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!