Extraordinary Ministers Meeting

Extraordinary Ministers Meeting
Dear Fellow Parishioners:
During a meeting Aug. 29, Rev. Brum handed out papers giving the qualifications of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Many of you were present, even some who are not Extraordinary Ministers. Those who weren’t present may want to read this message anyway or simply delete it.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. I think that any failings are due to the pious, but incorrect, belief by many Catholics that clergy can do no wrong. Herd mentality (where people simply do what the leaders of the herd do) also plays a part. Regardless, I do love you all, how difficult that may be.

There was one mistake in the Qualifications that I tried to bring to the participants' attention, but was not allowed by Rev. Brum’s constant talking, with no room for questions or comments, and the herd mentality of most of the group that went along with him. So I am using this medium to correct one error and offer comment to another point left unclear.

There is a mistake in point 4 that reads: "Extraordinary Ministers cannot be part of any organization that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church such as Pro-Choice, Call to Action…”

Call to Action (CTA) is not contrary to ANY of the teachings of the church. CTA is a progressive Catholic group that wants some things that the Church does not have now, such as women priests, but CTA does not recognize any women priests right now. You can see the difference, I assume. In any case, the local CTA chapter is not pushing for women priests. It has only one issue: Pedophile Priests.

There apparently are pedophile priests in this diocese and CTA wants them out. Do you want a pedophile priest administering to your children? If not, you should support CTA because the bishop is not coming clean on this issue, putting your children in jeopardy. If one more child in the Diocese of Brownsville is molested by a priest, then your opposition to the one group that is trying to prevent this, CTA, will not go unnoticed by God.

Now for some clarification of another point:

Qualification no. 3 said that "Extraordinary Ministers must follow the teachings of the Catholic Faith.” Of course, the teachings are many, but some that we might keep in mind, given our present society are:

• Birth control: the pill, condoms, sterilization, and all artificial forms of birth control are prohibited; if you practice any of these, you cannot be an Extraordinary Minister.
• If you have been divorced and "remarried" without proper and complete Decree of Nullity, you cannot serve as an Extraordinary Minister.
• If you are not married in the Church, you cannot serve as an Extraordinary Minister.
• The Church opposes the death penalty; you cannot be an Extraordinary Minister if you accept the death penalty.
• The Church opposes the war in Iraq; you cannot be an Extraordinary Minister if you support the war.
• Although the Church is not opposed to homosexuals (many clergy are homosexual), one cannot practice homosexual sex, nor have heterosexual sex outside of marriage and be an Extraordinary Minister.
• And because Vatican II is the current law of the Church, if you do not accept and follow the teachings in the 16 documents of Vatican II, you cannot be an Extraordinary Minister.

Although I do not claim to be without sin, I do try to follow church teaching and do not violate any of the precepts listed above. Standing up to a corrupt priest is not a violation of church teaching. Nay, it is an obligation of a practicing Catholic. So I am eligible to be an Extraordinary Minister, and am at the service of Holy Spirit Parish.

About what transpired during the meeting: Many of you present acted in a very unchristian and herd-mentality manner. The same way that the Jews of their time treated the prophets and Jesus. You should be ashamed. St. Stephen would call you a “stiff-necked people” (Acts 7: 51). Read in Acts what your spiritual ancestors did to St. Stephen. You think Rev. Brum is correct simply because he is the priest. Jesus has much condemnation for priests who led the faithful astray. He called them many nasty names, as those of you who read the gospels of Matthew and Luke know.

Yours very truly in Christ,
Guy Hallman

And yes, I am praying for all of you, but like Christ, I not only pray, I act.


Dear kanickers:
I read with much interest and enthusiasm Mr. Guy Hallman's letter concerning the most hypocritical Eucharist Ministers meeting that Fr. Brum conducted at Holy Spirit. He spoke in his usually loud and authoritarian voice to perhaps threaten anyone from asking any questions.

He and only he was going to speak and no questions were allowed from those in attendance. When Mr. and Mrs. Hallman asked for permission to speak, Fr. Brum quickly denied their requests saying that he was not through speaking.

Later, he concluded the meeting by intentionally ignoring Mr. Hallman, who had already stood up to make a comment of the requirements of a Eucharist Minister in this parish, which stated that no one could be a member of Call To Action, etc., and continue to serve as a Eucharist Minister.

As we all got up to leave the meeting, some of Fr. Brum most ardent supporters surrounded Mr. Hallman so that he would not bother Fr. Brum with his comments and questions concerning the requirements of a Eucharist Minister.

Mr. Hallman was right on target when he stated that we were like a herd following the illogical and most contemptuous leader that our parish has ever seen. Nearly 20 or more people should have stood up and remained standing until Fr. Brum allowed us time to voice our concerns about the lies he attributed to the goals and objective of our Call To Action chapter.

However, most of us, myself included, were scared to death of what Fr. Brum would have done to all of us. And the worst part is that he would have immediately removed us from serving the most wonderful ministry I feel that the church has to offer; that of giving the most Precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to our parishioners.

Now, my query is this: What action are we going to take as a group to prevent Fr. Brum from denying us our civil rights to assemble and speak about problems within the church as we do in our local chapter of Call To Action? Do we file a lawsuit immediately for violations of our First Amendments Rights and obtain a Temporary Injunction Order?

Let us all pray that this coming weekend will not be a disastrous event at every Mass when Father's new Eucharist Ministers leaders tell some of us we can no longer serve in this very important Ministry so dear to our hearts and which we do to serve our Lord Jesus Christ.
~A Concerned Parishioner


Call To Action
It’s interesting that at the Extraordinary Ministers meeting, of all the issues that Fr. Louis claimed that Call To Action supports, he neglected to mention the biggest one of all (and the only one that the Local RGV Call To Action works on), which is Full Disclosure On The Sexual Abuse Scandal. Maybe his bishop wouldn’t want anyone to be reminded about that one!

And Married priests? The Roman Catholic Church had married priests up until the 12th century and the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has married priests all over the United States, but of course, all of them were former Episcopalian priests. And in dozens of other Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, there is married priests and only the bishops have to be celibate. Maybe someone should let Fr. Louis know about this!
~Parishioner



Did Father Louis Fire Chayo?
I didn't understand everything about this meeting, it was all so well orchestrated. Has Father Louis fired Chayo?
~A Parishioner.


Chayo
I don't think Chayo got fired. Fr. Louis did change her job assignments. I understand that she is no longer in charge of anything at the Sunday masses.

There is a problem with how this was all done. According to their union agreement, no job duties were to be changed without union review. That didn't happen.

I talked to her after the meeting and I think Chayo was upset because of the way it was done. Everybody else knew about the changes before she did. It seems Fr. Louie had been planning this for weeks and it all was planned out before she was made aware of it.

She did get a little hint of what was going to happen the afternoon before the Extraordinary Ministers meeting, in a brief meeting with Fr. Louie, but wasn't given all of the details until they were uncovered at the meeting that evening.
~A Parishioner

Same old story. Management by secrecy!
~A Parishioner




Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Response Letter to Bishop Peña

Response Letter to Bishop Raymundo Peña

August 22, 2005

Bishop Raymundo Peña
Catholic Diocese of Brownsville
P.O. Box 2279
Brownsville, TX 78522

Dear Bishop Peña,

Below is the text (in italics) of the letter sent by Father Bert Diaz, Chancellor of the Diocese, to us, the five representatives of the 273 parishioners who addressed a letter of concerns to Father Louis Brum in April of this year.

