Justice.

And now.

Canon Law.

When a Bishop refuses to correct an unjust action by a priest against a music director, the choir and the congregation, and the Pope, the next step in Canon Law I am told, is to appeal to Rome. It is recommended that a Canon Lawyer prepare the case. I am sure that a legal defense fund could quickly be assembled.

[you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the training for a Bishop consists of a two-week Bishop's School in Rome. Please correct me if I am wrong]

[I have contacted the Canon Law group that was mentioned here on the list and they have failed to respond.]

Kathy,

Canon Law, justice. Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope are in charge of the pastor.

It is the military chain of command. Not the Baptist, "we are on our own and do what we like and you are welcome to leave at any time."

It is church policy that pastors act on their own, but there are steps in canon law that they must follow in making pastoral decisions. If they fail to take the steps that canon law require, then the decisions that they make may and must be challenged.

To be rude about this, you don't seem to have a clue about commitment to the Pope. None of us are doing this against priests.

And where do you get the idea that laboring in a church was dangerous?

And if the lights are dim or faulty, that's when canon law kicks in and staff file for recourse with the Bishop...and if that fails, then with Rome.

If a pastor is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are his decisions to be trusted?

If a pastor is comes under the influence of people of ill will, are his decisions to be trusted?

If a pastor comes under the influence of people of wealth, are his decisions to be trusted?

Every bit of authority granted a pastor carries with it an equal responsibility.

Your attitude conveys the impression that we are mere lay people who must bow to the pastor, no matter what. If that it your opinion, say so, but do not project that upon any of us.

Noel,

I'm with Kathy on this one. Discounting perhaps some rare instance when the pastor was certified as being bonkers, have you ever experienced a successfull appeal using canon law? There have been many appeals in the Boston area these past few years regarding parish closings. A couple have remained open, but I can't think of any that actually "won" via legal decision. When judicial action against the clergy has been successful, it was through the instigation of the Attorney General's office and we all know what that was about.

Oddly, this is one of those areas that both traditional and progressive Catholics seem to agree. Accountability, transparency, and fairness should be part of the parish workplace. That may someday be a reality, but it probably won't come about through appeal to canon law.

Philip C. L. Gray writes:

"The tremendous gift of freedom God gave us demands responsibility and proper use. To foster such
responsibility requires right order and conduct and has required this even before sin. Sin entered the world
because of disobedience to a command of God. Death entered the world because of lawlessness. When the
only law God gave Adam was struck down, death became the consequence for us all. As attested to
throughout scripture and remaining the same today, we must choose to follow the Lord and all His
commands and so live, or forsake Him in disobedience to His commands and die in sin. In short, we are
known by the acts we perform. If we live in chaos and darkness, our father is Satan; if we live in right order
and obedience to God’s laws, we will share heaven’s glory as sons of God. (Lk. 6:45; Jn.8: 34-51)

Because the right use of laws and right order in society protect us from sin and encourage the grace of
salvation, those in authority must use their authority wisely. Particularly in the Church, ecclesiastical laws
can be a great blessing to the faithful if promulgated and enforced in a spirit of love and service. When
authorities in the Church abuse their God given authority by ignoring the true needs of their people or
closing their minds to the voice of God, their authority and laws become burdensome and lead to dissent and
chaos. Several times after the Israelites left Sinai, certain men rose up to take the lead of the people and led
them to sin. They did not doubt the law given on Sinai, they did not disbelieve the power of God. They were
simply selfish and proud men with care more for themselves than for the People of God. For this reason they
and those that followed them perished at the hands of God. (Num. 14:1-38, 16)

It is not enough to have proper and good authority and laws, it is necessary as well that we follow them.
Without laws to guide us, we are susceptible to our own imaginations and passions. As is evident in our
world, one person’s imagination and desires differ greatly from another’s, thus causing chaos and conflict.
Laws that govern proper living and regulate human affairs protect against chaos and conflict, thus protecting
us from sin and death. If we are disobedient to the laws of justice, we could tempt our superiors to sin and
fall prey to the curse of Adam. If we remain obedient for love of God and love of neighbor, we receive the
fruits of the Tree of Life, Who is Christ Himself.

