Lay woman named to lead parish with 3 priests on staff
#21
(08-23-2011, 02:36 PM)iona_scribe Wrote:
(08-23-2011, 01:51 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(08-23-2011, 01:25 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: First of all:  :o :o :o

Second:  If she can't administer any sacraments, can't read the gospel, can't preach a homily, what then exactly does it mean that she is going to lead the parish?  Is she basically going to be some kind of puppet master, telling the priests and the laity what direction she'd like to see the parish moving in?  Sounds like one of those parishes with an out of control, bullying, pastoral council, except this is one really powerful lay person calling the shots.  >sad

Also, what's with the "business manager" title I see at some parishes? Is this basically a glorified church secretary?

She's going to handle the administrative tasks. "Business manager" used to be a glorified church secretary but most need a degree these days.

This isn't directed to you, iona_scribe, but just speaking generally. I read the title of the thread and got upset too, but it's still distressing to see the constant disdain for women around here.. as if anything and everything is going to somehow lead to women priests. This doesn't just happen now and then.. It's constant. It's misogyny. If anyone can come up with a better word, please let me know.. because right now another word fails me.

Oh, it would bother me just as much if they had announced that a lay man was going to somehow be in charge of a parish, bossing around the ordained.   LOL
I thought primarily of stories of good priests who get to a new parish, and the previously established pastoral council refuses to cooperate with what the priest wants because they are entrenched in "the spirit of VII".

Ah, thanks for the clarification on business manager.  It is good to have a properly trained lay person paying the bills and doing other things so that the priest can be free to do priestly and pastoral things.  The title made me scratch my head though...it makes it sound like "person who runs every aspect of the church apart from the sacraments"  or that the church is somehow a business.   LOL Maybe facilities manager would be better.

Well, in some aspects the church is a business.. Also a business manager never bosses around the ordained. He (or she) still has to run everything by the pastor -- and in fact the pastor is still the head of the finance committee. This position, on a practical level, simply frees up the priest to take care of more pastoral things.
Reply
#22
(08-23-2011, 02:52 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Well, in some aspects the church is a business.. Also a business manager never bosses around the ordained. He (or she) still has to run everything by the pastor -- and in fact the pastor is still the head of the finance committee. This position, on a practical level, simply frees up the priest to take care of more pastoral things.

Yes, this makes sense.  Thanks again for clarifying.

The headline quote had me worried though...“Some priests may choose not to become pastors.”  This implies the bishop thinks priests have a right to decline parts of their priestly responsibilities that only priests can/should do and appoint lay people to do them instead.  And that kind of attitude could lead to lots of abuses by lay leaders in a parish.
Reply
#23
See these Bishops are like a lot of politicos. They have no real experiene in running a business. The Pastor while a Priest is the President of the Org. He can hire who he likes, and being the Top he can delegate any responsibilities and authorities which are not Priestly. He could hire SCG, and give her the job of Parish Chief Operating Officer with P&L responsibility. She could sign all of the checks, have all of the help direct and indirect report to her except the priests. She'd confer with the Pastor on what he wanted to do on Priestly matters, and then she'd execute with full responsibility for it's success. She'd also answer for the moolah. She'd be in charge of anything that is business in the Parish from school tuition to the Carnival, from the mother's club to the poker night for the men, and everything in between.
The Bishop said some priests dont want to be a Pastor. Why are they Priests ? I though they were Shepherds, not COO's.

tim
Reply
#24
Don't be too surprised about this news people, this is just the next step for the Novus Ordo religion as it continues to appear less and less Catholic and more Protestant / deist.
Reply
#25
(08-23-2011, 12:36 PM)Ygnacia Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 08:06 PM)Landelinus Wrote: Ugh.  This is unfortunately my Diocese.  Bp McGrath has been relatively accommodating with our TLM oratory, but on the flipside he allows rubbish like this. It makes me ill.

Accommodating, ah, well, sort of. What about what happened at Five Wounds Church? A solid Traditional Latin Mass community was dissolved because some people in the parish complained about it to the Diocese. The Pastor, Fr. Morgan, wanted the TLM to stay, the Diocese didn't back him up. I'd say more like barely tolerating the TLM, letting them use a church way too small for their growing needs, and promoting this other sort of agenda instead.
I was very disappointed with the dissolution of the mass at Five Wounds, but it was only the mass, not the community that was dissolved.  Almost all of the attendees at the FW TLM were from the Our Mother of Perpetual Help oratory.  When the FW masses ended, we all went back to OMOPH and the masses were slightly rearranged to accomodate a high mass with choir at 9:15 in the small chapel.