Interspersed with the letter’s text is a commentary, providing context to Father Diaz’s remarks, indicating some of his omissions of important facts, and clarifying some of his misrepresentations.

August 11, 2005

Dear Mark, Michelle, Mirtala, Gerald, and Ana:

I received your certified letter yesterday, please be assured that I have not forgotten you; presently, I have a full work load on my hands. After my meeting with all of you, I met with both Fr. Louis and Bishop Peña and addressed your concerns at length.

Father Bert’s workload may be quite full, but the meeting he refers to happened on June 29, 2005—his response took a full 44 days. This sort of delay has been characteristic of the entire process, which began with the presentation of the letter of concerns to Father Louis on April 11, 2005.

Over one-third of a year (123 days) went by before this response was received. It is the first, formal, in-writing communication that has been received from anyone in authority in the Diocese that even purports to deal with the raised concerns.

At the meeting of June 29th, Father Bert pledged to communicate with the group, but did not do so until a second letter was sent in which alarm was expressed at the deteriorating situation in the parish, particularly relating to the religious education programs.

It is pure speculation as to when the promised communication to the group would have been received if the second letter had not been sent.

Father Louis has indicated that the concerns raised by the large number of parishioners “are not a priority” and in fact, he has said they represent an “agenda,” not concerns. The Diocesan administration appears to have the same mindset, given its dilatory behavior.

First of all, Fr. Louis has continued to repeat his pledge of meeting with you all, or any parishioner on an individual basis....

This “individual meeting” tactic of Father Louis is not only an illogical and inefficient way of dealing with a group communication/management problem but, more seriously, represents a faulty view of the nature of a parish community.

In this faulty view, the pastor precedes the parish community and there is no community except in the fact that each parishioner is connected to the pastor.

… We discussed the reasons why he feels reluctant to meet with you as a group. If you meet with him in a spirit of healing, and collaboration I am confident that you can work together in building up the body of Christ at Holy Spirit Parish....

First, it is nice to know that the Pastor’s reluctance to meet with groups of parishioners is actually based on some reasons, but it would be even nicer to know what those reasons are.

Secondly, Father Bert’s confidence in the success of our individually working with Father Louis is nobly expressed, but it is not based on his real understanding of the experience of those who tried this route in the first fifteen months of this pastorate.

Father Louis has refused to engage anyone on the set of concerns raised in the letter of April 11th, concerns that were brought to him time and time again by scores of individuals over many months prior to the presentation of the letter.

The signed letter did not arrive on Father Louis’ desk de novo, but was a compilation of things that had been presented to him repeatedly and had been repeatedly dismissed, sometimes with anger on his part and sometimes resulting in personal retribution on his part. “Building up the body of Christ” indeed!

… You must remember that he is not Fr. Jerry Frank, and comes to you with his own pastoral and leadership styles which can only compliment [sic] and enhance the direction of the parish.

It is important to understand that at no time in the meeting with Father Bert did the five representatives bring up Father Jerry Frank—his personality and style were introduced into the conversation by Father Diaz.

In his discussion with the group, Father Bert said "the parish used to have a 'social activist' priest, but now has one who is ‘spiritual and focused on the Eucharist."

Aside from being a false dichotomy that flies in the face of Church teaching, this comment amounts to a slander with its implication that Father Jerry was not spiritual and did not focus on the parish community’s Eucharistic celebration.

Pastoral and leadership styles will certainly vary in our diverse Church, but to say that Father Louis’ “styles” are “enhancing the direction of the parish” is to torture language in a way that reaches Orwellian heights.

The Gospel mandate of peace and justice is not a “style choice”, having a functioning Pastoral Council is not a “style choice”, characterizing parishioners as “evil” and banning people from ministry in the parish is not a “style choice”, allowing the day to day functioning of the parish to deteriorate into chaos with missed appointments, non-communication and even failing to sign staff paychecks is not a “style choice”. You cannot complement something by tearing it down; you complement something by building upon it.

Secondly, you all raised a concern that some members of the parish staff were being harassed. There are provisions in our Diocesan policies for employees who feel harassed, and it is up to them to take the matter to the appropriate channels.

The harassment of a staff member is, of course, a concern of the staff member that is experiencing it, and it is the decision of that person whether or not to pursue relief through the Diocesan Grievance Policy.

If the experience of a long time parish employee in Roma is typical of how this policy works, it is not surprising that a person might question the point of pursuing that route.

To imply that the only interested parties in the harassment of staff are the staff members themselves represents, yet again, a different understanding of the nature of the parish community.

Our community has a stake in a parish that is not only effectively managed but is managed in a way that reflects Gospel values. When parish staff members are mistreated and are prevented from doing their job effectively, the whole community suffers, not only because the work of the parish becomes substandard, but also because less than Christian actions are being carried out in the name of the Church.

None of us can change the events that happened in the past and healing will take time. I pray that all of you can approach your Pastor with helping hand to bring about that healing....

You, yourself, Bishop Pena, asked for “a plan whereby we both [yourself and the pastor] can reach out to all parishioners to help heal the wound that …the entire community at Holy Spirit [has] endured” (Message to Holy Spirit Parishioners, August 2003). Either this plan is a “stealth plan”, so subtle and cleverly devised that it is impossible to detect it, or there is no plan at all.

Father Louis has indicated that the parish’s past is not his problem and that “healing” is not required, just submissive compliance to his personal whims will be sufficient for the parish.

Even though the past cannot be changed, it cannot be ignored. That being said, the list of concerns presented to Father Louis is, in great bulk, not about the past, but about the present state of the parish.

We are concerned that the parish is collapsing through mismanagement, neglect, and direct attacks on vital parts of the parish life that Holy Spirit has experienced for over twenty years.

… I assure you that Bishop Peña and all of us are praying for Holy Spirit Parish and for all of you. I am confident that if each one of you approaches Fr. Louis in a spirit of collaboration and genuine concern for spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, he will continue to receive you with open arms. May God bless all of you.

Again, there is no basis in the history of Father Louis’ dealings with individuals in the parish for Father Bert’s expressed confidence.

There has been no “reception with open arms” of anyone who has brought concerns to him. On the contrary, there has been dismissive condescension and even hostility.

For Father Bert to suggest that a failed strategy will suddenly be successful is ludicrous. In point of fact, after his meeting with the five representatives the situation in the parish has worsened.

Two examples illustrate the sad state of affairs:

First, Father Louis became highly agitated when parishioners took it upon themselves to promote Bishop Thomas Gumbleton’s visit by placing placards in their own cars.

This visit was sponsored by a neighboring parish and was advertised in the Diocesan Newsletter. Father Louis had their license numbers taken down and removed people from the lector ministry in direct retaliation.

Second, in three instances, Father Louis has left the impression with the gathered Eucharistic assembly that he was denying communion to parishioners who presented themselves to serve as Eucharistic ministers.

Whatever he might have been thinking he was doing, the parish community has been left with the impression that these three people are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

These events, among others, indicate that Father Louis has become even more entrenched in his unwillingness to deal with the concerns of hundreds of his parishioners.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Heberto M. Diaz, Jr.
Chancellor

Since you indicated to us that you wanted Father Diaz to handle this situation, then it appears that, in your mind, the book is closed on this matter.

As you can tell, we are not satisfied with Father Diaz’s response, the failure of Father Louis to face the situation, and the complete lack of progress in dealing with the parishioners’ concerns.

