What Would You Do? - Our Readers

Tempted by the Food of Another
What would you do in this situation? Readers solve the dilemma.

The Scenario:
Steve and Isabela are a Catholic couple in their late 20s and have three small children. They consider themselves orthodox, meaning neither liberal nor conservative, but faithful to all the teachings of the Church. They're distressed by the liturgical abuses they see each Sunday in their parish. They want to be involved and committed members of their parish, but their pastor doesn't seem interested in listening to their concerns. He brushes them off when they ask about these issues, telling them there are no "abuses" taking place, just "healthy liturgical creativity," and besides, they don't have the proper theological training to evaluate liturgical matters anyway. Steve and Isabela have been invited by a Catholic neighbor to begin attending a local schismatic Traditionalist "chapel" that touts itself as a haven for Catholics who are bothered by abuses in their "novus ordo" parishes. For the sake of their children and their own peace of mind, they're tempted to attend the Traditional Latin Mass offered by the schismatic group. What should they do? What would you do?

I'd encourage the couple to avoid the schismatic group in any situation, and find a more traditional church, whether Latin rite or not. I'd also encourage a letter to the bishop outlining their concerns regarding their parish priest.
Darrell Arnold, Montgomery, AL

You say this "orthodox" Catholic couple is witnessing abuses. Do you mean actual abuses or perceived abuses? If they really are orthodox Catholics, they recognize that the new Mass is as valid as the Tridentine. However, at the same time, these allegedly "orthodox" Catholics are seriously considering attending a schismatic group's Mass for the "sake of their children and their peace of mind." They don't sound like orthodox Catholics to me at all. As for the Mass at the real Catholic church they had been attending: If they are worried about actual abuses (deviations from the prescribed rubrics) by their priest, they should complain to the bishop. If they prefer a Tridentine Mass, but do not deny the validity of the new Mass, they should find other like-minded Catholics and petition their bishop for an indult to hold the Tridentine. If they deny the validity of the new Mass altogether, they should do the honest thing and stop calling themselves orthodox Catholics. In this last case, "dissenting Catholics" would be a better label. The error of ultra-right wing Catholics and ultra-left wing Catholics is essentially the same: Both say the pope is only infallible when he agrees with them.
Paul Pascuzzi, Orono, MN

If the couple doesn't like it at their Latin rite parish, they can attend the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic parish. They are also under the pope, and are far more liturgically stable than most modern-day Latin rite parishes.
Mike Fallon, Washington, DC

First, I find the question presupposes that there is a Church-approved definition of the term "orthodox Catholic." If there is such a definition which includes the word "orthodox," I would like a reference to it, remembering that such a definition must come from a competent teaching authority of the Church (the Pope, a Council, the Catechism, etc.).

The couple complains about not being able to participate in the parish. Is this pastor not interested in their active participation or just not interested in their "concerns"? It seems to me that few pastors reject volunteers except when they have a history of being disruptive or can't get along with the others who make up the team. Usually, the disruptive people want it their way or no way.

The scenario doesn't specify what the alleged liturgical "abuses" are, so we have no way of knowing whether or not Steve and Isabela are just overreacting. Remember that many other actions of the Church are liturgical other than the Mass. I can remember the pope during a Mass, embracing singer Tony Melendez. Now technically speaking, the pope had no right to deviate from the prescribed rubrics, for this embrace took place outside the greeting and the sign of peace. Is this what the pastor meant by "healthy liturgical creativity"? If so, I would endorse this action highly! It's also possible that this couple has been away from the Church for a number of years and can't remember what Mass was like and are thus confused. In any case, doesn't the pastor have the right to ask what training they have before he takes seriously their "concerns"? Could I go up to a surgeon and say, "Doc, you didn't do it the right way," without him/her asking if I am a physician? But I guess for some, just attending Mass makes them experts in the liturgy.
Anonymous, via e-mail

The Tridentine Mass is as legitimate today as it ever was. There is nothing schismatic about it or anyone who attends. Liturgical abuses that a pastor refuses to acknowledge should be brought to the attention of the chancery, unless they are promoting the abuses in the first place!
John Niziurski, Rochester, NY

Having been in this situation myself, and having tried to work within the parish to bring about some return to conservative practices without success, I voted with my feet. I would strongly recommend this couple do exactly the same thing.