In conclusion, it would do us well to pray for those in authority. It is a well-known fact that those in
authority are not free from sin. In both civil and ecclesiastical societies, some leaders live in corruption and
violate the laws of God. Many laws they establish do not promote the Divine laws by which we were
created.Within the Church, some in authority pay lip service to canon law and promote dissent by their own
actions and attitudes. When decisions are made without proper consideration of the people they serve, they
violate the necessary respect due each person. In short, lawful authority loses credibility in the absence of
love and without witness to a desire for service of others. We have all witnessed this. Some of us have
experienced it. Likewise, we lose credibility when we wrongfully disobey lawful authority. Mother Church
recognizes the right to question lawful authority and decisions made (cf. Canon 221 of the Code of Canon
Law and Canon 24 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). If we follow the laws of the Church, we
remain obedient to lawful authority and protect our conscience. Just as Adam’s fall led to the demise of all
men, so does the fall of lawful authority lead to the demise of the people served. Let us pray for those in
authority, that they will lead us to salvation by example and word. Let us pray for each other, that we might
remain obedient servants of God. In this way, may we live in peace.

This first appeared in the July 9, 1997 issue of Christifidelis, the newsletter of the St. Joseph Foundation

http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/
Philip C. L. Gray

Has Benedict said, "Close the churches."

Has Benedict said, "Ban the guitars."

What has Benedict said.

Kathy is not being unsympathetic, she is stating things as they are. We have a hierarchical church, period. Should pastors be wise, judicious servants of the people. Yes. Are they always, no. Perhaps the defense is a long term contract that is hard to get out of from the church's standpoint. But other than that, say ouch and keep moving. I think we have to continue to pray for the pope and his initiatives to restore order and dignity to the liturgy. Sorry not to chime in with more sunny news. I wish I could. But one would think that there is a pastor waiting somewhere for a good musician. What if that pastor fired 'Bob Hehrd' to hire YOU. Would you complain about heavy handedness then? Perhaps not.

Has Benedict said, "Ban the guitars."

Well, the first one after the Council to suggest it was Bugnini ...

Documents On The Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (pages 129-133)
DOL 37 (29 December 1966) SC Rites, Press Conference
Annibale Bugnini regarding the Declaration of 29 December 1966
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1504#Item_18

I stand with Kathy as well. Nothing has really changed in terms of real politik since the days of Hassler, Pierluigi and (gasp) Bach. Will haven't the time to righteously beg the court's attention to be served notice. We are servants of the maidservant of the Liturgy, as well as everything and everybody else. To believe and act otherwise will more than likely be regarded by ALL as spitting into the wind. How does that improve any local situation?
Good last line, Kathy. I stifle a slight chuckle everytime a member of the omniscient lay magisterium slams headlong into the buttress that is a pastor's whim or personal preference. I smile because I've suffered that insane compunction a thousand times in 40 years.

David,

The practical question deserves an answer.

My sense is that reputations are not lasting or even very far-reaching, and that people believe what they see. Regarding musicians, they believe what they hear. If you're aces on the organ, you will land a job, unless you obviously appear difficult to the person(s) hiring.

People believe what they see.

David,

You have made some valid, 'where we live,' truthful observations about a truly discouraging set of circumstances, and I am sure no one here would mean to invalidate or make light of that which is your reality, and most of ours as well, and I think some folk's experiences would lead them to believe that really the best you can do is shake the dust off and keep moving. I also feel that a hierarchical church is the proper model as given us by Christ. That doesn't lessen the sting, necessarily.

Contracts can be of help, though I have most often worked on a handshake basis, as I don't want to be where I am not wanted. This perhaps shortsighted philosophy of mine does not really take into account all possibilities during the course of one's employment, change of leadership being the obvious example, so again, a tightly constructed contract allowing for a buyout or generous severance is about as good as it is going to get as far as staving off some of these type of blows in my experience.

