DIFFICULT MORAL QUESTIONS
| TOC | Previous | Next |
Question 11: What should the faithful do about a priest’s liturgical abuses?
I am writing on behalf of six couples from the same parish. We meet weekly for prayer and once a month share a potluck supper at one another’s homes. Last year we got missals so we could take some parts of the Mass and the next Sunday’s readings as starting points for our prayer together, which was becoming routine. That helped, and we also found we began to understand the Mass better.
Lately we have been worried about the liturgies in our parish. The new assistant pastor has been making quite a few changes. Not only do these make it hard to follow along in the missal, but, more important, some of them make us wonder whether we really are participating in a Mass. We also are worried about the bad effects on our children and other young people—on their faith, their reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, their respect for rules. And while some parishioners are very happy with what is going on, others are not, and the more vocal people on both sides have had some nasty arguments.
Our pastor always has said some things differently than they are in the missal, but most of these are changes priests often make, and we never worried about them. For instance, at many points he adds the words here and now; in the prayer after the Our Father he says “protect us from useless worry”; before Communion he says, “Happy are we who are called to this supper”; and when he gives Communion he says, “Receive the body of Christ.”
The new assistant is doing some little things like that but he also is doing many more drastic things. In the penitential rite and throughout the Mass, he never uses the word sin. He sometimes has a layperson, usually a woman, read the Gospel and give the homily. He always skips the Creed. Right after the prayers of the faithful, which take a long time because he asks everyone to join in, he receives the gifts and begins the dialogue before the preface, skipping the offertory. He uses the third eucharistic prayer for children, with some changes, at Sunday Masses in which most participants are adults, and he wants everyone to say the words of consecration with him. The sign of peace takes a long time because he goes around the church making contact with as many people as possible: he encourages everyone to express their feelings by hugging and kissing, and he does a good deal of that himself. Then he has the eucharistic ministers give everyone in the church a host to hold, so that all receive at the same time, and he has the ministers put the cups on the altar rail and urges everyone to help themselves. He says everybody should feel free to receive.
We were hesitant to talk with the assistant, but we prayed about it and decided it was the right thing to do. The other couples elected my wife and me to represent the whole group. We made an appointment with him and discussed the things he does, especially his asking everyone to say the words of consecration and the way he has the ministers handle Communion. He pointed out that most priests make some changes in the liturgy, and said his changes are in line with the fact that the Mass is not a reenactment of the Last Supper, but a memorial meal in which all Jesus’ disciples share and everyone should be active.
We replied that, while we do want to participate actively, it does not seem right for lay people to join with the priest, or even replace him, in doing things the priest alone usually does, and that while the Mass is a memorial meal, it also is Christ’s sacrifice, and it seems to us that the priest alone should say Jesus’ words that change the bread and wine into his body and blood, and that the priest should receive Communion first. He said all Christians ought to be equal and the idea of the Eucharist as magic was just an excuse for dividing them into castes and denying that Christ can act through everyone, including women.
We asked what he meant by “the idea of the Eucharist as magic.” He said he meant the idea that it is something other than the action of both the priest and the people, using bread and wine, in a meal that reminds everyone that Jesus loves them and that all God’s People are equal. We said we and the other couples had not felt unequal and did not feel changes were needed. He said he had received a great deal of feedback from the parish and most people like what he is doing.
We expressed our concern about the effects on our children and other young people. At that he became irritated and said he refused to be bound by a straitjacket of liturgical rules and was not going to be told by a little group of laypeople how to preside at the liturgy. My wife made the mistake of asking if that meant we belonged to an inferior caste. Though she immediately apologized for her sarcasm, the priest banged his fist on the table, angrily accused us of being pre–Vatican II and divisive, said talking with us was a waste of time, and showed us to the door.
After that meeting with the assistant, we talked things over with the pastor. We were careful not to say that all the unauthorized changes priests make are wrong, because that would have been criticizing him too. Instead, we mentioned only the more important things the new assistant has been doing and reported our discussion with him, leaving out only the assistant’s argument that most priests make some changes. The pastor seemed shocked, said the things we described are serious abuses, and promised to get after the assistant. He also suggested that we avoid going to Mass with the assistant, and said that by noon each Friday he would change the recorded message giving the Mass schedule to indicate which Masses he and the assistant would be saying that weekend.