Father Bert’s response to the five of us is almost verbatim what he said at the close of our meeting with him in late June—his discussions with you and Father Louis have resulted in no movement whatsoever.

We now feel forced to pursue these concerns in other forums, both inside the Church structure and outside it.

Our initial request for the five representatives to meet personally with you is still on the table and we welcome an opportunity to do just that. You “offered to help in any way [you could] to bring about harmony and peace.”

What has been offered so far is not sufficient.

Sincerely,


Gerald Brazier
Ana Hallman
Mark Pena
Michelle Peña
Mirtala Rodriguez


Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Notice to 273 Holy Spirit Parishioners

Cover Letter Sent to 273 Holy Spirit Parishioners

August 24, 2005

Dear Fellow Holy Spirit Parishioner,

As one of the 273 parishioners who signed the letter of concerns sent to Father Louis Brum, this is an update for you about the current state of the effort to bring about an addressing of these concerns by the Pastor and the Diocesan administration.

On June 29th, almost a full month after the request to the Bishop for a meeting, your five representatives met with Father Bert Diaz, the Chancellor of the Diocese and the person the Bishop designated to handle the request.

This session lasted about two hours and was, in the main, cordial. Father Bert listened to our presentation, which focused on a request for the initiation of a formal process within the parish to address the raised concerns and to heal the damage done by the events of June 18, 2003, when the staff was fired.

When asked by Father Bert about particular ones of the concerns, the five of us elaborated on them and presented details that reinforced the seriousness of what has been happening in the parish (e.g., the dismantling of ministries, the suppression of parish governance, the continued persecution of parishioners who are viewed as contrary or non-supportive by their removal from some or all ministries, the characterization of these and other parishioners as “evil,” and the generally slip-shod management of the parish).

To our main request for an opportunity to deal with all of this as a community, Father Diaz defended Father Louis’ insistence on dealing only with individuals one-on-one, saying we should have been approaching him that way instead of soliciting signatures to what he described as a very negative letter. Our pointing out to him that these individual approaches had been attempted over a long period of time and were completely ineffective was dismissed out of hand.

Since Father Bert indicated that he would inform us of the results of his discussions with the Bishop and Father Louis, we expected to hear from him relatively quickly. As of August 1st, we had not heard anything and so decided to send a letter to Father Bert raising some new concerns about the deterioration of parish life at Holy Spirit [a copy of this letter is provided under our Previous Posts, "Another Letter to Fr. Bert Diaz?"]. Father Bert responded on August 11th [letter attached].

It is our opinion that Father Bert’s response is completely inadequate and indicates that the Diocesan administration is in total support of Father Louis’ handling of the parish.

As a result, we have sent a letter to the Bishop [also attached], which points out our dissatisfaction with Father Bert’s response and indicates that we intend to pursue this matter in other forums, both inside and outside the Church structures.

For those of you unfamiliar with events in the parish in the past few months, we recommend your visiting our Blog on the Internet at http://www.kanickers.blogspot.com/ (Reflections of the Spirit).

We are planning to organize, for the near future, a social gathering of all of us (the 273) and other parishioners who are hoping for a Restoration of the Spirit—watch for news!

Also, we encourage you to participate in the Labor Day Pilgrimage for Justice in which we are asked to join workers, the farm workers and other labor unions to honor the working people of the valley.

In Christ,

Gerald Brazier
Ana Hallman
Mark Peña
Michelle Pena
Mirtala Rodriguez

Attachments



Copy of the Response From Father Heberto Diaz, Jr. , Chancellor (retyped due to poor scan).

August 11,2005

Dear Mark, Michelle, Mirtala, Gerald and Ana:

I received your certified letter yesterday, please be assured that I have not forgotten you; presently, I have a full work load on my hands. After my meeting with all of you, I met with both Fr. Louis and Bishop Peña and addressed your concerns at length.

First of all, Fr. Louis has continued to repeat his pledge of meeting with you all or any parishioner on an individual basis. We discussed the reasons why he feels reluctant to meet with you as a group. If you meet with him in a spirit of healing, and collaboration I am confident that you can work together in building up the Body of Christ at Holy Spirit Parish. You must remember that he is not Fr. Jerry Frank, and comes to you with his own pastoral and leadership styles which can only compliment and enhance the direction of the parish.

Secondly, you all raised a concern that some members of the parish staff were being harassed. There are provisions in our Diocesan policies for employees who feel harassed, and it is up to them to take the matter to the appropriate channels.

None of us can change the events that happened in the past and healing will take time. I pray that all of you can approach your Pastor with a helping hand to bring about that healing. I assure you that Bishop Peña and all of us are praying for Holy Spirit Parish and for all of you. I am confident that if each one of you approaches Fr. Louis in a spirit of collaboration and genuine concern for spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, he will continue to receive you with open arms. May God bless all of you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,


Rev. Heberto M. Diaz. Jr.
Chancellor


xc: Bishop Raymundo J. Peña
Rev. Louis L. Brum

NOTE: Response letter to Bishop Peña follows on next post.

Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Fr. Louis' Actions Encourages Hostility

Fr. Louis’ Actions Encourage Division and Hostility Among Holy Spirit Parishioners

When our family moved to McAllen, 10 years ago, Holy Spirit Parish was the best thing that happened to us during those difficult times of new beginning. It was the anchor we needed to stay.

We found a parish like never before, vibrant, alive, and welcoming, that immediately offered us a chance to serve, to use our talents, whatever they were, to work for the good of the parish and the community; where the pastor "understood how much the laity contribute to the welfare of the entire Church, and recognized their ministries and charisms, so that all according to their proper roles may cooperate in the common undertaking of the salvific mission of the Church." (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church LUMEN GENTIUM, Chapter IV); and where the laity clearly understood what it means to be "sharers in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly functions of Christ" (LUMEN GENTIUM, Chapter IV).

Never before had we experienced a true Vatican II parish, and we loved it! There were so many different ministries to work for, with room for everyone. Some more conservative, some more progressive, but we were able to work with each other; appreciate, value and respect our differences and when we came together on Sundays to offer our works, our sacrifices, it was a real joy.

Going to mass was not a Sunday obligation anymore, it was a time we waited for during the week; our kids shared those feelings, we didn't have to drag them to church. Mass was not just a ritual, it was a real joyful celebration.

Sadly, this is not the present situation. Tragic is a more appropriate word.

For quite sometime now, and as a result of our pastor’s inability or unwillingness to listen, to dialogue, to offer opportunities for reconciliation, in one word, for his failure as a pastor, as shepherd, an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment, hostility and division has taken hold of Holy Spirit. Where there was once harmony, joy and unity, only sadness, anger, hostility and division remains.

In the last several months some parishioners have received harassing, hateful, anonymous letters from people who identified themselves as other parishioners. They were not made public because they were not considered worth a response and because hopes were high that our bishop, as he had promised, was going to listen to our request for a much needed mediation process to make reconciliation possible.

Unfortunately, our clamor for help seems to have fallen on deaf ears and the situation has gotten worst. The body of Christ at Holy Spirit is breaking apart.

As an example of what some parishioners are saying of other parishioners, here is some excerpts of an anonymous letter I received a few days ago. It was sent to the church‘s office by "another parishioner".

Father Louis Brum received this letter because it was written to him, only copied to me. The author indicated that his copy was signed, so he knows its author. All previous letters were also either directed or copied to him; he has knowledge of all of them.


