Wednesday, April 9, 2008

SP April 9, 2008

By Patrick Archbold

Cardinal Kasper: Pray and Witness to the Jews
—Dual covenant theology, I don't think so!

Fr. Z on Charging for the TLM: Absolutely!
"Having a parish costs something. Somebody has to pay for what you receive. When you go to Mass and there is heat or A/C, someone pays the bill. There are bills for lights and salaries for maintenance and cleaning. The priest has the right to a just salary, room and board. If you expect him to travel, his expenses must be paid."


Anonymous said...

Fine IF every other congregation, no matter how small, is given an identical bill. I doubt that this is covered by the Commandments of the Church and I'm slightly suspicious, both of the motivation behind the bill and behind Fr. Z's support for it. Neo-clericalism, I wonder?

Mind you, I'm coming from a situation where we were offered a Church as long as we took up two collections for the Pastor AND THEN paid for light, heat, sacristan, and flew in our own Priest, etc., etc., etc.

Trads shouldn't complain at being treated like ordinary Catholics (it's what we've been asking for, after all) but we should complain vigorously about being fleeced for the privilege - or using lack of ready cash as an excuse not to provide for our needs.

Anonymous said...

It seems out of line to me. YES, there are expenses and they must be met. Church 'rental' expenses are ok and all that. But all the housing expenses of a priest living at home with his mother seems out of line at this time. Certainly if a new parish is to be one day established, the parishioners must pay the way and that is reasonable. But this 72G seems a bit much.

I have never heard of a 'spanish' community asked to pony up. Rather the priest is provided by the diocese to meet the needs of the people. Certainly there are many people with the NEED for the TLM because their hearts cannot take what many experience in their modern parishes.

I know in my parish that is over 1/4 'hispanic' that they contribute less than 10% of the funds that come to the parish. Yet they have all sorts of separate services and missions and a bilingual or Mexican priest for them; they do not pay their way.

I do not have a problem with that
because we, as a church, should seek to meet the spiritual needs of our people without making them pay money for it; they should contribute if they can however.

So to ask ONE segment of the people to pay a certain sum seems like a separate standard when many others are not asked that for their separate needs.

I think the money up front is out of line but that the ongoing expenses should be met.

David L Alexander said...

There isn't a pastor out there who could take these objections seriously. A chaplaincy dedicated specifically to the needs of devotees to the Traditional Mass is being erected by the bishop. It requires the same support as any working apostolate or parish. The amount in question is simply not that much. I can assure you, this kind of whining has already been the Kiss of Death for the TLM in some parts of the country.

dcs said...

The amount in question is simply not that much.

$72,000 is not a lot of money for a chaplaincy. However, even if it isn't, if other groups are being treated differently then it gives the appearance of injustice.

But asking those who would be members of the chaplaincy to pony up $18,000 in advance - while being told to remain as members of their current parishes - is too much.