The Parishioners Speak out in Dallas

April 15, 2002 | Slyfox

[afraidfortherepublic]

...well ... using the occasion of receiving a sacrament to 'send a message' is clever, but I've got mixed feelings about it.

Stephen is a beautiful and honorable name and a strong show of support from the kids and adults being confirmed. It has more meaning than the names some parents are giving their kids these days -- Madison, Tiffany, Reilly, etc.

I once asked my husband about his confirmation name, Carl, and why he chose it. "So my initials would be ABCD," he replied. It seems to me that these confirmees have put much more thought into the process than my husband did.

[afraidfortherepublic]

The girls also took the name Stephen. It was not a setup on part of anyone but the kids themselves. We were all stunned.

This just gives me chills. It reminds me of early martyrs in Rome -- Lucy, Perpetua, Agnes, etc. I am so proud of the youngsters in your parish.

[afraidfortherepublic]

And for all those folks that think that it is odd or a "perversion" of the Catholic sacrament of confirmation for the girls to take a 'male' name, let me remind them that certain orders of nuns have done this for years -- especially the Dominicans. It wasn't until after Vatican II that nuns even used a last name: they were Sister George, Sister John Paul, etc.

[Mike Fieschko]

The bishop can change his mind whenever he likes, and there is nothing licit you can do about about. It doesn't matter at all how much you like "your" priest. He serves at the bishop's pleasure, not yours.

The local bishop is not a supreme legislator. He is bound by Canon Law just as the priests, religious and laity are bound.

See The Manner of Procedure in Administrative Recourse and in the Removal or Transfer of Parish Priests, as this seems to be a case of transfer. (I am not a canon lawyer.)

[Domestic Church]

"When the media began covering sexual abuse among priests, I cautioned on this very forum that it would not take very much for this thing to somehow affect innocent priests. This is one such priest. He is being tainted by the scandals."

Yes, we must keep in mind innocence until proven guilt but this is a hallmark of the left...to use force under this sort of public pressure to advance their agenda...and this parish obviously, as the cushiest, is a pearl that the big cheese wants... to reward someone else. It doesn't surprise me and I expect to see more machinations. More smelly socks of Gramsci!

[Ronaldus Magnus]

And for all those folks that think that it is odd or a "perversion" of the Catholic sacrament of confirmation for the girls to take a 'male' name,

Since I was the only poster to use the word in this thread in reference to the catechumen's choice of confirmation names, I'll assume you were talking about my post #17:

Any parishioners who are protesting this, especially to the point of pressuring catechumens to pervert their sacrament of confirmation, are the real liberals.

I'll also assume that you didn't read it very well since I was clearly referring to the perversion of using the choice of confirmation names to protest a bishop. Regardless of your husband's affinity for cute initials, confirmation names should be chosen for an affinity to a particular saint and the sacraments should not be abused for intra-church political protest, as they were in this instance. These children were tragically misled.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

The local bishop is not a supreme legislator. He is bound by Canon Law just as the priests, religious and laity are bound.

See The Manner of Procedure in Administrative Recourse and in the Removal or Transfer of Parish Priests, as this seems to be a case of transfer. (I am not a canon lawyer.)

I too am not a canon lawyer and I won't debate canon law here. However, there is nothing in your link that contradicts my statement or indicates that this bishop did not act legitimately. What the link does outline are the detailed rules of appeal for the religious involved. This process does not include self appointed "righteously indignant" parishioners.

My complaint with the original poster is in their apparent disregard for the authority and role of bishops within the Church. No good Catholic should work to undermine the authority of their bishop. It is not the role of lay people to appeal or protest a bishop's decisions about priest assignments, and undermining this foundation hurts the entire church. The original poster seems unable to be able to comprehend that the ends of trying to defend a "good priest" do not justify means which are destructive to the structure of the church. This "the ends justify the means" attitude is immoral and decidedly un-Catholic. Being on the conservative side doesn't make you better than the liberals, behaving with conservative ideals does. Regardless of the original poster's political persuasion, organizing a protest within the Church is an immoral liberal tactic. It doesn't matter how conservative they may be, their first loyalty should be with the parish, not the priest. The original poster needs to take a better look in the mirror and see the harm caused by their actions.

[afraidfortherepublic]

These children were tragically misled.

To the contrary. It is you who seems to have not read the thread carefully. According to the member of the parish reporting this incident, (Slyfox) they were not misled at all. They did this on their own, and it was a surprise to the parents and to the leaders that prepared them for Confirmation, as well as to the priest. Slyfox has repeated this information a half a dozen times. It is you who are refusing to understand his meaning.

As for my husband, I was making fun of his reason for choosing the name, Carl. (He was 12 years old at the time.) Acquiring the initials ABCD seemed like a trivial reason for choosing a particular Saint's name. I guess I should have put large SARCASM tags on the end of that sentence. I thought my meaning was obvious, but apparently I was mistaken.

As for myself, since I was confirmed as an adult I didn't even get to choose a new name so I spent no time thinking about it. I just had to make do with one I already had. (That was the rule at the time for adult Confirmations in the Diocese where I was living.)

You are belittling the sacrifice these young people have made. They could have chosen any Saint's name, but they chose to honor their Pastor by honoring his Saint. I imagine that they put more thought into this choice than most young people do when they choose their Confirmation name. At least they didn't call themselves "Ronaldus"!

[afraidfortherepublic]

Any parishioners who are protesting this, especially to the point of pressuring catechumens to pervert their sacrament of confirmation, are the real liberals.

You took me to task using this quote. I did not write this. You, sir, should read more carefully before you attack other posters.

[Mike Fieschko]

My complaint with the original poster is in their apparent disregard for the authority and role of bishops within the Church. No good Catholic should work to undermine the authority of their bishop. It is not the role of lay people to appeal or protest a bishop's decisions about priest assignments, and undermining this foundation hurts the entire church.

I apologise. I misunderstood, thinking that you were also objecting to the priest's appeal against the transfer. I agree that the choice, without exception, of 'Stephen' for confirmation names, was pointedly disrespectful, not just to the person, but to the office.

To the office, since the bishop had no reason to deny the children the sacrament, but the choice of name destroyed the atmosphere of joy which should have attended the exercise of his office.

Not to put too harsh a description, it would be as if I received Our Lord in Communion, swalled the Host, and then stuck out my tongue at the priest.

[BlessedBeGod]

Indexing

[Ronaldus Magnus]

No apology necessary and thank you for your communion analogy. I wasn't able to explain it so well.

[history_matters]

Every person in the Chancery in Dallas including the bishop should resign immediately. They are notorious, and anyone who would jump up to defend the bishop or his staff is nothing but a CINO.

[history_matters]

Yes, that is true but bishops are also held to account when it comes to Canon Law. The are not supposed to be petty dictators.

Amen.

[history_matters]

I've seen nothing of this case in the media and am only going by what you have said here. By your own words, you appear to be behaving more like a Protestant than a Catholic. Please rethink your actions and your priorities. Christ and His Church do not appear to be at the top of your list.

What total nonsense. Shame on you. Every problem in the Catholic Church in America can be traced to conservative Catholics rolling over and playing dead every time a liberal prelate cracked the whip or gave a nod of the head.

THIS GAME IS OVER. Priests and laity have their place in the Code of Canon Law, and it is time to fight every AmChurch traitor wherever they may be with every recourse under canon law and American constitutional law. OBEDIENCE TO PETER AND TO THOSE WHO ARE OBEDIENT TO PETER.

[tiki]

I don't know about any diocese other than my own but our bishop's appeal is mandatory. Here's how it works. Each parish gets its 'goal' to reach based on last years income and then the parishioners give or pledge so much, if the goal is reached, all fine and good, if it isn't it just has to be paid by the parish from Sunday collection funds. We also pay 8% of every cent that comes through our parish books to the diocese.

[Mike Fieschko]

It sounds as if what you call the 'appeal', we call the 'assessment'. I'm pretty sure that minimums aren't imposed on parishes for the 'Archbishop's Annual Appeal' here. I could very easily be wrong.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

To the contrary. It is you who seems to have not read the thread carefully. According to the member of the parish reporting this incident, (Slyfox) they were not misled at all. They did this on their own, and it was a surprise to the parents and to the leaders that prepared them for Confirmation, as well as to the priest. Slyfox has repeated this information a half a dozen times. It is you who are refusing to understand his meaning.

I didn't misunderstand him(?), I simply don't believe him. The poster admits to being an "organizer" of a protest at this church, a protest which he admits has been at the center of a great deal of publicity. In so doing, he bears at least partial responsibility for even the unintended consequences that result from it. In the midst of such a highly charged environment, it would be impossible for catechumen's protest to be either spontaneous or independent.

You are belittling the sacrifice these young people have made. They could have chosen any Saint's name, but they chose to honor their Pastor by honoring his Saint. I imagine that they put more thought into this choice than most young people do when they choose their Confirmation name.

You contradict yourself. If they really "put more thought into this choice than most young people do when they choose their Confirmation name" and in so doing "chose to honor their Pastor by honoring his Saint" than there was no "sacrifice" for me to belittle. Not only do you need to read more carefully, you need to reason more carefully.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

You took me to task using this quote. I did not write this. You, sir, should read more carefully before you attack other posters.

Hello, are you senile? As I stated in my post #67, that was my quote from post #17. It was clearly referenced to your statement in post #63:

And for all those folks that think that it is odd or a "perversion" of the Catholic sacrament of confirmation for the girls to take a 'male' name,

Again, for a second time, I was the only poster to use any form of the word "perversion" in this thread in reference to the catechumen's choice of confirmation names. You quoted the word. What post were you referring to if not mine?

Unlike most of the posters here on Free Republic, you appear to be unworthy of meaningful discussion.