Thursday, April 9, 2009
Priest sues bishop, fellow priests over harm to reputation
In a lawsuit, Michael Nguyen claims clergy intentionally spread a rumor that he was incompetent.
By RACHANEE SRISAVASDI
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments | Recommend
SANTA ANA – A Roman Catholic priest is suing Bishop Tod Brown, five of his fellow priests and the Diocese of Orange, claiming they have spread lies about him and harmed his reputation.
Michael Nguyen, who became a diocesan priest in 2003, alleges his fellow clergy intentionally made negative and false statements "about his incompetence as a Roman Catholic priest, about his mental condition, about his background and about his suitability for the position of an ordained Roman Catholic priest,'' according to the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Orange County Superior Court.
The alleged falsehoods were published among Nguyen's co-workers, including other priests, and parishioners in Southern California and painted a picture of him "as an incompetent priest, as a priest who neglects his performance … as a priest who has mental health problems and is to be isolated and avoided," according to the lawsuit.
Nguyen, a Vietnamese refugee who moved to the United States in 1981, said he was ordained by Brown on June 7, 2003. He said he was removed from ministry in March 2007 – when he was assigned to St. Joachim's Catholic Church in Costa Mesa. He said he previously served at St. Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim and St. Joseph Church in Santa Ana.
"I decided to do this because I have been mistreated,'' Nguyen said. "I want to bring this to a just resolution. My main focus is to get my good name back and to return to ministry."
Nguyen declined to say why he was removed from ministry, or how he was mistreated, referring questions to his lawyer, Joel Baruch.
Baruch blamed Brown, saying he personally didn't like Nguyen. "Father Michael is fighting back," Baruch said.
Baruch said he planned to soon file an amended complaint that would detail more of Nguyen's accusations.
Ryan Lilyengren, a diocese spokesman, said the diocese has not yet been served with the complaint, and does not comment on pending litigation.
Besides Brown and the diocese, five priests are defendants, including Vicar General Michael Heher. He also declined to comment, saying that the diocese does not comment on unresolved lawsuits.
Nguyen's lawsuit has been assigned to Superior Court Judge Geoffrey Glass. Nguyen asks for back wages and unspecified damages, as well as punitive damages from the priests named as defendants.

The first article specifically mentions the failure of the bishop to follow canon law.

The second article deals with the spreading of untruths, as has been mentioned in our discussion already.

Oh yes, the Gospel is all about fighting back and standing up for your rights.

To clarify, the priest is not just a manager - he is a Christian leader. The decision of who to fire or hire is not merely administrative, it involves moral and ethical reflecton. No priest has the right to perpetrate the objectively sinful act of firing someone because that person believes in obeying the Church (i.e. is a faithful Catholic). He may have the power, but not the right. To say this is just the way things are is like saying child abuse is not worth fighting because fathers have the power to hurt their children. Yes, they do have the power, but not the right. When they perpetrate the act, they should be remonstrated with and eventually prosecuted to the full extent of the law, until they stop the abuse or no longer have access to the children. As Catholics, our spiritual fathers are subject to both civil and spiritual authorities and laws, which they have no right to break. I can't believe how many people on this forum have simply said "that's the way things are, tough it out". It kind of frightens me....

The priest has the power, AND the right. Just as Peter had the Power and the Right, and those he appointed, the same.

Just such a stretch, the child abuse argument. The priest is the power seat at the parish level. Otherwise, you have parish councils saying what it going to go on, you have liturgy committees dictating how is the liturgy. Get it? If a liturgy committee throws its weight around, it is the abdication of the priest's legitimate say so in this arena. Would you want it the other way around. Who SHOULD say who stays and who goes in the Music department. Some committee? NO THANK YOU!!

Like I said, (and NOBODY responds) get a CONTRACT -- that is your legitimate protection, period. Now please, do get over it.

Of ill will, I think few. Let themselves be led by people of ill will. Many. Many, many, many. Too many good people stand back and pray, pacifists in the church who would do well to become active.

Parish councils cannot dictate anything. They are just an advisory group with no power. Liturgy committees can do nothing but report on what people are saying, they cannot run liturgies. Advisory group with not power.