August 17, 2005

Dear Fr. Louis Brum,

"I am writing this letter as a parishioner who attended services this past Sunday and saw what happened between you and Margaret. I am happy that you are able to stand up and defend the Eucharist. Ann Hallman had no right to give the chalice to Margaret and therefore she is the one who went against what you did. I believe that people who serve the Eucharist should be people who respect the church no matter how opinions might vary. Margaret, Guy Hallman and even nun Kenny should be denied if they are not suppose to be there".

Was Fr. Louis really defending the Eucharist? He abandoned it; he totally left the altar for quite a period of time.

It seemed to me he was and has been using the Eucharist as a weapon to punish people he doesn't like. Jesus left his body and blood for ALL and no one, not even a priest, has the right to refuse the Eucharist to anybody unless he knows that person has been excommunicated or is an obstinate, persevering grave sinner.

To me this is the grave injustice that Fr. Louis has committed against those he has refused to give communion or let them serve as Eucharistic ministers. He has, by his actions, communicated to the assembly that these people are grave sinners, and this anonymous parishioner proves it with the statement that these people "should be denied if they are not supposed to be there". That is what the parishioners are thinking of Margaret, Guy Hallman and nun Kenny (respectfully and better known as Sister Moira Kenny, RSM).

This anonymous parishioner also says that I had no right to give Margaret the chalice, and assumes I don’t respect the church.

Not only by baptism do I have the same right and obligation to be an apostle and minister, but the documents of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states that the faithful, the laity, in their own way are made sharers in the priestly functions of Christ.

When a wrong is done to a brother or sister, a true Christian doesn’t sit and watch, he is obliged to respond as Jesus would, with love and compassion. It’s not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of dogma, of true faith.

I bring the Holy Eucharist to the sick in the hospital regularly. Do I judge before I offer this wonderful free gift our Lord gave to all? No, I leave the judging to God, my ministry is to bring the love and hope of Jesus to those in need. I suggest we all read the chapter on the Laity, Chapter IV, of The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentian.

Ann Hallman needs to know her place. I am tired of her and her husband coming around and showing that they are for justice when they are mistreating church matters.

When Jesus stood up and told the inconvenient truth to the high priest, the hierarchy of his time, they said he was mistreating the church and for that he was persecuted and killed. True followers of Jesus should expect nothing less.

Ann Hallman wanted to start trouble. She herself should not be distributing communion when she is ignorant of church teachings. Everyone wants to be the priest.

As far as the nun, as they call her, she does not deserve the respect that sisters should get. She is living in her own world and thinking she is doing some good justice issues. Why [sic] I am on the subject of her, I was angry that she showed up at Parish Alive and tried to give her two cents about peace and justice. Which Jesus does she follow? Not the one I pray to.

This is so serious, I am going to leave any response to Sr. Moira.

Deeply saddened and concerned, watching our dear Holy Spirit parish break apart beyond repair.

Ana L Hallman

cc: Bishop Raymundo Pena
Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza


Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Newsletter of 08/21/05

Somos el Cuerpo de Cristo
Thoughts from Some Fellow Parishioners of Holy Spirit—August 21, 2005


Ex-Communicado?
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
From The Code of Canon Law (Canon 915)

In the last several weeks three parishioners who stepped forward to serve as Eucharistic ministers were denied communion by the Pastor and told to receive the sacrament with the rest of the congregation. The gathered assembly saw only the denial of communion and so was left with the impression that each of the three had been refused admittance to the sacrament. Most Catholics understand the significance of such a refusal—the person has either been excommunicated or is a public sinner (obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin).

No matter the Pastor’s intent and no matter what he may have actually said to each of them at the altar, his public action has slandered these parishioners by allowing the impression to be created that they were being denied the sacrament. The Pastor owes these three and the congregation a public apology for his, hopefully inadvertent, slander.

Assuming a person has had the proper training and can carry out the task and assuming a person is eligible to receive the sacrament, there should be no impediment to that person serving as a Eucharist minister (or as a lector, or as a choir member, etc.). There are not levels of worthiness for participation in our Eucharistic celebration; we’re all jus’ folks seeking to serve the community. So why the exclusion?

Only one of the three had been told by the Pastor that she was not to be a Eucharistic minister (in fact, he told her she was forbidden to participate in any parish activities, other than Sunday Mass). The reason the Pastor gave for this total exclusion was that she “was defiant and not in support [of the Pastor].”

The other two parishioners have certainly been openly critical of the Pastor and so it is reasonable to assume his denying them communion was in response to that criticism.

The Pastor’s actions in these situations are irrational and untheological. They represent an abuse of his authority, and most importantly, strike at the heart of our Christian community—the Eucharistic meal that binds us to Christ and to each other.

Religious Education
On August 10th, the Chancellor of the Diocese received a letter from those who had met with him as representatives of the 273 signers of the “letter of concerns” sent to the Pastor in April.

In this letter the representatives presented, as evidence of the further deterioration of parish life, the very real possibility that the religious education programs, sacramental preparation programs and the RCIA were not going to be able to start on time or even be conducted at all because the Pastor had put all preparations on hold (no ordering of materials, no scheduling allowed, etc.). Amazingly, the very next day the Pastor contacted those staff members responsible and told them to proceed with all the preparations he had previously forbidden them to make.

Two observations.
First, this incident indicates that the Diocesan administration is willing to intervene on some parish concerns.

Second, this incident indicates how far the Pastor is willing to go in his passive-aggressive campaign to destroy staff morale and to destroy the parish community. He was willing to allow the religious education programs to collapse so he could demonstrate to the staff and the parish that he is in control.

Recall the words of John McKenzie in Authority in the Church,
“The use of power in the vulgar sense of the imposition of one's will on another is in direct opposition to the sayings of Jesus…. Power is not a substitute for apostolic leadership. Power is not even an inferior way of achieving that end.”

Support Our..
These days, we are asked to Support Our Troops, to Support The United Way, or even (in the old James Garner movie) to Support Your Local Sheriff! Now we hear that we should Support Our Pastor.

All persons, particularly those in our parish community, are due our support, in that we pray that God opens their minds and hearts and gives them the strength to follow the Gospel. We can support a person without giving our assent to bad decisions they have made or bad policies they are carrying out.

Those clamoring for support of the Pastor cannot really mean that they support dismantling parish ministries, persecuting parishioners and a “management style” that has left the parish operation in a shambles, can they? Support Our Pastor with your prayers.

Silent Preaching
Preaching is relatively easy, but to live out what is preached … to respect the teachings of the Holy See, of the magisterium, to praise them, extol them, defend them theoretically is very easy.

But when one tries to incarnate that teaching and give it life in a diocese, in a community, and point out concrete events that are against that teaching, then the conflicts arise. But every priest, religious, or lay person who wants to announce Christ’s gospel in truth must suffer persecution. The witness of life is necessary. Here I make an appeal that all your lives and mine be in truth a silent preaching. Thus is the gospel lived, not just by preaching pretty sermons and not living them. Archbishop Oscar Romero, July 16, 1978

FYI—Two Bits of Canon Law
When the ministry of any pastor becomes harmful or at least ineffective for any cause, even through no grave personal negligence, the diocesan bishop can remove him from the parish. From The Code of Canon Law (Canon 1740)

The causes for which a pastor can be removed legitimately from his parish are especially the following:

1. A manner of acting which brings grave detriment or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;

2. Ineptitude or a permanent infirmity of mind or body which renders the pastor unable to fulfill his functions usefully;

3. Loss of a good reputation among upright and responsible parishioners or an aversion to the pastor which it appears will not cease in a brief time;

4. Grave neglect or violation of parochial duties which persists after a warning;

5. Poor administration of temporal affairs with grave damage to the Church whenever another remedy to this harm cannot be found.
From the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1741)

See you at the Sunday night vigil—8:00 pm.


