Speaking of Voice of the Faithful, a reader sends me the following missive from the New Jersey VOTF group. It looks like a pastor recently retired from St. Joseph Parish in Mendham and the local VOTF-types don’t like his replacement at all.
Overnight, with no consultation with the people of the parish, he was replaced by Fr. Joseph Anginoli, You might say he is not a good fit for this community. His style of leadership is not in keeping with a parish formed in Vatican II spirituality. He began his stay there by dismissing the Advisory Board, and canceling programs (a retreat that they had planned for over a year, VOTF meeting, and other outreach programs for the poor which were a tradition there). He made it quite clear that he was the boss and people had to either accept it or leave.
By “formed in Vatican II spirituality”, they evidently mean that the parishioners are in charge, the priest serves at their pleasure, and he is only to preach on things that make them happy, not mean awful, oppressive Church doctrine.
Now the bishop apparently is coming to the parish to plead for money. Several of the dispersed parishioners have heard of his coming and wish to attend his mass and demonstrate their objection to this. He would not answer their letters and pleas for assistance with regard to their objections to the new pastor and his tactics. Registered letters were returned unopened. Regular letters were unanswered. Letters to the Papal Nuncio were likewise ignored.
Wow, with such open and welcoming attitudes, such docility toward the faith, it’s a wonder their letters weren’t returned. Here’s how I imagine one of them began: “Dear mitered bully, Stop imposing your patriarchal and repressive doctrines on me and my fellow womyn [sic]...” I’m curious how they know he’s coming to “plead for money.” Even in the worst cases, bishops usually leave the dirty work of asking for money to pastors. Is he visiting every parish asking for money?
Mass as an excuse to protest
Technorati Tags: bishops, Catholic, dissent, heterodoxy, Vatican II, Voice of the Faithful
Maybe we can get some more VOTF vetting – kind of an anti-impramatur. VOTF doesn’t like him – he’s hired!
“WE WILL NOT PAY FOR OUR OWN OPPRESSION!”
Geez…what a bunch of whiny self-important #$%@.
When I think of oppressed, I think of refugees, immigrants, the poor etc…not a bunch of well-fed, materially well off, whitebread cry babies.
“not a bunch of well-fed, materially well off, whitebread cry babies.”
most of whom are probably over 50 years old…
I think we can have a more substantial discussion if we deal with the given texts of a situation rather than with imagined scenarios (regardless of how clever or humorous some may find them).
Does anyone here support as good pastoral practice a new pastor arriving and “dismissing the Advisory Board, canceling programs (a retreat planned for over a year), VOTF meeting and other outreach programs for the poor which were a tradition there?” If the new pastor “made it quite clear that he was the boss and people had to either accept it or leave,” would you consider that sound pastoral practice?
I, too, abhor using the celebration of Mass for political ends of any kind and cannot support the planned action. Yet, what are we to make of a situation in which parishioners’ (registered mail)) letters to the pastor, the bishop and the Nuncio go unanswered? Is that good pastoral practice? Did they not seek response from all the appropriate authorities? Even at that point I cannot not support the protest at Mass, but I am saddened that the parishioners pleas have been ignored. I am a pastor and I don’t think it’s good pastoral practice to respond to some parishioners and not to others – not even when that’s what I’d rather do.
How exactly is a VOTF meeting an outreach program for the poor?
If a pastor enters a parish and finds it a cesspool of dissent and ill-formation, then yes it’s his duty to dismiss the parish and finance councils. If the retreat is one of those enneagram, earth-goddess travesties then, yes, he should cancel it.
Do I believe for a minute that the pastor said, “I am the boss and you have to either accept it or leave?” No. Why don’t I? Because the infantile attitude expressed in the rest of the missive shows me that this person is looking to put the worst spin on it; that holy obedience is looked upon as a burden.
Why would their letters go unanswered? If their protests are indicative, I’d bet that they were full of inanities and drivel and not worth responding to.
It sounds like they’ve received a response. But some people—like some children—won’t accept No as an anwer.
I think this new pastor is exercising solid leadership. There is truth to the cliche that a new leader should establish that he’s in charge by firing somebody. If you are put in charge of a place whose existing power structure is ideologically and systematically opposed to you, you can’t just leave them in place. You can’t lead if you are surrounded by people working to undermine you: you’d eventually be bullied and hounded out of there (see Fr Coyne of Newton). That is why newly elected heads of state get to establish their own cabinet.
By getting a group of people he can work with, Fr Joseph can get started with the job of being pastor to his parish instead of constantly fighting a small but outspoken bureaucracy. Now that’s pastoral.