I echo Kathy's idea that the reputation part should not be so much a concern. Church people themselves know the 'human' side of all of this and how perfectly good candidates are often let go for political or other concerns that are not so lofty or praiseworthy, to put it generously. Also, sometimes the pastor's vision is just different from the musician's, or the musician may not fit into that vision comfortably. All of this you already know, but this is, in the end, his prerogative so we must live with that.

I WOULD like to see a discussion about an exploratory initiative concerning the formation of a church musician's union. (I am short on history here, so maybe go easy on your humble servant if this has been tried before and often) This would help in creating better salaries and working conditions as well as structuring guidelines concerning the hiring and termination of musicians. I know there is an organist guild but I don't have much knowledge as to the scope of what they do. But this proposed idea would be for all musicians. Anyway, this would move toward a more 'proactive' type solution towards avoiding some of these awful occurrences.

Sorry again David to hear about what sounds like a painful experience. I hope there might be some small helpful 'something' in my ideas.

ive had my own run in with a "pastor with issues" and my subsequent fireing left me without any real redress. to complain marks one and does negatively impact future employment. i also once worked at a small liberal diocese where my employement with the latin mass marked me as unfit for the cathedral post that made itself available a couple of years ago. my application was rejected and other way less compitent people including a guitar toting ameture with comfortable shoes made the cut instead.
the reality for most of us is as kathy described it i think. its unfair its wrong but its a reality we eather deal with or be consumed by.

David, I think the best plan is to find a new, good situation in Church music.

I don't think canon law offers any recourse to correct pastors with misguided approaches to music.

The Code of Canon Law goes out of its way to state that it does not address liturgical matters. In general, the canons that deal with the liturgy are about (a) minimum conditions for sacramental validity and (b) who has the right to receive or confer a sacrament. Church music and musicians are not even mentioned.

Liturgical norms are a separate part of church law, and there's no court system to adjudicate disputes about them: one can only appeal to the pastor to do the right thing, and after that inform the bishop and the Pope (via CDW).

So I'm having a hard time thinking of any canons in the Code on which one could make a case against a wrongful dismissal.

This thread is being confounded by two different issues.

Let me clarify, I am not talking about liturgical abuse or differences of opinion regarding the liturgy and music of the Church that make our work unpleasant or difficult.

I am talking about employment law, issues of hostility in the workplace, fraudulent inducement of resignations and violations of the Code of Canon Law involving calumny, rush to judgment and other grave moral errors that assault one's reputation and good name. These are serious issues that are separate and apart from those being raised by Frogman, as important as they are.

What use is it for us to even have contracts, letters of agreement, employment PAP manuals and statements from diocesan HR offices and bishops extolling the benefits of just employment and the dignity of work, etc., if laity are repeatedly subjected to inappropriate and harmful treatment at the hands of pastors, and in the final analysis the Church will always circle the wagons to protect their own, even if guilty of committing grave moral errors in the process?

For Noel: with Abp. Gus DiNoia appointed as secretary of CDW, this is a good opportunity to communicate with somebody in Rome about big-picture issues in a reform agenda, e.g.:

1) All seminarians must be trained to sing the Mass fully in OF and EF according to the respective Graduale Romanum editions.
2) Same for new bishops.
3) Norms for hymnals and worship aids must require that plainchant be treated as the first choice.
4) Parish music directors are to be knowledgeable in the use of the GR, GS, and vernacular counterparts. (This might be waived for non-parishes: e.g., missions.)


For David: Thanks for getting us back on focus. Does anyone know what the Church has written about the treatment of lay employees and collaborators in pastoral ministry? I don't know much about it. I guess church musicians are considered "lay ecclesial ministers", but is that term authentic: i.e., does Rome ever use it?

Thank you, Vincent and I do apologize for changing the subject, David.

[deleted by author]

If the views people are expressing here regarding the authority of the leadership of the Church versus Canon Law and the Catechism are the reality, then the Church deserves the ridicule and shame heaped upon her.