Prepared by RGV Parishioners for Progress and edited by Jerry Brazier. If you want an opportunity for prayerful discussion of these and other issues about the parish or have any other comments, please contact us at gbrazier@rgv.rr.com.


“Please join us and other workers in a Labor Day Pilgrimage this Labor Day, Monday, September 5, 2005, beginning at 8 a.m., at Archer Park in McAllen and walking to San Juan’s Shrine of Our Lady of San Juan.” Complete details under our previous post "Labor Day Pilgrimage" at left.


Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Questions on Union Contracts.

Some Questions and Answers on the Union Contracts.

Have the union contracts cost the parish any money?
No, the employees pay their own union dues and the parish pays into the union pension fund from money, approximately $63,000, returned to the parish by the Bishop in 2002 when he terminated the diocesan lay pension fund. At the present time there should be over $12,000 still in that fund.

Why did the employees at Holy Spirit Parish sign a contract with the United Farm Workers Union, UFW?
One of the reasons, besides job security, that employees at Holy Spirit Parish signed a contract with the United Farm Workers Union (UFW) was to get a pension. The Bishop terminated the lay Pension Fund in 2001. He did set up a 403(b), like a 401(k). However, employees over 40 would receive 30-50% less from the 403(b) upon retirement, with a good market, than what they would have received under the old pension fund.

What’s the difference between a 403(b) and a pension fund?
(The 403(b) is different than a pension fund in that it is dependent on the market. A pension fund, on the other hand, guarantees a certain monthly payment for life starting on retirement, and to the surviving spouse if the worker dies. This payment is not dependent on the market. Those of you who watch the market know the market has not done well in the last few years.

Where did the money come from after the Bishop terminated the lay pension fund?
When the Bishop terminated the lay pension fund millions of dollars were left over after he paid it out according to the IRS formula. He returned some of the money to each parish and diocesan institutions. He publicly told people that each pastor could do with this money what they wanted to do. One priest asked, "Can I give it back to the employees?" The Bishop responded, "You can do with it what you want. If you want to put a new roof on the church, or if you want to give it back to the employees, that is your decision."

How much did Holy Spirit Parish receive back and what did they do with it?
At Holy Spirit Parish the finance council, chaired by Conrado Alvarado, and the Pastoral Council, chaired by Dora Saavedra, advised Fr. Jerry Frank to place that money, approximately $63,000, into an account to pay into the UFW pension fund for the employees under contract. He took their advice. As of the end of June 2005, $51,000 has been expended. That leaves approximately $12,000 still left in that account.

Why did the employees sign a five-year contract? Isn’t that unusual?
UFW requires a five-year vestment, meaning that the employee must be under contract for five years in order to receive a pension fund when they retire. That is why a five-year contract was signed. The only exception is for an employee who turns 65 years of age before the five years. That employee is automatically vested.

What kind of pension will the employees be receiving?
For employees who have worked here for a number of years, $1/hour, or $2080/year are placed in the pension fund. This guarantees $500 a month for life at retirement. That’s a pretty good return on the money.

Does everyone have $1 per hour placed into the pension fund?
No, everyone is not getting $1/hr contribution. The amount placed into the pension fund is dependent on the number of years of employment at the parish. So, newer employees may only have 25 cents per hour placed into the pension fund. This rewards those workers who have worked many years at their job. The contribution increases in accordance with the number of years worked.

Are there any other paybacks at retirement?
The UFW will also pay $5 per month for every year a person has been employed at the parish, up to 15 years, even if those years have not been under contract. So, if an employee worked 10 years, they would receive $50 per month for life, plus their monthly pension. If they worked 15 years they would receive $75 per month for life, plus their monthly pension.

Why are some people saying that the Union has cost the parish money?
This issue is very complicated, but it is important to know that the union contract has not cost the parish any money and no money from any parish operating funds has been used to date to pay pension funds or union dues.


“Please join us and other workers in a Labor Day Pilgrimage this Labor Day, Monday, September 5, 2005, beginning at 8 a.m., at Archer Park in McAllen and walking to San Juan’s Shrine of Our Lady of San Juan.” Complete details under our previous post "Labor Day Pilgrimage" at left.


Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Fr. Louis Again Denies Communion.

Father Louis Brum Again Denies Communion To Another Holy Spirit Parishioner!
Three Sundays ago, Father Louis Brum, in an open spectacle during mass, denied Communion to two (2) Holy Spirit parishioners and denied them the right to act as Eucharistic Ministers within the Parish. Both had been long standing Eucharistic Ministers at Holy Spirit Parish and one of them is even a religious nun. Father Louis Brum's reasoning behind removal of these and other parishioners from existing ministries at Holy Spirit has been; "They are disobedient of me!" He has removed them from serving on any ministry in which they had previously served and has further disallowed them from serving in any capacity within the parish.

Last Sunday, Father Louis Brum again denied communion to yet another parishioner and has again refused to allow her to serve in her capacity as a Eucharistic Minister. He had also previously disallowed her from serving in any of the many parish ministries that she was previously active in before Father Louis Brum was assigned to Holy Spirit Parish.

I consider these actions by Father Louis Brum to be absolutely deplorable and totally against the teachings of the Catholic Church. We all know what kind of Catholics (individuals) each of these "disallowed parishioners" are and we also know that they have each been truly unworthy of this kind of treatment from a Church that they have so passionately loved and served throughout their lives.

As is reflected throughout this Blog, our Bishop, The Most Reverend Raymundo J. Pena, has been totally passive to our numerous requests for intervention here at Holy Spirit Parish. Based on his total lack of response, one can only assume that these deplorable, distructive actions of Father Louis Brum have been performed with his approval. This is no longer a case of going to our local Bishop for help. Every single one of our previous attempts, including a letter signed by over 270 Holy Spirit Parishioners, has fallen on deaf ears. It is time to get the Papal Nuncio and Rome involved.
Kanickers~



Why is Fr. Louis Brum denying Margaret the Eucharist?
Why is he humiliating her in public?
After witnessing Fr. Louis Brum deny communion to my husband and to Sister Moira two Sundays ago, then to watch him do it again this Sunday to Margaret, refusing to let her serve as a Eucharistic Minister, it was obvious to me that he was using the Eucharist as a weapon to punish and humiliate Margaret in front of the entire community that she has served with so much love and dedication for so many years.

Why is Fr Louis doing this? What could possibly be the reason that he has so much anger and hate towards her? No one knows, yet he is throwing stones (in this case, the Eucharist) at this woman. I felt the kind of indignation Jesus must have felt when the mob was ready to stone the woman in the bible.

This past Sunday, at the 12:30 mass, when I went up to serve as a Eucharistic Minister, I witnessed again, at a much closer range, the deplorable attitude of our pastor toward a woman who, regardless of the reasons that he dislikes her, at least deserves the love and compassion that Jesus would have offered.

I believe that no one, not even a priest, has the right to judge and punish another person so harshly. I also believe that Jesus left His Body and Blood for all and that only He can judge and punish us. I also believe that Jesus does so with much more mercy and compassion than we do.