But when people of ill will get into positions that should be advisory, they can be painfully effective.

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do -- "

and he is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, of whom Jesus had not a good opinion - He goes on to lambaste them (Scribes and Pharisees) directly after this , BUT they sat in the seat of Moses, the seat of authority. Are you getting it? Yet?

I am sorry David, the 'get over it' was not aimed at you.. I should choose my words better. I have said that my aim is certainly not to pour salt into anyone's wounds, especially yours. But what can be said to those who refuse to acknowledge the basic foundational principals of authority in the church, and seem to want to, by way of questionable citings, cast aspersions on the church in general. (Again, not you, I would hope, anyway). Are there abusive cops, yes. Should we pull over when they say "pull over," well, I sure would. It is about that fundamental.

Look David, I have been "let go" or forced to resign unjustly. I would think most of us have. But the reality is that that is the position of the "playing field" and lamentations won't move anyone one step closer to the goal line. So, therein lies my frustration with the hand wringing. Just not profitable, and focuses too much attention on the small percentage of priests who are not living up to their calling, perhaps. They are out there, but not the majority by a long shot. Do they have a long way to go with regard to liturgical awareness, absolutely, and that is part of their lack of training. But otherwise, this is the situation and it is what it is. Consider the alternatives as far as lines of authority, give one that works better. I don't think you can.

[deleted by author]

I thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head:
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men."

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men."

Till, ringing singing, on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
Of peace on earth, good will to men!
(Longfellow)

I don't think anyone I'm aware of on this forum would ever choose to do "nothing," so to speak.
I do think we all have the free will to choose what we say and do.
I also think there ultimately arrives a moment for each of our individual souls that, pardon the cliche, "WE let go, WE let God." That moment can be recreated temporily, repeatedly and indefinitely, or with a once-and-for-all finality.

We are, at once, commanded to reconcile with each other before approaching the altar, and to turn the other cheek. I choose both.

The world of Catholic music is filled with snake pits and traps. I think we all know that. I have been in places where the only thing to do was commend the place to God, and shake the dust from my sandals as I left. My own experience is that it is not worth it to stay in a toxic job. The harm it can do to your mental and spiritual health is unbelievable. There is always a job somewhere that isn't toxic.

Snake pits ad traps.

Why.

"Snake pits and traps.

Why?"

OK, the reason is that the "me" generations, (not just one anymore) got the novel idea that music in the church should reflect their "taste" (which, many times, means no taste, or bad taste) and desires. We can trace some of this back to a lack over the years of a widespread development or appreciation of a truly beautiful liturgical aesthetic here, somewhat a legacy of an Irish led Catholicism in America. Many Americans just never experienced an aesthetically rich liturgy. So when the modernist liturgy peddlers set out to "inform" the public about new trends, they moved into a partial vacuum with music that appealed to a fair number of folk because of its catchy 'sing songy ness' or it reminded some of the Broadway show music that, again some, loved, or because it was not too "icky' talking about "Blood" and all that, not too challenging, concerning itself with sin and all that, and then this music was further utilized to carry social political agendas, especially vis-a-vis feminist or socially "progressive" movement, and so the adherents of this music opposed the advocates of tradition on several fronts, fitting several profiles:

1. Power grabbers.

Easy music made for easy access the the power seat of music director, liturgical committee/director, cantor, lead guitarist/director, etc., (whereas before one usually was a bona fide organist/ college degreed pro) and sometimes these same folk, also ill informed about liturgical laws, started to construct a church that had virtually nothing to do with what the church had been just a couple of decades prior, and that norm had existed for centuries. These folks are ignorant but somewhat dangerous and can be quite ruthless in their quest to hold on to their "fiefdoms."

2. Modernists.

These hate anything, rightly or wrongly, that says "old." "Old" music is especially odious to them. They don't like hymns, they don't really know enough chant to reject it outright, but if they did they would in all likelihood reject that as well. They want the "Burger King" Church, have it 'YOUR" way (not God's way, Church's way).