That was a couple of months ago. Most of the time, all six families have been avoiding the assistant’s Masses, but one family took a chance last Saturday evening, and found him still doing things just as he was. Should we do something more? We don’t want to get our pastor into trouble. He has been good, and his homilies show he really has faith. He supports the pope’s teaching, and he encouraged our prayer group.
Analysis:
This question concerns the responsibilities to admonish those engaged in serious liturgical abuses and to petition authority for their correction. The group on whose behalf the questioner writes has taken appropriate action by communicating with the assistant himself and with the pastor. Another attempt to get the pastor to correct the abuses and bring about reconciliation in the parish seems warranted. Because the pastor apparently does not understand how important it is to abide by liturgical norms, an adequate response to the question must include a statement of the reasons why priests should not make even small unauthorized changes in the liturgy and why the assistant’s serious aberrations should not be tolerated. Given the gravity of the latter, if the pastor does not put a stop to them, the bishop should be informed.
The reply could be along the following lines:
You are rightly concerned about the liturgies in your parish, and I think it was appropriate to discuss the problem with the new assistant and your pastor. That was much sounder than engaging in acrimonious debate, as some of your fellow parishioners have been doing, since arguments among parishioners cannot correct abuses by priests and tend to exacerbate the divisions such abuses inevitably generate.
As members of a parish, you have a special responsibility for its well-being. Serious liturgical abuses are not mere rule breaking; the Church has good reasons for her liturgical norms. Since the assistant’s abuses continue and a further effort by you might lead to action that would put a stop to them and help restore harmony in the parish, I think you ought to communicate again with your pastor. He has the authority and the duty to deal with the problem, and the conflict it is generating probably will do more harm and be less likely to heal if he fails to act promptly and decisively.
If you have not already done so, I suggest you prepare a memorandum with a description—more detailed than you have given me—of the various things the assistant has been doing and a report of your conversation with him. Give this memorandum to the pastor when you meet with him. That document is likely to help him focus his attention on the problem, and he also may find it useful as a basis for discussion with the assistant and in presenting the problem to the bishop, if he sees fit to do that. Putting the matters that concern you in writing also will dispose you to be careful and precise, and will allow the assistant a fair opportunity to consider what you say about what he is doing and respond.
In reporting your conversation with the assistant, I think you should include his argument that most priests make unauthorized changes in the liturgy. I also think you should give your pastor reasons not only why the changes the assistant is making are intolerable but why it is wrong for priests intentionally to make any unauthorized liturgical changes whatsoever. This seems to me necessary for at least two reasons. First, since your pastor is a good priest, he almost certainly would not continue making unauthorized changes if he understood why he should not, and his amendment in this matter would be both desirable in itself and likely to increase his ability and readiness to deal with the assistant’s aberrations. Second, in speaking with the assistant (and perhaps also with the bishop), the pastor needs to be in a position to present as full and effective a case as possible, which necessarily includes the reasons why even less serious unauthorized changes are to be excluded. At the same time, I do not think you need explicitly point out in your memorandum that the pastor himself makes unauthorized changes.
When you meet with the pastor, I suggest you first thank him for changing the recorded telephone message each week, so that people can find out which priest will be saying which Mass. But even though this information helps, you can point out that it does not solve the problem, because avoiding the assistant sometimes is inconvenient and because what he is doing is both serious in itself and a source of conflict among parishioners.
In discussing liturgical changes, it is important to maintain a clear distinction between unauthorized changes and those that have been authorized—for example, in the liturgical books or in the official instructions for their use. Instead of the former uniformity and rigid precision in the celebration of the liturgy, the Church has authorized a good deal of variety and flexibility, precisely to foster a genuinely communal celebration in which the faithful participate actively. Priests who use legitimate options in an effort to help the faithful understand the meaning of the sacred action and share in it should be commended. And most priests who adopt some of the more common and less significant unauthorized changes surely do so in a well-intentioned, though mistaken, effort to pursue more effectively the good purpose of the authorized changes.