I don't doubt that Fr Morgan wanted the mass to stay.  He was a trooper hearing all those confessions Sunday after Sunday during our masses and he said one of the TLM masses this recent Assumption at the oratory - very well actually.  From what Canon Moreau said, it was certainly not Fr Morgan and it was also not Bp McGrath.  It was the parish council of Five Wounds who were not kindly disposed to the TLM (very, very few of the F.W. parishioners ever attended the mass).  The  mass had been given a secure place "ad experimentum" for one year.  Because of the parish opposition to us during that year Bp McGrath acceded to their  wishes and the "experiment" was over.  I miss the beautiful FW church, but not the chilly reception of its parishioners.

As far as Bp McGrath accomodating us, our TLM parish at Our Mother of Perpetual Help existed as an itinerant independent chapel for about 30 years.  Bp McGrath was the bishop who received the group back into the diocesan structure under the aegis of the ICKSP and several diocesan priests have said mass at the oratory over the years.  We are crowded, but with 4 masses every Suday, we manage.  Also mass attendance has been pretty steady, but not increasing too, too much over the years.  It would be great to have a bigger church building, but I don't know how realistic an expectation that is right now.  You're right, it's bare toleration, but barely is better than not at all, especially in a liberal diocese like San Jose.  We're lucky compared to the Archdiocese of SF.
Reply
#26
(08-23-2011, 05:26 PM)Landelinus Wrote:
(08-23-2011, 12:36 PM)Ygnacia Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 08:06 PM)Landelinus Wrote: Ugh.  This is unfortunately my Diocese.  Bp McGrath has been relatively accommodating with our TLM oratory, but on the flipside he allows rubbish like this. It makes me ill.

Accommodating, ah, well, sort of. What about what happened at Five Wounds Church? A solid Traditional Latin Mass community was dissolved because some people in the parish complained about it to the Diocese. The Pastor, Fr. Morgan, wanted the TLM to stay, the Diocese didn't back him up. I'd say more like barely tolerating the TLM, letting them use a church way too small for their growing needs, and promoting this other sort of agenda instead.
I was very disappointed with the dissolution of the mass at Five Wounds, but it was only the mass, not the community that was dissolved.  Almost all of the attendees at the FW TLM were from the Our Mother of Perpetual Help oratory.  When the FW masses ended, we all went back to OMOPH and the masses were slightly rearranged to accomodate a high mass with choir at 9:15 in the small chapel.

I don't doubt that Fr Morgan wanted the mass to stay.  He was a trooper hearing all those confessions Sunday after Sunday during our masses and he said one of the TLM masses this recent Assumption at the oratory - very well actually.  From what Canon Moreau said, it was certainly not Fr Morgan and it was also not Bp McGrath.  It was the parish council of Five Wounds who were not kindly disposed to the TLM (very, very few of the F.W. parishioners ever attended the mass).  The  mass had been given a secure place "ad experimentum" for one year.  Because of the parish opposition to us during that year Bp McGrath acceded to their  wishes and the "experiment" was over.  I miss the beautiful FW church, but not the chilly reception of its parishioners.

As far as Bp McGrath accomodating us, our TLM parish at Our Mother of Perpetual Help existed as an itinerant independent chapel for about 30 years.  Bp McGrath was the bishop who received the group back into the diocesan structure under the aegis of the ICKSP and several diocesan priests have said mass at the oratory over the years.   We are crowded, but with 4 masses every Suday, we manage.  Also mass attendance has been pretty steady, but not increasing too, too much over the years.  It would be great to have a bigger church building, but I don't know how realistic an expectation that is right now.  You're right, it's bare toleration, but barely is better than not at all, especially in a liberal diocese like San Jose.  We're lucky compared to the Archdiocese of SF.