As a member of the Body of Christ and as a disciple of Jesus (as we are all called to be), I could not stand by and passively watch what was happening, I felt moved to offer Margaret the Blood of Christ and to offer her the Chalice so that she could serve as she has tried before, only to once again be denied by Fr. Louis.

What is happening to our parish? It is frightening and very sad.

Friends, let us continue to pray, now more than ever, for our pastor, for all those affected in some way by his actions, for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for our parish and for the Church.
~Ana L Hallman


Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Another Letter to Fr. Bert Diaz?

Remember This? (Update)
Scheduled Meeting with Father Bert Diaz.
Today, Wednesday, June 29, 2005, is the day that our five representatives are scheduled to meet with Fr.Bert Diaz to discuss the Letter of Concerns that was signed by over 270 members of our parish and sent to Fr. Louis Brum. This meeting is scheduled for 4:00 PM. We ask all to pray for an amicable outcome. We will keep you posted on any progress.


The Latest News from the "Assigned Five".
Based on the answers that I keep getting from the five parish representatives that were assigned to present our "Letter of Concern" to Bishop Reymundo Pena (a la Father Bert Diaz), I guess the concerns of over 270 Parishioners at Holy Spirit Parish doesn't mean a damn thing to our Bishop. The Bishop has not even had the courtesy to respond in any way, shape or form to our concerns about the destructive actions that are being taken by our pastor, Father Louis Brum.


UPDATE: The following letter was sent to Fr. Bert Diaz:

August 1, 2005

Rev. Bert Diaz, Chancellor
Diocese of Brownsville
P.O. Box’2779
Brownsville, TX 78522-2279


Dear Fr. Bert,

We are writing to request follow-up communication and/or a meeting. Since we spoke with you, the situation at Holy Spirit Parish has continued to deteriorate. More parishioners have been banned from ministry and the working conditions for our employees have reached new levels of harassment. Our religious education program for the coming year is at a complete standstill because no one was allowed to order books. This is especially disturbing to those parishioners who have children ready to participate in sacrament preparation. Our RCIA program is virtually shut down as well.

If the Diocesan position towards our parish is defined by the public comments of diocesan spokesperson Brenda Nettles-Riojas, if we are in the bishop’s view once again a vibrant parish with healing happening every Sunday”, please extend us the courtesy of a response confirming this position.

As parishioners of a Church we love, we will continue to witness to the truth of our situation and will move forward in seeking healing for the Body of Christ that is Holy Spirit Parish. We continue to hope that we can work for healing together with our Diocese.


Sincerely,

Mark & Michelle Peña
Mirtala Rodriguez
Gerald Brazier
Ana Hallman


cc: Bishop Reymundo J. Peña
Fr. Louis Brum



When are we going to get some answers? Things are getting worse at Holy Spirit Parish!

Comforting words for the prophets as they endure opposition, for those loyal to the mission of proclaiming God's truth, and for those that stand up for justice and for their beliefs with no fear:

"We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed... For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" (II Corinthians 4: 8-9, 17-18)



Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Comments from Our Readers

Some Comments
I have waited a while to add anything to the blog because I feel a little torn about the entire situation. I believe in all of the workings of our "special 5" and acknowledge them as very hard workers. I am concerned about the amount of items that seem to keep being added to the already depressing situation. I still stand behind what was done to our parish was/is wrong and no one has ever tried to meet with any parishioners as a whole since the whole mess transpired.

We as parishioners need to keep the "spirit" alive in our church through our stewardship of service to all the programs offered. I love being a part of some of the programs-- they have become some of what I am proud to be -- such as helping at Briarcliff and teaching in the religious education program.

As a teacher, by profession and as a volunteer, I must add to the discussion concerning the issue of textbooks; They are very expensive and we can teach with just the teacher resource manuals. Both Martha and Elfida work hard at having all of our materials ready to go. I would tend to be more concerned if the religious education program would not be offered at all, not about the amount of textbooks available. Alot of what is taught also comes with tradition and modeling and discussion and hands on activities.

As far as the rose on the altar, I think the argument about it is petty. Now, the bread used for communion is worth fighting for but the rose? Please, convince me of how that hurts anyone! As far as kneeling during the service, we do have kneelers and that is not a big sacrifice to make. Kneeling also shows respect and reverence to our Lord, not necessarily our pastor.

I, personally, will continue to support this letter/blog, however, I feel that there is a need to be careful about which battles are truly worth fighting for. I believe that part of the lack of "love" that I feel when I attend mass is caused by our pastor not taking real partnership with us as parishioners and I am sure employees and the other is knowing that so many of us are still unhappy and are beginning to nitpick about certain things as mentioned above.

I too want justice for our parish--it is a part of my and my family's life-- but will we ever be part of the peace making? Is there ever going to be any compromise from either side on anything or is conflict going to rule for ever? I truly do not mean to offend anyone but my heart grows weary. I do not seek an argument, I just wanted to add to the dialogue.

Wanting peace and hope and comfort--
Yours in Christ,
Delia Mendoza


Dear Delia,
I am glad to see you posting to Kanickers. And we miss you at the Sunday night vigil. We are meeting at 8 pm during the summer. In September, we switch back to 7 pm. Please join us again!

Allow me to comment. Yes, the rose seems a petty concern. But it is against the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) to have anything on the altar that does not have to do with the consecration. The pastor errs often about Catholic teaching and we call him to task on it. Jesus demands at least that from his followers.

The kneeling is more complicated. Only in the US are the faithful asked to kneel during the entire Eucharistic Prayer because the US bishops requested it. Why are we in the US setting ourselves apart from the universal Catholic Church? This national separatism can lead to grave problems of faith, such as nationalism becoming confused with spirituality. I think that that is indeed a problem in the US that the Vatican should not encourage. In any case, the US version of the GIRM says that we should kneel “unless health, lack of space, or some other good reason suggests that we remaining standing.” That leaves it pretty wide open. I have “some other good reason” that I will not go into here, hence I stand.

A minor point about kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer: There is a sentence that reads, “as we stand in your presence and serve you.” Isn’t it a bit odd that almost everyone is kneeling at the time that sentence is read! A side bar; the pastor has taken to leaving that sentence out of the Eucharistic Prayer after the apparent discrepancy between what is read and the posture of the people was pointed out to him. He thinks that he can just leave out parts of the Eucharistic Prayer! He displays an alarming lack of respect for the Eucharist, which he recently claimed was “the center of [his] life”. Reminiscent of the abusive husband who tells his wife he loves her, while he beats her.

You are right, Delia, the bread we had is truly worth fighting over and it is high time that we do it again! The GIRM “demands” bread that is like real food. The GIRM is very forceful in it’s wording about using freshly baked bread that looks like real bread. We had it at Holy Spirit; we need to get it back! Thanks in great part to people who know Church teachings well, such as Ann Cass, we were entirely in line with current Catholic teaching, as we were in just about everything before the bishop sent his thugs in to destroy our Vatican II parish.

And please don’t accuse me of being too harsh in calling them the "bishop's thugs". Jesus called misguided clergy “vipers, evil, hypocrites” and many other bad names. Jesus was very harsh against clergy who were leading the faithful astray, like our pastor and the bishop. Vatican II is the law of the Church right now and those that do not follow Vatican II are going against the church. Catholic Churches are required to adhere to Vatican II teachings. We did at Holy Spirit before June 18, 2003.