It also is important to bear in mind that, in celebrating the liturgy, even the most conscientious priests sometimes become confused, make mistakes, or forget to say or do something. Emergencies and other special situations also can render it morally impossible to do and say everything precisely according to liturgical norms, so that in choosing to celebrate despite obstacles a priest may be compelled to proceed in ways that are not explicitly authorized. In such a case, however, the unauthorized changes are not intended to substitute for the liturgy authorized by the Church but rather to carry it out as well as possible under the circumstances.
Some argue that pastoral considerations can require changes to make the liturgy more spontaneous and friendly, so that the Eucharist really will be a joyful experience of celebration for the assembled community, not merely the cold and formal fulfillment of a duty. In reply, three things can be said. First, though a joyful experience of celebration is desirable, it is not essential to the fruitfulness of the Eucharist; the joy that is essential to it flows from charity—the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. The ritual kiss of peace, for instance, is meant to express the divine love that unites Jesus’ disciples who abide in it, and not merely or even primarily to manifest human good will and feelings of affection, appropriate as they too are among fellow Christians. Second, provided those who participate wish to worship God appropriately, a well-planned liturgy can be a joyful experience without any unauthorized changes; important factors leading to a good experience are the reverence and sincerity of the celebrant and other ministers, a good homily, suitable music performed well, and the appropriate use of legitimate options. Third, even minor unauthorized changes distract and irritate many of the faithful, and serious aberrations can be very distressing, so that participation in the liturgy becomes for some a wretched experience.
There are many reasons why it is wrong for priests intentionally to make unauthorized liturgical changes. Two are especially important. First, such changes sometimes embody or imply deviations from Catholic faith; even when they do not, they often omit or obscure something of the liturgy’s expression of faith. Thus, the Church teaches:
The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition (cf. DV 8).Second, in the Eucharist, a priest acts in the person of Christ, who joins humankind to the Father; but in making unauthorized changes, a priest obscures Jesus’ action, focuses attention on himself, and becomes an obstacle to the relationship between God and his People that priests are ordained to serve. Imagine that a family’s rich uncle, living abroad, promised them the gift of a new Rolls Royce and directed a local dealer to deliver it, but the dealer decided the family would do better with a Jaguar, and so delivered that instead. The family had no right to the gift of the Rolls, and might even be satisfied with the Jaguar. Still, the dealer has defrauded not only the uncle but the family, who should have received what they had been given. Priests are agents ordained to deliver God’s gifts to his People. If they deliver some substitute for what Jesus has entrusted to them, they interpose themselves between—and defraud—both God and his People.
For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy. (CCC, 1124–25)
There are five additional reasons why unauthorized changes should not be made in the liturgy. First, the liturgy is the worship of the Church as a body, and those who are ordained act as Church officials in performing liturgical roles. So, insofar as a priest makes unauthorized changes, he misrepresents as the Church’s what is in fact only his or some limited group’s. Even if this misrepresentation deceives no one and is intended for some good end, it is at odds with the reverence necessary for true worship (see LCL, 145). Second, this essential irreverence and the obvious arbitrariness of intentional, unauthorized changes strongly suggest that the Eucharist is not sacred, and this suggestion tends to undermine not only faith in Jesus’ bodily presence in the consecrated elements, but faith that the Eucharist is Jesus’ sacrifice made present for the faithful to share in. Third, a priest who makes intentional, unauthorized changes acts with deplorable clericalism by imposing his personal preferences on the laity and violating the rights of those who quite reasonably wish only to participate in the Church’s worship.41 Fourth, intentionally making unauthorized changes sets a bad example of serious disobedience to the Church’s norms, and this bad example is likely to encourage some people to think and do as they please not only in liturgical and canonical matters but in matters of faith and morals. Fifth, as has happened in your parish, unauthorized liturgical changes often become a needless, divisive issue for the faithful, thus impeding the charity that the Eucharist should express and foster.
Consequently, as the passage quoted from the Catechism makes clear, the Church’s teaching absolutely excludes intentional, unauthorized changes in the liturgy. The Council of Trent solemnly taught: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema” (DS 1613/856). Vatican II’s teaching is no less clear. While some elements of the liturgy “can and even ought to vary in the course of time” (SC 21), only the pope and, as laws may determine, other bishops and bodies of bishops may make such changes: “Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (SC 22). In conformity with her teaching, the Church’s law prescribes: “The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them” (CIC, c. 846, §1).