Gee, I feel silly…I blogged on this whole thing today without reading Dom’s post.
In any case, at least here I can respond. (‘Course I can respond on my own blog but that would be talking to myself and I only do that in private.
)
Father Aplman wrote:
Does anyone here support as good pastoral practice a new pastor arriving and “dismissing the Advisory Board, canceling programs (a retreat planned for over a year), VOTF meeting and other outreach programs for the poor which were a tradition there?” If the new pastor “made it quite clear that he was the boss and people had to either accept it or leave,” would you consider that sound pastoral practice?
Yes. I would. To both questions.
(Although, like Dom, I’m rather doubtful that the new pastor said that he “was the boss and people had to accept it or leave.” That information came from someone who spoke to someone else who heard it from another person. Sorry, Father, but I’ve had enough experience with VOTF folks—and by the way from the folks who have left the group in droves— to doubt the veracity of that statement.)
I, too, abhor using the celebration of Mass for political ends of any kind and cannot support the planned action.
I know you do. I truly do know that you do and I thank you for that.
But you know as well as I do that your abhorrence and my abhorrence of that practice hasn’t stopped it.
These people—these ex-parishioners—are not, in my view, wholly responsible. What I question is the “sound pastoral practice” of Saint Joseph’s former pastor.
This man is described in the letter evidently leaked to Dom as well as me:
Fr. Ken Lasch was pastor for 21 years and retired from there 2 years ago after trying to heal the parish and giving his parishioners a wonderful formation in Vat. II pastoral life—spiritually rich, collegial, consultative, encouraging their involvement in many ministries and the flourishing of their gifts and talents.
Father Lasch’s website (again, this was given to me by an ex VOTF member) is here:
http://tinyurl.com/94z62
He seems a nice man. It is evident that his ministry is now focused on the victims of abuse by clergy.
This is laudable.
A poke though his posted sermons is, on the other hand, a tad questionable.
Be that as it may, here’s my point.
People don’t “suddenly” decide to protest the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and this is what this is…and, as you know, I’ve experienced such protests first hand) when they don’t get their own way. It takes time, perhaps years, perhaps even a decade or two of chipping away at the Magesterium, one bit at a time, until such thing is not only thinkable, but the only thing to do.
Some bishops screwed up.
But so did some pastors.
The answer doesn’t lie, in my opinion and in yours, in protesting Christ’s Sacrifice.
It does lie in prayer…for the bishops, the pastors, and the faithful.
I didn’t conclude from the article Dom quoted that anyone was implying that VOTF was a traditional outreach program to the poor. Looking back at that the article, I still don’t see that there.
My premise was that we might have a more substantial discussion if we kept to the texts we have at hand rather than fantasizing about what might be behind them.
Perhaps Dom finds in the article evidence that this parish is a “cesspool of dissent and ill-information” or a hint that the proposed retreat was based on “enneagram (or) earth-goddess travesties.” Or perhaps Dom has evidence that we are not privy to. I found none of this in the article but I did see two different approaches to pastoral ministry and thought that might be worth pursuing here.
Kelly, I just read your post. I’ve not had a chance yet to check out the link you provided but I will. As I said above, perhaps Dom had information we were not privy to.
I didn’t say it was a cesspool of dissent or that the retreat was based on the enneagram. I said it is quite possible. You don’t know, I don’t know. What I do know is that VOice of the Faithful is a front organization for Call to Action and that’s the type of stuff they do so I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they were.
Frankly their crying about wanting a pastor and bishop of the “Vatican II spirituality” confirms it for me. Like Kelly said, go read the previous pastor’s web site she provides a link to. Let all who have eyes see.
Errr……….there is no “Vatican II spirituality”. There is only Catholic spirituality. The Church didn’t suddenly discover a new spirituality in 1965. There is no disconnect between what Vatican II taught and what went before.
If there appears to be then it’s a pretty good indication that your so-called “Vatican II spirituality” is not Catholic. The fictional “spirit of Vatican II” is what has given us four decades of insanity. Loony liturgies, nuns who want to be priests, do-it-yourself doctrine and the loss of the sense of the sacred.
That this priest is not formed in the “spirit of Vatican II” is a very good sign. Maybe VOTF hasn’t heard the good news; “The cafeteria is now closed!!”
Aplman, considering the text is nice, but considering a polemical text (and that is the only thing that it can be, given the ‘suggested sign’ portion alone) as the sole bit of evidence is less than prudent. Rather, I think experiential evidence, especially as it pertains to the character of the author/publisher, is significant, and ought to inform one’s read of it.