I understand that man is sinful and subject to the Fall, and with it the tendency to corruption. But, if Holy Church cannot effectively preserve her moral foundations and govern the behavior of her leaders by way of Canon Law and the Catechism, how can any of us expect the moral pronouncements of Holy Church in the public square in other matters of morals (right to life from natural birth to natural death, for example) be taken seriously or have any impact?

The more I reflect on the "sit down, shut up, take your lumps, there's no avenue for redress which is wrong, but it's what we have to accept" mentality, the more disgusted I get. And not with those who say these things. This mentality is shared with victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse who are so crippled with fear and defeat that they cannot effectively challenge their abuser. The abuser counts on this and plays the fear and sense of defeat for all it is worth. That's what's so reprehensible about all of this.

If we "can't fight city hall" on matters of real justice and charity, then Satan has already prevailed. The gates have been stormed and the Enemy is in possession of the fortress.

Kathy, with respect you are unfortunately very misinformed in this matter.

In the Catholic Church, "work relationships" between the laity and the Church are governed not by the Pastor, but by the archdiocese and only managed by the pastor. The "buck" as it were does not stop with the pastor in the scheme of business operations for the Catholic Church, and the pastor IS accountable, or is supposed to be, to the bishop and to the PAPs established by him and the diocese. He is a supervisor in employment matters, like middle management.

In the corporate world if a middle manager did not properly engage in the workplace dispute process, he would lose his job and risk exposure to civil penalties under the law.

The Church is governed by Canon Law and disciplined by the Catechism. The work relationship in most dioceses is governed by a document that regulates and provides for avenues of discipline and grievance procedures that cites for its basis moral principles bound in conscience and codified by Canon Law and the Catechism. When the Church ignores its own rules or indeed its moral foundations and principles, it enfeebles its own credibility and makes a mockery of the very morals it attempts to demonstrate to the world.

I refer to a quote by a noted canonist, from Frogman's posting above, emphasis mine:

Within the Church, some in authority pay lip service to canon law and promote dissent by their own
actions and attitudes. When decisions are made without proper consideration of the people they serve, they
violate the necessary respect due each person. In short, lawful authority loses credibility in the absence of
love and without witness to a desire for service of others. We have all witnessed this. Some of us have
experienced it. Likewise, we lose credibility when we wrongfully disobey lawful authority. Mother Church
recognizes the right to question lawful authority and decisions made (cf. Canon 221 of the Code of Canon
Law and Canon 24 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). If we follow the laws of the Church, we
remain obedient to lawful authority and protect our conscience.

Like I said, I'd rather have a single boss.

The pastor knows your hours, your quality, your knowledge, your leadership, your responsiveness to the community, etc etc. Diocesan scales cannot measure these things.

the personal musical taste of the pastor shouldnt really have a bearing on wether a music director is hired or fired. it does. that is not the same thing as a pastors commitment to quality staff and his ability to hire and fire.
when one is the victim of a pastor crossing the line there is nothing much the musician can do.that is the central idea in this post.
it is unjust unfair and contrary to the churches own commitmenmt to social justice.
its called hypocracy.

"Lay people who serve the church have a right to a job in the church. Those who do not serve the church, like pastors who do not serve the church, do not."

This statement is so far removed from reality that I hardly know what to say.

I will say this: my heart goes out to David. Noel, and others who have been badly treated by pastors in the Church. There are few more painful experiences in this life.

"The sword falls with double and treble force externally when, without cause being given, there breaks out from within the Church persecution in spiritual matters, where wounds are more serious, especially when inflicted by friends.

This is that enviable and blessed cross of Christ, which Andrew, that manly saint, received with joyful heart; the cross in which alone we must make our boast, as Paul, God's chosen instrument, has told us." http://rminrc.blogspot.com/2009/01/feast-of-st-raymond-of-penyafort.html

What he said. Man's articulate.

In every staff situation, it is up to the subordinate to communicate activities to the supervisor. For chirch musicians, some things will be evident on Sundays. For the rest, communication is necessary.