Besides the preceding points, which you may wish to include in some form in your memorandum, there are some additional points that it may be helpful to have in mind.
The reasons why priests should not make unauthorized liturgical changes also make it clear, I believe, that a priest’s intentionally doing so is of itself matter of grave sin. Of course, many changes are in themselves very minor, and a few perhaps even are real improvements. But though this kind of sin admits parvity, such small changes also are scandalous, not only because they give the faithful a bad example of disobedience but because they contribute to a clerical culture in which liturgical abuse is widely tolerated and sometimes even expected, so that some are encouraged to engage in far graver abuses. Now, even a sin venial in itself becomes grave scandal when one foresees that it is likely to lead others to commit grave sin; thus, the element of scandal makes grave matter of even minor liturgical abuses likely to encourage more serious abuses by other priests. (Due to widespread confusion and negligence of some bishops, many priests undoubtedly lack sufficient reflection regarding this sin.)
Someone might object that, if the preceding argument were sound, every white lie would become grave matter, since a culture in which lying is prevalent encourages perjury and other lying that is gravely wrong. However, individuals who lie in light matter usually have no reason to expect that their venial sin will lead others to commit grave sins of lying. Still, if one has reason in a particular situation to think a small lie is likely to be conducive to another’s gravely sinful lie, then the small lie becomes grave matter. For example, parents who lie in light matter, foreseeing that their bad example will provide their children with a rationalization for lying in grave matter, commit grave scandal. Now, priests belong to a closely knit fraternity; and in presiding at the Eucharist they perform their most official and sacred acts, so that intentional, unauthorized changes by any priest—especially one generally faithful to the Church’s teaching—are likely to encourage more serious abuses by others. Note that when you talked to the assistant, he defended his aberrations partly on the grounds that most priests make some liturgical changes.
A mere reenactment of a historical event—for example, the signing of an armistice on its anniversary—is a dramatization that imitates the event but lacks real continuity with it. In celebrating Mass, however, we are not merely imitating the words and deeds of Jesus and his companions at the Last Supper; in that sense, the Mass is not a reenactment. Rather, it is, as the assistant says, a memorial meal in which all Jesus’ disciples should actively participate. But you were correct in pointing out that this memorial meal is a sacrifice. It is Jesus’ unique sacrifice, made present through the ministry of ordained priests, so that Christians of all times and places can join him in offering it and themselves with him, and share in its benefits. Vatican II beautifully teaches:
At the Last Supper, on the night when he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Bride, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us. (SC 47, notes omitted; cf. CCC, 1362–72)Thus, in participating in the Mass, Catholics today share in the unique communion of the new covenant. Those at the Last Supper were the initial participants in it, and all who die in Christ will continue to participate in it forever.
In many ways, the assistant blurs and even implicitly denies the distinction between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood shared by all the baptized: by having a layperson read the gospel and give the homily, by asking the congregation to join in the words of consecration, by arranging the Communion as he does, and by minimizing his proper role, for example, using in a parish Sunday Mass with a majority of adults a very brief eucharistic prayer authorized only for use in Masses where the majority of participants are children.42 By regularly omitting the Creed and encouraging everyone present to receive Communion, he suggests that faith and a clear conscience are not necessary to share fully in the Eucharist. While he seems to have evaded your question as to what he meant by “the idea of the Eucharist as magic,” that phrase and his minimizing the distinction between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of all the baptized suggest that he may not believe that the consecration, by the Holy Spirit’s power, really transforms the bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood.
Given the assistant’s attitude and state of mind, as manifested by the changes he makes and what he said to you, one reasonably wonders whether he shares the Catholic Church’s faith regarding the Mass. Of course, the priest acts in the sacraments only as the human instrument of Jesus, who is the principal minister. So, even if a priest lacks faith, the Mass he offers is valid if he was validly ordained, says the words of consecration over appropriate matter, and intends to celebrate Mass—“to do what the Church does,” as Trent puts it.43 Probably the assistant does intend that, but like many well-meaning priests is deeply confused about both matters of faith and his own responsibilities.
