one place for anonymous letters - the bin. If the priests who sent the letter are ever identified they should be put on trial.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I agree Rose. If there is any genuine grievance it is negated by anonymity. Also such anonymity will unfairly throw suspicions on many innocent priests. The affair does no favours to the Archdiocese in particular nor the Church as a whole.
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Derekap
Oct 31 2006, 04:53 PM
I agree Rose. If there is any genuine grievance it is negated by anonymity. Also such anonymity will unfairly throw suspicions on many innocent priests. The affair does no favours to the Archdiocese in particular nor the Church as a whole.

Well said, Derek and Rose!

I came across this business last week or the week before. Something's not quite right about the whole affair. I can't put my finger on it.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Posted Image


Quote:
 
© Independent Catholic News 2006
Priests speak out on church leadership

Catholic priests, when asked about leadership, place the greatest value on compassion and empathy, and an equal weight on prayer and holiness.

A group of British priests were asked for their top five attributes for leaders in the Church, whether clerical or lay. The results are reported in the latest issue of The Pastoral Review in an article by Tom Horwood, a former head of the Catholic Media Office.

The priests next suggested humility and enabling others. They then agreed that leaders should be able to consult and communicate, possess conviction, prioritise and have the vision to see the 'big picture'. Many other attributes were suggested, about which there was less consensus, including a sense of humour, knowledge, obedience, honesty, accountability and courage.

Mr Horwood said: "The email survey is a snapshot of views rather than a scientifically rigorous piece of opinion research. Although the priests echo the emphasis on prayer, holiness and prudence that is evident in the Vatican's official recruitment process, they agree with secular managers in valuing vision and communication, both key strategic attributes. This suggests that a recruitment process that ignores these latter factors is as incomplete in a church setting as elsewhere."

Mr Horwood argues in his article and in his recent book, The Future of the Catholic Church in Britain, that the Church would benefit from learning from what works in other settings.

"The results of the survey are also helpful in illustrating the distinctiveness of the Catholic Church that must be retained in any attempt to import techniques from elsewhere," he added.

He urges the Church to adopt a more strategic approach to tackle the critical issues facing it today, issues like the decline in membership and commitment, poor communication and child protection.

In his article, he concludes: "Effective leadership and authority are critical factors for the future of the Catholic Church in Britain. For it to thrive as well as survive, the Church will need to reappraise what qualities it seeks in leaders, whether bishops, parish priests or active lay Catholics. Just as, historically, the Church has benefited from seeing what was good in secular society and Christianising it, modern leadership theory and practice offer a valuable resource that the Church neglects at its peril."

Information on The Pastoral Review is at www.thepastoralreview.org.

Information on The Future of the Catholic Church in Britain is at: www.futurecatholic.org.uk. To order a copy, send a cheque for £8.99 payable to 'Laicos Press' to Laicos Press, 2nd Floor, 145-157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY.



© Independent Catholic News 2006
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

Alan is right to refer this matter, in effect, to ‘obedience’. Obedience is not always easy to adhere to; which I personally have found in little matters to be the most difficult. For example at funerals I like a lot of smoke which I start up in the Sacristy after the Gospel. The priest doesn’t think this necessary even though it has always been done this way, so he restricts the timing of igniting the tablets, and I found to my surprise how difficult it was to obey (or rather not object mentally to) that very simple instruction.

Now to be Grumpy – your text Rose; are you advertising books again (smile).

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
nelly k

I think this is a particularly nasty, underhand letter , who even knows if it is from Clergy anyone could have done this, even worse its someones final year, I hope he is getting Prayers and support, even if there are issues some surley should have the guts to be honest, or be humble , nelly
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Re: loyalty to the hierarchy, I think it would help if we returned to the practise of using surnames for our bishops. Bishop Jones sounds more formal than Bishop Dan.

Whenever I read comments about "Benedict" or "Cormac" I feel a little tetchy. Whatever we feel about a man's personality or character, his position must be respected.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
On another thread there is mention of declining respect for the clergy.

For some years I have been concerned about the same issue. No good would come of a return to the days when clergy were feared, but - have they lost their rightful place in our parishes? I think a lot of Catholics feel it is for us to tell the priest what we want, and how we want him to administer the parish, and for the priest to obey.

Has it gone too far? Did respect go when we started using clergy's first names, either just the name or prefixed with Father?

I have my thoughts about respect by clergy. That one can wait.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Use of Christian or First names came into the business and workplace sometime before our clergy introduced the practice. I was probably one of the last employees to address my immediate boss as Mr....... However, I had probably dropped the "Sir". I understand that many business people were embarrassed when they visited North America to be expected to be on first name terms immediately. The Archbishop of Boston (Mass) is referred to during Holy Mass as "Archbishop Sean"
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

There are many I know who really do not like people addressing their Priests by their Christian name. I don't like it myself and automatically refrain from doing so.

Of course it is not sinful to make such addresses; but there is the little problem that many who don't like it either look down on their fellow lay person or indeed speak of them in terms that are hardly very endearing. You see they are tempted to say more than "I don't like it".

As for respect - I think it is still there very much so - but then now I am going on as above because I think really that those who address the priest in such personal terms have lesss respect than those like myself who just say Father.

Correct me please if you feel this is out of turn, or quite out of date.

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Michael

just my tuppence worth, i don't think it makes the blind bit of difference whether we say fr peter or fr smith, you either treat someone with respect or you don't, i think most people on here would treat people with respect regardless of whether we used mr, fr or just addressing a friend by their name,
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I have a relative who is a priest. In private circumstances I use his Christian name, as I have done since we were childhood friends. When I went to his church, after Mass, on Church premises, in the presence of his parishioners, I addressed him as Father. It is a matter of having a close family relationship with the man, and respect for the position of the priest. How could I ignore the fact that he is a priest, when I see him wearing a cassock?

One of our parishioners approached the parish priest and said "How's my little ray of sunshine?" A minute later she addressed him as "me Duck". She now calls him Father. I suspect he had words.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
At a recent event when the Bishop came to discuss pastoral reorganisation, I noted that one man, a former monk, addressed the Bishop as My Lord. I addressed him as Bishop because I know that is his preferred mode. Not one other person called him anything, not even Father.

Am I being old fashioned? If so, I do not hang my head in shame. There are occasions when it suits me to be "behind the times".
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic