Posted on 04/09/2004 2:25:01 PM PDT by madprof98
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
Interesting......
Donoghue sparked this stuff by his unilateral action. He doesn't see it as something worthy of protest.
Well, it appears that many churches didn't either.
They chose to drop the ceremony.
At Transfiguration Catholic Church in Marietta, where the foot-washing ceremony had been a tradition for years, eight women and four men carried towels up the aisle and placed them around the perimeter of the sanctuary. The congregation sang a meditative piece, after which the 12 returned and retrieved the towels. There was no actual foot-washing ceremony.
If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, "On the Sacraments in General", Can. XII)
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. (Sacrosanctum Concilium §22)
There was no washing of the feet ceremony, so it cannot be said that it was changed.
Also, the washing of the feet is optional, so it may be "removed."
A bishop acting unilaterally attests to his certitude. He probably underestimated the egalitarian ethic that has supplanted knowlege of Catholic tradition and scripture. Maybe the controversy could have been avoided with a timlier prohibition with an in depth explanation. Who would have known?
Someone may correct me if I'm mistaken, but Buckhead is an affluent part of Atlanta. Maybe those well-off Catholics resent the bishop being....well....a bishop.
A bishop acting unilaterally gets the kind of reaction Donoghue got. He can either learn from it, and consult his priests next time, or continue to have his authority undermined.
Donoghue should take the model of collegiality John Paul II uses. He can still impose his male-only directive, but at least the priests will have been consulted on the matter.
Consulting his priests wasn't really necessary. It was a no-brainer for him, really. The priests who have reacted in a negative way, are out of line, but that's what the bishop was really addressing any way.
Wanna bet he does so in the future?
Depends on when they took place. If they occurred before or after the Mass, they would not be prohibited.
A bishop acting unilaterally gets the kind of reaction Donoghue got. He can either learn from it, and consult his priests next time, or continue to have his authority undermined.
Donoghue should take the model of collegiality John Paul II uses. He can still impose his male-only directive, but at least the priests will have been consulted on the matter.
A question for you. Can the proper relationship between the priests of a diocese and the bishop really be compared to the relationship between the bishops and the Roman Pontiff? Lumen Gentium calls priests "assistants" and "helpers" to the bishop and says that "they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power". This is certainly a different relationship than that between the Supreme Pontiff and the other bishops, who are vicars of Christ in their own right and not mere vicars of the Pontiff. St. Ignatius of Antioch says in the epistle to the Magnesians:
the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles
Certainly there was no "model of collegiality" between God and the apostles!
Recognizing this, perhaps a more monarchical authority might be expected from the diocesan bishop over the presbyterate and diaconate as opposed to the relationship between the Pope and college of bishops? Really, in a case like this where the bishop is simply supporting the law of the Church, as opposed to enacting particular law or some other personal initiative, why should consulting the priests be necessary? There is, after all, nothing to discuss, as the Archbishop is simply reminding his priests of the existing directives, not changing anything.
Depends on when they took place. If they occurred before or after the Mass, they would not be prohibited.
True, but the article states that the ceremony at St. Joseph's took place during the Mass.
He's changing a practice that has been ongoing for over 20 years, and that is still ongoing in most dioceses around the country. All of a sudden, Donoghue decides to enforce something he hasn't enforced
If he wants to act unilaterally, and without explanation, he should not be surprised at this reaction.
If he wants to kill the washing of the feet ceremony in Atlanta, he couldn't do a better job of it if he issued another of his directives.
I would invite you to go to the Philadelphia Inquirer to read about the practice in Philadelphia.
Seems that Cardinal Bevilacqua got skewered in Pittsburgh when he tried to do what Donoghue has done. So, when he went to Philly, he insisted on 12 men at the Cathedral, but allowed the parishes to do as they wished. Rigali is continuing the practice.
Donoghue may win this battle, but there will be practices instituted such as putting 12 seats in the sanctuary, with six men and six empty chairs to represent the women who are not allowed.
If I wanted to take a stand against my priests, I'm not sure I'd do it over the washing of the feet.
If he wants to act unilaterally, and without explanation, he should not be surprised at this reaction.
The diocesan bishop has a right to be obeyed in his directives. Priests and deacons act only by his authority and he should be obeyed in all things except sin. St. Ignatius writes to the Ephesians:
So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the bishop; which thing also ye do. For your honourable presbytery, which is worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop, even as its strings to a lyre. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung. (4:1)
You speak as if the bishop ought to expect disobedience, but that is the exact opposite of the proper situation. The solution here would seem to be teaching priests to follow the bishop's directives, not changing the governmental style of the bishop.
Two firings bother Catholics
By JOHN BLAKE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/07/04
Some Atlantans were disturbed even horrified by the news this week that their archdiocese has dismissed two people holding positions required by clergy sex abuse reforms.
Ann Price, the former coordinator of the archdiocese's victims assistance program, and Sally Horan, a child sex abuse specialist, said they were dismissed for criticizing archdiocesan reform efforts.
The dismissals leave Atlanta's archdiocese without any qualified personnel to handle child sex abuse claims and training an apparent violation of reforms mandated by U.S. bishops.
"It's like the city of Atlanta deciding that they're not going to have a police chief," said Richard Higgins of St. Thomas Aquinas in Alpharetta. "It's just horrendous. These are children we're talking about."
Atlanta Archbishop John Donoghue declined to comment on the dismissals.
Grace Whitmore, a Duluth Catholic, said she was angered after hearing that the archdiocese had rejected a proposed daylong sensitivity workshop for priests because officials said it would take too long.
"For the past three years, the church has supposedly been dealing with this issue and for [the church] to say a daylong workshop is too much says to me, 'I don't care,' " Whitmore said.
The reaction comes as reforms on the national level have seemed to stall. Leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently postponed adopting an annual independent audit to monitor compliance by dioceses.
The Washington Post reported that Catholic leaders decided to defer a decision on holding the audits until November. Bishops previously had said that they would hold reform audits each year.
Barbara Blaine, president of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said the bishops' decision demonstrates that they already are backing away from recent reforms. "In reality, every bishop is like a king," she said. "He has the right to do anything and he isn't accountable to anyone except the pope."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.