3.Sing a New Church-ers:

These folks want a Politically correct, "inclusive" feminist leaning, openly gay friendly, social justice focused church and they want a music to go with it. Probably not opposed to traditional music, per se, based on aesthetics, as long as they can have a fair mix of their kind of church. And please, no Blood, Cross or 'sins'
songs, unless we sing about the sins of the stingy selfish rich, or something along those line.

4.Miseducated. (passively ignorant).

Those convinced, sometimes at a "liturgy" conference, almost always by one of the groups above, that these new trends are church mandated and quite fitting and proper, and wait till you see how the church is going to look after we finish the new "renovations" we got talked into by someone from the diocese, everyone is going that way, it is the "now" thing to do. Blind led by the blind.

5. Lazy, under educated priests, miseducated priests.

Self explanatory, except to add that a "dumbed down" church seems to them to work to their advantage. IOW, if the people are stupid they may not notice how little I actually do.

6. The Party People

Those whose vision of the church's liturgy is a big festival, the new so called Eucharistic "celebration," of which deeply serious and reflective music has no place.


So, there you have it, the 'all star' list of those who would oppose any persons who actually know a thing or two about what the Church (and therefore, God Himself) actually desires liturgy wise. That is a whole lot of folks with motivation to inflict a good old fashion 'beat down' on those who would try to oppose them by standing up for tradition and resposibility. Sometimes it is just better to get out of these folks way and find more fertile ground for establishing/maintaining good liturgy.

People have the (ontological) 'right' to be wrong. That is what goes with being human. That does not mean a right to 'persecute' anyone, but one person's persecution is another's pastoral vision, now matter how skewed that vision might be, normally speaking, the priest can make absolute decisions about staffing.

No one has defended sinning. No one has defended persecution. I don't know how you cannot draw those distinctions between a pastor's right to hire and fire and outright persecution. It is hard to know, in David's case, where one stops and the other begins because we cannot (and probably should not) know all the facts, and so the lines seem to blur. We cannot condemn what we have no direct knowledge of. So not condemning outright because we have not all the facts does not mean we concur with bad behavior. We are just discussing the lay of the land regarding church hiring and firing practice, and yes, the pastor holds most of the cards. That is just a fact. I offered the idea that one should probably protect oneself going in, on the front end, via contract. That is about all one can do. If there is calumny, there is legal redress, though I am not necessarily advocating that here, but it is a possible option if the offense is that public and that unambiguously egregious.

Other than that, the thread becomes a sort of 'wish listing' of 'what if's' regarding a church policy that would be hard to implement across the board, and if there was a sort of commission set up, for example, someone would fault that for favoring this type of musician over another.

When I was a young buck, just starting out and working in night clubs, the Greek owner of one of my city's preeminent night spots admonished me, after I asked for more money; (he could pay pretty well for the more famous acts, James Brown, Blood Sweat and Tears, Sergio Mendes) he said, "Young man, I don't make you, the people make you." In other words, when the people demand YOU, then you come and ask for more money. They pay the freight. He was dead on, of course. The Bible say 'your gift will make room (demand) for you.' We serve the people, as well as the priest. That can work for us and against us as well. But let us not disparage too much the status quo. It is what it is. If you were Byzantine you might not have a job at all, as organists, pianist, guitarists, are verboten. Accept what is and deal with that accordingly.

The Scripture says 'be wise as serpents.' In Jesus' parable of the dishonest steward, the master praises the 'shrewd' (though dishonest) servant. Super idealism doesn't usually get the job done. And no, no one is advocating dishonesty, but we must live by the rules as we find them, for now. Change is possible, but the Church is, and will be, the Church.

“And his master praised the unrighteous steward because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind [literally, “their own generation”] than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8)

With all due respect to all of the conversation, which I am sorry has seemed harsh, I take my hat off to you Z for your summary list. That is a good representation of the various strands functioning within the Church.

I have a dear friend who argues it this way: "Conflict comes as a result of unarticulated understandings of what "church" means.

Thank you for your choice, David. I hope that others will follow your leadership and help restore the blog to the positive force it can be in the Church at large and to its membership in particular.