Yes, after the Mass at FW ended, some of your community came to our Mass at Mission San Juan Bautista, until we lost our home there. Fr. Morgan very generously came to celebrate  our Mass many times -  that after celebrating Mass at FW all morning, and then driving all the way to the Mission to celebrate ours. God bless him - I hope he is doing well in his new parish.
"So shines a good deed in a weary world."   - Willy Wonka

For modern-day stories of Saint Anthony's help in people's lives:  saintanthonylostandfound.blogspot.com
Reply
#27
(08-24-2011, 11:23 AM)Ygnacia Wrote:
(08-23-2011, 05:26 PM)Landelinus Wrote:
(08-23-2011, 12:36 PM)Ygnacia Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 08:06 PM)Landelinus Wrote: Ugh.  This is unfortunately my Diocese.  Bp McGrath has been relatively accommodating with our TLM oratory, but on the flipside he allows rubbish like this. It makes me ill.

Accommodating, ah, well, sort of. What about what happened at Five Wounds Church? A solid Traditional Latin Mass community was dissolved because some people in the parish complained about it to the Diocese. The Pastor, Fr. Morgan, wanted the TLM to stay, the Diocese didn't back him up. I'd say more like barely tolerating the TLM, letting them use a church way too small for their growing needs, and promoting this other sort of agenda instead.
I was very disappointed with the dissolution of the mass at Five Wounds, but it was only the mass, not the community that was dissolved.  Almost all of the attendees at the FW TLM were from the Our Mother of Perpetual Help oratory.  When the FW masses ended, we all went back to OMOPH and the masses were slightly rearranged to accomodate a high mass with choir at 9:15 in the small chapel.

I don't doubt that Fr Morgan wanted the mass to stay.  He was a trooper hearing all those confessions Sunday after Sunday during our masses and he said one of the TLM masses this recent Assumption at the oratory - very well actually.  From what Canon Moreau said, it was certainly not Fr Morgan and it was also not Bp McGrath.  It was the parish council of Five Wounds who were not kindly disposed to the TLM (very, very few of the F.W. parishioners ever attended the mass).  The  mass had been given a secure place "ad experimentum" for one year.  Because of the parish opposition to us during that year Bp McGrath acceded to their  wishes and the "experiment" was over.  I miss the beautiful FW church, but not the chilly reception of its parishioners.

As far as Bp McGrath accomodating us, our TLM parish at Our Mother of Perpetual Help existed as an itinerant independent chapel for about 30 years.  Bp McGrath was the bishop who received the group back into the diocesan structure under the aegis of the ICKSP and several diocesan priests have said mass at the oratory over the years.   We are crowded, but with 4 masses every Suday, we manage.  Also mass attendance has been pretty steady, but not increasing too, too much over the years.  It would be great to have a bigger church building, but I don't know how realistic an expectation that is right now.  You're right, it's bare toleration, but barely is better than not at all, especially in a liberal diocese like San Jose.  We're lucky compared to the Archdiocese of SF.

Yes, after the Mass at FW ended, some of your community came to our Mass at Mission San Juan Bautista, until we lost our home there. Fr. Morgan very generously came to celebrate  our Mass many times -  that after celebrating Mass at FW all morning, and then driving all the way to the Mission to celebrate ours. God bless him - I hope he is doing well in his new parish.
I didn't realize he had gone to San Juan Bautista to celebrate mass.  That's fantastic.  I also didn't realize that you'd lost your home there.  What a shame.  I love the mission church and had always wanted to go to the TLM there.  Sad.
Fr Morgan's now at St Joseph in Cupertino (I believe - could be wrong).  The more I learn about him, the more respect I have for him.
Reply
#28
Was the vision of Vatican II to laicize the clergy and clericalize the laity?  This seems to be the way many dioceses are going.  Hire laymen and once they're on the payroll, they become part of the problem.  It's a lot easier to control people who are getting paid.  I'm not talking theologically here, but rather making laymen more complicit in the mal-administration of the Church. 
Reply
#29
(08-24-2011, 01:02 PM)thealtonroute Wrote: Was the vision of Vatican II to laicize the clergy and clericalize the laity?  This seems to be the way many dioceses are going.  Hire laymen and once they're on the payroll, they become part of the problem.  It's a lot easier to control people who are getting paid.  I'm not talking theologically here, but rather making laymen more complicit in the mal-administration of the Church. 
In a recent article, the new york times implies just that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/us/21nuns.html?_r=1
Reply
#30
Here, this was posted on a blog I read.  It's the Diocese of Lansing, MI using their magazine to promote the idea of priestless parishes as the wave of the future:

[Image: Faith+Mag.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)