|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 7, 2010 20:30:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 8, 2010 12:32:03 GMT
Fr. Z has a post on it here. The comments are, as usual, interesting - views range from Lefebvrists arguing that this shows why they can't be expected to do a deal (since local bishops can't be relied on to respect it) to arguments that the parishioners behaved badly and should have respected the bishop's authority (met with the rejoinder that the bishop would simply roll right over them). wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/a-cautionary-tale-in-france/A few points worth bearing in mind: (1) Michael G's statement that this is not a traditionalist-liberal dispute because the priest uses both forms is oversimplified (surely the term "traditionalist" is not confined to those who use only the older format)? The priest apparently says the Ordinary Form ad orientem (facing the altar) and is clearly seen as a traditionalist. The bishop on the other hand has a reputation as a liberal. (2) The bishop did not just move the priest; he moved him to an area where the congregation are seen as "liberal" and sent in a priest regarded as "liberal" to a the priest's existing congregation - seen as "traditional". The expectation was presumably that the overall effect would be to weaken "traditional" practices in the diocese, since the new priest would be able to enforce his preferred practices on the congregation with the bishop's support, while the priest would presumably find it difficult to introduce "traditional" practices in his new post, as the bishop might be expected to side with the "liberal" congregation in a dispute. (3) One issue at stake is that the bishop wishes to move towards a "team ministry" approach where priests are given responsibility for a number of parishes and are moved from place to place regularly. The priest favours the older model where a priest remains in the same parish for many years on the basis that this allows him to get to know the parishioners and build up contact with them over time. This is going to be a big issue in Ireland as priest numbers decline; certain Irish bishops have an explicit policy of appointing administrators (who can be moved at will) rather than pastors (who have certain canonical rights) to parishes. It's already standard practice to move priests every five years or so; lifetime appointment to a parish is no longer the norm. One side-effect of this change, BTW is that the bishop actually has MORE authority over his priests than before and they have fewer safeguards against him. (4)One complicating factor in the French case is that the town authorities have sided with the priest against the bishop (presumably because they want to keep having a priest in the locality rather than being one stop on a circuit) andunder theterms by which the French Concordat was abolished in 1905 the state owns and pays for the upkeep of pre-1905 churches (this is why wreckovation has been relatively restrained in France and why the SSPX were able to occupy and use a Paris church in defiance of te Archbishop). It looks like the result is a local mini-schism and I don't see how it will be resolved. Given the rebes' isolation from any broader source of institutional support, he odds have to be on the bishop, unless the priest and congregation were to affiliate with the SSPX. I doubt if one of the indult organisations would get involved since it would mean a direct conflict with the bishop in his own diocese, and I suspect Rome will not get involved at this level of micro-management since it does not want to deal with every row between a bishop and parish congregation, or the Vatican bureaucracy would be hopelessly clogged up. Their natural instinct is to leave these things to the bishop, often with unfortunate results.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jan 10, 2010 11:24:16 GMT
Yes, i read about it. This is happening in Normandy in a little town. Indeed the priest involved is encouraged by his parishioners and some politicians and also by the Trads. Because the priest is applying the MOTU PROPRIO and celebrates BOTH form of the mass. The decision from the bishop to remove him is a bit unclear. But if the priest was to obey him, the town would have lost the TLM. The bishop is a modernist, like many bishops in France. And I have no feeling for him being humiliated in front of the parishioners and the TV camera. I think it is time, on somehow, to stop this "respect" kind of attitude toward of member of the clergy who is abusing his authority and do nothing to encourage and promote the will of the parishioners, the priest and the Pope ! We all know that if the church is facing such a crisis today, the responsibility of the bishops is greatly involved ! Those parishioners have all to the right to protest. And the bishop got the treatment he deserves ! Happy now Michael ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jan 10, 2010 11:54:07 GMT
And the good news is that the bishop had given up. Fr Michel will stay. In this situation, the bishop had demonstrated in front of all a lamentable attitude. Notice that this particular parish is the most frequented and popular of the entire diocese. The bishop wanted to remove it ! WHY WHY WHY ? Well done anyway. He recently saw the Papal nuncio and decided to come back to his decision.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 21, 2010 22:25:02 GMT
Yes Guillaume, very happy. Welcome back. Please keep posting. Are you still in Ireland?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jan 22, 2010 15:05:34 GMT
Yes Guillaume, very happy. Welcome back. Please keep posting. Are you still in Ireland? yes still in Ireland and still in wex
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 22, 2010 15:22:29 GMT
Keep it up, Guillaume - good to have you.
|
|