Even if the assistant’s grave aberrations do not deprive the faithful of a valid Eucharist, they certainly tend to undermine faith and divide the parish, according to whether individuals accept or reject the ideology presupposed by the aberrations. Even those happy with what he is doing are being injured and cheated. The pastor should not continue tolerating these abuses. If he cannot put a stop to them, he ought to take the matter up with the bishop or the vicar designated to deal with such matters. In talking with the pastor, however, do not threaten to take the matter to the bishop. Simply ask him to consider seeking the bishop’s help, if necessary, to solve the problem posed by the assistant for the parish as a whole.
While I do not think you need mention to your pastor the unauthorized changes he himself makes, be prepared if he brings them up. His small changes obscure some important aspects of the reality of the Eucharist. Adding the words here and now at many points focuses on the visible assembly at the expense of its continuity with the Church in heaven, in purgatory, and spread throughout the world. Replacing “protect us from all anxiety” with “protect us from useless worry” obscures the prayer’s reference to the Eucharist’s fulfillment—for which “we wait in joyful hope,” as the prayer goes on to say: a hope in relation to which useful worry is no more possible than are reasonable doubts against faith or justifiable hatred of a neighbor. “Happy are we who are called to this supper” transforms a beatitude for the communion of saints as a whole into a self-congratulatory exclamation for the present assembly. “Receive the body of Christ” does not involve any doctrinal error and probably is a well-intentioned attempt to call attention to Jesus’ bodily presence in the consecrated host. But it inappropriately commands the faithful to do what they already wish to do and limits the meaning of “The body of Christ,” so that the mind is arrested by the truth of faith rather than being led to hope for the heavenly communion the Eucharist anticipates.
If the pastor is unable or unwilling to put a stop to the assistant’s aberrations and does not present the matter to the bishop, I think you ought to communicate directly with the bishop. You might write to him, as you have to me, on behalf of the six couples, and send him a memorandum describing what the assistant does, reporting your conversation with him, briefly reporting your conversations with your pastor, and offering, but not requesting, to come to his office to answer any further questions.
In this communication, avoid characterizing even the assistant’s abuses as such; simply describe what he does and ask the bishop to evaluate it and do what he considers appropriate. In reporting your conversations with the pastor, I suggest that you summarize the case against unauthorized liturgical changes in general, but avoid mentioning the small changes the pastor makes and other criticism of him. I also suggest that you carefully describe the division developing in the parish and stress the need for prompt action to limit it and bring about reconciliation. It probably would be good to ask some faithful and competent person to go over this letter with you before you send it, to identify and correct any mistakes or infelicities in wording that might distract the bishop.
If you write the bishop and he does not answer within a few months, or seems tolerant of the assistant’s aberrations, or promises to take action but without effect, communicate with him persistently, and keep copies of the correspondence. If the problem remains unresolved after a year or so, send copies of everything to the Apostolic Nuncio, with a brief note respectfully requesting that the matter be looked into. Still, experience suggests that even doing that may not lead to action that ends the abuses.
While the assistant’s aberrations continue, take no part in any liturgy he conducts, in order to avoid injury to yourselves and your children. I do not think you have an obligation publicly to warn others to avoid participation, since that probably would have both bad and good effects. But when occasion offers—for instance, if other parishioners ask—I think you should quietly explain why you avoid the assistant’s liturgies.
Do not be hostile toward the assistant or anyone else involved. The young priest probably picked up his strange ideas from others who should have known better; he may well have been badly trained in the seminary. Bear in mind that we cannot read others’ inmost hearts, and pray that God will preserve in his grace those who are living in it, move anyone not living in it to repent, and help everyone concerned to recall and faithfully carry out his or her vocation. While avoiding the assistant’s liturgies, continue to participate fully in everything sound in your parish and support it.
Be careful not to foster alienation from the Church herself or disrespect for legitimate pastoral authority. Pray regularly for the Church, not least that the authentic liturgical renewal she has authorized will be realized rather than frustrated by resistance and abuses. Remember, too, that priests need the support of lay people through prayer and other means, not least words of gratitude and encouragement. No matter how some priests abuse their role, their ministry is essential. Contrary to the suggestion implicit in the assistant’s abuses, ordained priests alone, acting in the person of Christ, can make Jesus’ sacrifice available so that all can share in it and be bodily united with him.44