They don't, however, have to look to a schismatic Mass. My experience has shown me that the most progressive/innovative parishes usually are located in the wealthier suburbs. They will probably be much happier in a church located in a poorer neighborhood. I suggest they go church shopping until they find one that doesn't violate their consciences every Sunday morning.
Anna Maria Hillyard, Independence, OH

One is hard-pressed to find a Catholic who hasn't encountered disturbing oddities in a local parish liturgy. Faced with two imperfect churches (each heretical in its own respect), Steve and Isabela should act in accordance with their conscience to preserve their primary goal: to remain faithful in practice and in name to the Roman Catholic Church. Since neither the Traditionalist "chapel" nor the liturgically-abusive parish perfectly fulfills that goal, they must decipher where the valid Catholic worship lies.

As tempted as Steve and Isabela might be to join the Traditionalist "chapel" with its sacramental liturgy, it would be a self-defeating move; joining a known heretical church for the sake of preserving the true Faith is redolent of 16th century fads. If Steve and Isabela are dissatisfied with the liturgy of their local parish because it is not in full accord with the Church's Tradition, they should be even less satisfied with the Traditionalist liturgy, fully extricated from Tradition. The peace of mind achieved would be superficial or cosmetic at best.

By default, then, Steve and Isabela must either give up their peace of mind or be reformers of their local parish. Assuming their persistent "ignorant layman" objections are still refused by the pastor, they should relay the situation to the bishop. Until change is enacted in the parish, Steve and Isabela might want to supplement their allegedly theologically inept faith with family Bible and Catechism study.
Jean Hermensen, Conrad, MT

The Church is made up of all kinds of people, both liberal and conservative. Still, these diverse viewpoints make up the one Church. Steve and Isabela need to realize this. Their parish may be more loose with the rubrics of the Mass, but that doesn't mean that the Mass is invalid. I've found that parishes are a lot like children: they sometimes need to wander a bit before they come home to mom. Steve and Isabela shouldn't be too quick to condemn their parish and the people who attend. Given time and prayer, it will probably come back to some kind of liturgical balance.
Ruth Maines, Richmond, VA

Jesus founded the Catholic Church — the one, true Church on the earth today. A schismatic church, by virtue of the fact that it isn't in union with Rome, can't be considered Catholic. And if it's not Catholic, it's not part of the Church Jesus founded. For this reason, it would be unthinkable for any real Catholic to consider going to a schismatic chapel. If they do, they become as Protestant as any Baptist or Methodist. They might as well just find a good Evangelical church to attend; at least that way they'll be honest instead of trying to pass themselves off as Catholics.

All told, it would be wrong for the couple to leave their parish, even if they're disturbed by some of the liturgical antics. I know the kind of foolishness that goes on in some places. I've seen it myself. But this still doesn't justify their leaving. Why? Because the Church is involved in an internal battle. There is an entire segment of the Church that is at war with the Magisterium. They fight their battles in parishes, in Catholic schools, even in chanceries. To leave a parish just because the dissenters are in control is to abandon one's post. Jesus puts us where He wants us. He may very well stick us in the middle of a heterodox parish so that we can work to bring it to orthodoxy. If we leave just because we don't like it, we are surrendering the battle and allowing the dissenters to win. Think of how many souls could be lost if that happens! Instead, we have an obligation to stay put, stick by our guns and always serve as the voice of the Magisterium, even if ours is the only voice raised. Running off to the schismatic Church is the cowardly way out. Jesus calls us to stand up for Him, not duck and run.
Jack H. Jones, Boston, MA

Next Issue's Scenario
Dave was happy when Scott, his best friend, asked him to be the best man at his wedding. The two had been pals since childhood, and both were raised Catholic. Earlier, Scott was the best man at Dave's wedding, and the bachelor party he threw for Dave involved some very unchaste activities. Now, Scott expects Dave to throw a bachelor party for him with the same immoral "entertainments." However, after getting married, Dave experienced a radical reconversion to Christ and abandoned his former immoral attitudes and activities. He returned to the sacraments, had his marriage blessed, and developed a healthy prayer life. Here's the problem: When Dave explained that he couldn't in good conscience attend that kind of party, Scott angrily accused him of being a "goodie two shoes" and a "holier than thou hypocrite." Dave knows this is a prime opportunity to share Christ with Scott, but he's not sure how to do it in a way that will preserve their friendship and remain true to his commitment to chastity. What should he do? What would you do?



E-mail your 200-word or less suggestion to brianpl@erols.com, or mail it to "What Would You Do?," Envoy Magazine, P.O. Box 640, Granville, OH 43023.