You wonder if there will be compromise. We cannot compromise the teachings of Jesus or the Church as expressed in its current form, Vatican II. It seems quite evident that this pastor must go. He has been given ample opportunity to become our shepherd, but has refused, scattering the flock and not caring one wit about the lost sheep among our flock, the lost sheep that Jesus would have left the rest of the flock to recover.

Finally you express a weariness of heart and a desire for “peace and hope and comfort”. Jesus wanted that, too, but it was not to be. In the end, He did what his Father in Heaven wanted and we were saved as a consequence. He calls us to shoulder his burden. With him it is bearable. I would love to leave this alone and rest, maybe even find another church where I can wallow in grace easily poured down from above. But I know that it is not meant to be and we are here doing what our brother Jesus wanted us to do. Let us shoulder the burden together, Delia.
~Guy Hallman

Newsletter of 08/07/05

Somos el Cuerpo de Cristo
Thoughts from Some Fellow Parishioners of Holy Spirit—August 7, 2005

Optimists Live Longer
I started reading from the works of Sr. Joan Chittister, a Benedictine, since the election of our Pope to learn more about St. Benedict and the Rule of Benedict. Here are a few thoughts to consider:

“The whole notion that the spiritual life is some kind of constant that can be easily achieved and faithfully kept is a sign of spiritual immaturity. Either we change the way we look at life and God as we grow or we shrivel into some kind of religious cutouts left over from the era before us.

“Ideas change us. In calling for more reading and silence, … (St.) Benedict is, then, clearly calling for change, not invariability. The spiritual life is a process of growth, not a checklist of religious activities.”

And because we cannot ever stop hoping: “Never accept as darkness anything that, with a little effort—a slight change of mind, a touch of humor—can become light. Or as Loretta LaRoche puts it, ‘Optimists live longer. Pessimists are more accurate, but optimists live longer.’ ”(Listen with the Heart, Sr. Joan Chittister).
From fellow parishioner, Michelle Peña

Proud To Be A Catholic
In 1881, the Knights of Columbus was founded as a Catholic fraternal benefit society. It not only would assist widows and orphans of deceased members through its life insurance program, but also would boost members' sense of pride in their Catholic religion, then frequently challenged in the anti-Catholic climate of 19th century America (from These Men They Call Knights, pub-lished by the Supreme Council of the K of C).

In his sermon this week, the Pastor talked about the large crowds and the liturgical events at a gathering of the Knights of Columbus that “made [him] proud to be a Catholic.”

It is not the 19th century any longer and the virulent anti-Catholicism that put barriers to economic participation in American society for Catholic men has long past. What also has passed is the “bunker mentality” that saw the Church as an army at war with the Protestants and the Jews and the modern world in general. The Second Vatican Council put that image to rest in its two documents on the Church (Lumen Gentium and Gadium et Spes).

Better to be proud of those who witness the Gospel message and live out their commitment to Christ in very difficult circumstances while under great criticism. We have a parish community with such people—let’s be proud to be in community with them. Is our Pastor proud to be a Catholic when his parishioners follow Jesus’ command “Put up your swords” and publicly protest a war that John Paul II also condemned? Is our Pastor proud to be a Catholic when his parishioners bring rice and beans for the poor to the altar each Sunday? Is our Pastor proud to be a Catholic when he is in Chicago, but not when he is in the midst of the Holy Spirit parish community?

Cliché, Part Two
Cliché. n. a timeworn idea or expression;
a trite or stereotyped phrase.

“Church teachings never change.”
We reject the abominable philosophy of human rights, especially freedom of religion, conscience, and the press and the equality of all human beings. Pope Pius VI in 1791.

There are many people who take the position that the current teachings of the Church (the magisterium) have always been what they are today, and will always be the same in the future. Even a cursory look at history shows that such a position is untenable. The above quote from Pius VI provides a few examples of the scores of Church teachings that have changed over the centuries. The Church’s official teachings on usury, slavery, war, the Jews, capital punishment, biblical scholarship, science (physics, biology, psychology, etc.), democratic government, the role of women (in society or in the Church), workers’ rights, and so forth, are all different than they used to be (sometimes even involving a 180º shift).

That may be true, some say, but today’s teachings are the right ones and will never change. If that’s correct, when was the magic day on which the then current teachings became the unchangeably correct ones? There was no such day, of course. Each collection of Church teachings represents the advice of the Church at that time for the faithful of that time. We hope it is the best advice available based on a deep understanding of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the contemporary world (with its science and culture). It is difficult however, from our current perspective, to see what understandings led to Pius VI’s teachings, for example, or led to past Church teachings on slavery or the Jews.

It must be true that some parts of the current magisterium will, in the future, be changed (since that has always been the case). Which ones? That is the difficult question, and the answer is: we don’t know. What then is a poor soul supposed to do when faced with moral and ethical decisions or with issues of faith? Make a decision as an adult Catholic Christian, with an informed conscience and a commitment, as Paul tells us “to Christ and Christ crucified.” Anything less reduces the moral life to obedience, not choice, and robs it of merit. Anything less turns us into children who are, at root, not responsible for their lives. Anything less allows us to limit our Christianity to formulas and so compartmentalize our life into the religious part and the rest of it.

La Toma
In a recent, highly-acclaimed documentary film, The Take, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein take viewers inside the lives of ordinary visionaries, as they reclaim their work, their dignity and their democracy.

In the wake of Argentina’s spectacular economic collapse in 2001, Latin America’s most prosperous middle class found itself in a ghost town of abandoned factories and mass unemployment. In suburban Buenos Aires, thirty unemployed auto-parts workers walked into their idle factory (built with the help of their tax money), rolled out sleeping mats and refused to leave. All they wanted was to re-start the silent machines. But this simple act —La Toma (The Take)—had the power to turn the globalization debate on its head.

If you get a chance, catch this film, and even if you don’t, reflect on the responsibility we all have towards what really belongs, not to some bureaucracy, but to us. Can we sit by and watch what is ours and what is important to us turn into an idle, abandoned ghost town? Or, should we entertain the possibility of La Toma?

See you at the Sunday night vigil—8:00 pm.


Prepared by RGV Parishioners for Progress and edited by Jerry Brazier. If you want an opportunity for prayerful discussion of these and other issues about the parish or have any other comments, please contact us at: gbrazier@rgv.rr.com.


Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Letter of Concern + Religious Ed

Remember This?
Scheduled Meeting with Father Bert Diaz.
Today, Wednesday, June 29, 2005, is the day that our five representatives are scheduled to meet with Fr.Bert Diaz to discuss the Letter of Concerns that was signed by over 270 members of our parish and sent to Fr. Louis Brum. This meeting is scheduled for 4:00 PM. We ask all to pray for an amicable outcome. We will keep you posted on any progress.


The Latest News from the "Assigned Five".
Based on the answers that I keep getting from the five parish representatives that were assigned to present our "Letter of Concern" to Bishop Reymundo Pena (a la Father Bert Diaz), I guess the concerns of over 270 Parishioners at Holy Spirit Parish doesn't mean a damn thing to our Bishop. The Bishop has not even had the courtesy to respond in any way, shape or form to our concerns about the destructive actions that are being taken by our pastor, Father Louis Brum.

My recommendation: Call a News Conference and give it to the press!
Kanickers~


Religious Education Program Being Scrapped by Father Louis?
I have also heard that Fr. Louis Brum is attempting to change our very successful Religious Education Program at Holy Spirit. The following was reported in our last Newsletter:

The Pastor has refused to allow materials to be ordered for the family-based religious education programs. At the Pastor's directive, preparations for the latest round of the parish RCIA program have been halted. What is going on? Clearly there is something afoot that will be euphemistically called "restructuring and improving", but will in fact be a dismantling of yet another set of parish ministries.

This attempted action by Fr. Brum really gets my goat! The Religious Education Program at Holy Spirit Parish has been the result of many years of evolution by extremely competent and caring program facilitators. Unlike any other that I have ever seen, our present family religious education program is a family-based program that involves both parents and children, united in the task of bringing the teachings of the Church to our youngsters. It is a truly WONDERFUL program that is MUCH BETTER than most other programs that are currently available. The sad thing is,... it would NOT be changed because there is a better program available. It would be changed as a show of power by our pastor!

Every parish family that plans to have their children enrolled in the religious education program should be very concerned about this. Your KIDS will be the ones that will loose if the program is changed! PLEASE,... voice your concern and DEMAND an explanation of why your pastor has not allowed materials for our Religious Education Program to be ordered? Ask WHY our old program would ever be changed and ask to review the differences between any new program,... then decide for yourself which is the better program for YOUR children!

You have a right to have a voice in what happens in your parish! PLEASE get involved and question your pastor's motives!
Kanickers~


Please, Get that Rose Off the Altar!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am growing more and more disturbed by our pastor placing a rose on the altar during mass. Several months ago, we wrote in our newsletter:

What's with the rose on the Eucharistic table?
That fascinating bedtime read, the GIRM (p. 77) says, Floral decorations should always be done with moderation and placed around the altar, rather than directly on its mensa [table].

Just the thought of our pastor going against Church teachings (GIRM) by having a rose on the altar while he is saying mass, but not allowing us to have our "feel like - smell like" real bread Eucharist, which is strongly recommended by the GIRM, is really eating at me... Am I the only one that is feeling this way?
Kanickers~


Sorry, No Paychecks Today!
Paychecks were not available for Holy Spirit employees this past Friday. Getting paid will have to wait until Monday! This NEVER happened under the old administration.

Church employees are usually not on the high side of the income scale. Like most lower income wage earners, they often live from paycheck to paycheck, often even anticipating being able to deposit or cash their paycheck on Friday evening to cover necessities over the week-end. Not insuring that their paycheck is ready when they were promised can be a terrific burden on them. Wow,... what a way to run a Catholic Parish!
Kanickers~


Parish Financial Information?
This was also in our notes several weeks ago...

Father Guss's comments were: "This is your Parish. You deserve to know exactly how much money was taken in and exactly where your money is being spent."

His disclosure made me wonder when we were going to get these same financial reports from Fr. Louis for Holy Spirit Parish? According to Fr Gus, "It is so simple now, all you do is write the last check for the fiscal year, then push a button on the computer and you get an instant, year-to-date Financial Report! " Holy Spirit's fiscal year ended on June 30, 2005, as well.

Since our Parish Counsel and Finance Committee have now gone "hush-hush", are we still going to get a financial disclosure for Holy Spirit Parish as we always have in the past?

Maybe it's time that we start asking for it?

OK, now I am asking...
Can I come in and review how the Parish is doing financially.
Why haven't parishioners been provided with this information?
Who is in charge of our Parish financial matters?
Do we still have a Parish Finance Committee?
Who is on this Finance Committee?
Where is our money being spent?
Do we still have a budget?
Are we meeting expenses?
Why all the secrecy?
Kanickers~


Parking Lot Signs!
Thank you so much to our "outlawed" Peace and Justice Committee for signs out in the parking lot reminding us of Peace and Justice matters that should be in our Sunday Bulletin. The kingdom of heaven will be yours for your efforts!

Also, please don't forget to continue to bring rice and beans for the poor at every mass.
Kanickers~

Note: If you would like to contribute a posting or a comment to this site, please send it to: kanickers@aol.com, with "Holy Spirit" in your title line. You may also e-mail this article to a friend, simply by clicking on the little envelope icon below!

Labor Day Pilgramage for Justice.

United Farm Workers

LABOR DAY 2005 PILGRIMAGE FOR JUSTICE

JOIN THE FARM WORKERS AND OTHER LABOR UNION WORKERS TO HONOR WORKING PEOPLE OF THE VALLEY THIS LABOR DAY, 2005.

• START LOCATION: McAllen Archer Park, 100 North Main, just north of Business 83.
• START TIME: 8:00 AM, Monday, Sept. 5, 2005
• ENDING AT: Shrine of Our Lady of San Juan, Arrival Time: 11:00 AM, in time for a religious service that will start shortly after our arrival.

Bring your rosaries and your banners of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and St. Joseph the Worker. This is a pilgrimage to pray for justice for all working people.

All workers should have a voice at work so that they are able to secure better wages and benefits such as health insurance and pensions for themselves and their families. Farm Workers in California who work for Gallo Brothers, as well as, the Brownsville Catholic Church Workers should have a voice. Catholic Popes and Bishops have endorsed the right of all workers to form a union. Brownsville Bishop Raymundo Peña, however, is fighting against church workers who want union representation.

Bishop Raymundo Peña, Father Louis Brum, and the Catholic Church should be leading the way in all of these struggles by recognizing the rights of church workers to unionize—they should be setting examples for the Gallo Brothers in California and for all employers.

Mail or fax the form below to: UFW, 502 Cass St., San Antonio, TX 78204, or fax to: (956) 787- 8730. Or e-mail information to: rebeccaflores@grandecom.net. Registration will also take place at Archer Park on the day of the pilgrimage.

--------------------------------mail or fax or e-mail------------------------------------------

( ) YES, I WILL JOIN YOU IN THE LABOR DAY PILGRIMAGE.

( ) YES, I WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER TO GET THE WORD OUT.

( ) Here is a donation for the march. $_______. Make checks payable to UFW, and mail to 502 Cass St., San Antonio, TX 78204.

( ) I will bring ______ people to the Pilgrimage on Labor Day.

Your name: __________________ Telephone: ________________

Address: ____________________ City/ZIP: _________________

Your Email Address: __________________

12:30 Mass, Sunday, July 31, 2005

Wow!
Yes, I was at 12:30 Mass last Sunday. Many have asked...

Question:
When your local priest refuses to give you communion, does that mean that he has declared you to be automatically excommunicated? Or,.. is he just proclaiming that you may not be a Catholic-in-Good-Standing? Or,.. maybe even that he just doesn't consider you to be a worthy enough sinner to receive our Lord? Can somebody please clarify this?

Also, please don't think that the activities of the day in any way circumvent my desire to make a few comments about our deacon's homely,.. in spite of the fact that I think it was better than any Father Louis has given!
Kanickers~

Post Comments:
Homely
I too think that it was a decent sermon, but I was wondering if when he opened with "arrogance, power, and ignorance", he realized that he was describing Rev. Brum to a “T”?
A Parishioner.

Refusing Communion
Father Louie showed his true colors this past Sunday during the 12:30 mass. I was angry and even felt embarrassed by his actions. How can I continue to participate at a parish where the Priest can refuse to give communion to parishioners that he considers unworthy? Is that what the Catholic Church is all about?

… it means that he is a lot sicker than any of us thought… let’s all pray that he gets the help that he needs.

… someone should tell him that obeying his Bishop is not worth going against every fiber of your being. Wrong is still wrong, no matter who has asked you to do it! You always have the right to tell your Bishop, “No Mas”!

… it’s called using the Eucharist for Power and Control!
~From Readers