Simply put, I don't think it's canonically possible for a parish council to be anything more than an advisory group. The pastor has ultimate decision making ability in his parish, excepting of course his obedience to the bishop.

On a side note, as tyrannical as some pastors can be, believe me, you don't want to empower your parish council too much. It can be "When Sheep Attack" on steroids.

I think the issue is that these days PR is king. It all depends on the person you're working for. Some pastors respond to and address very quickly complaints from normal parishioners, and ignore the opinions and requests from their lay ministers (even if those minsters have degrees relating to their respective jobs and could be legally considered experts in their fields). Hence personal taste is key: the taste of the pastor, the taste of the music director/organist/pianist/guitar player, etc., and of course all of the tastes of the many parishioners in the pews. It must be an absolute nightmare to have to deal with all of the individual views and opinions that come from all of that, such as the pastor must. The unfortunate side of all of this is that if the music director/organist/pianist/guitar player/other music ministers, etc. are truly professionals, then they should be able to respond to the changing demands and nature of the parish they serve. The question is this: is it correct to respond to the demands of the parishioners, as many times or in whatever seemingly unreasonable ways they change, or is it better to make musical decisions in an academically and liturgically appropriate manner? Thomas Day makes the argument that today, the liturgy is PRESENTED TO the assembly, not PERFORMED (i.e. happens whether or not people are there, and is not targeted to any specific "taste.")

I find that, when the explanation makes no sense, it can be unhealthy to make it appear reasonable.

On the other hand, it would be quite reasonable to relate your confusion and distress in a job interview: it gives you the chance to point out that if you know and understand directions you follow them quickly.

CGZ, you are completely correct.

I am not a DoM, but the ironic thing about this whole affair is that while priests can fire DoMs at will, the priests themselves are protected by the Code of Canon Law (1983) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990) from arbitrary dismissal by the bishop or other ordinary.

Paul, would you like to tell that to the number of priests in the USA who have been dismissed from the ministry for "sexual abuse," yet they themselves have never been informed of the alleged offense(s)? I kid you not. I personally know that some of these priests have even won their day in the Vatican courts and yet they have not been readmitted to the ministry by their diocesan bishops. I'm fairly certain that you do not know of this other scandal taking place in the Church and which is connected to the sexual abuse crisis, but it is happening, I'm sorry to say.

I am quite aware, Father, of the false accusations made against priests. All I was pointing out was that there are canonical protections on paper. Also, it is one thing for the Holy See to order a priest's reinstatement. It is quite another for the bishop to carry it out. Unless the Holy See can physically force a bishop's actions-as in, actually grab his hands, there will always be a discrepancy between the law and the ultimate results, I am sorry to say. Finally, I must also admit that even if the priests win in the tribunals of the Holy Church, the bishops-some of them, anyway, are also influenced by the threat of secular legal action, if the priest, by any chance, does happen to be an abuser and the Church returns him to ministry and later abuses someone else.

Contrast this to your DoM, who is usually a lay person and thus has few protections in canon law, since canon law has few items on lay people in general. Yes, I am aware that there is this thing called an administrative tribunal, which dioceses are supposed to have (and few actually do). But if you really had to have recourse to this, would you really want to go back working for the priest?

Our best bet is to call upon the Church to practice social justice, include that respecting its own workers, especially those at the parish level.

You have may prayers costanzod. Both my wife and I have been let go on...ahh...murky pretexts before (not Church jobs), so I know the feeling. I hope you are not a family man because when they get let go it really sets my teeth on edge.

Also, it is one thing for the Holy See to order a priest's reinstatement. It is quite another for the bishop to carry it out. Unless the Holy See can physically force a bishop's actions-as in, actually grab his hands, there will always be a discrepancy between the law and the ultimate results, I am sorry to say.

When the US bishops adopted their policy on the abuse crisis in Dallas in 2002, they adopted a scorched-earth, zero-tolerance policy. This was great for the cameras and, given their failings for decades, appeared necessary. There was, however, no mechanism put in place to restore priests who were exonerated. Priests who were accused were removed. Period. Done.

This needs to be revisited. Canada's policy took longer in coming, but was better thought out in this regard.

CL states (I believe) that a priests should not celebrate more than three masses in a given Sunday. This is generally adheared to. However there is no such law concerning music employees. I have regularly played for 5,6,7, on a Sun., many times, 9 masses on a weekend.
There are some CL statues that refer to lay people, (right to access of sacraments)but generally nothing about employment or fair working conditions or hiring and firing.
The few dioceses that have review boards concerning termination, do not have any legal power and are advisory. Of the few lay employees that know have gone through this process, I have never heard of a case being decided for the employee, and what would happen if they did? Nothing.
Again, sorry to be negative but there is no job security, tenure or even termination or severance process in the firing of DOM.
At least if a priest is accused, there is a review and legal process.
My thoughts are about what kind of climate this creates in the church/workplace and what is says about the value of lay employees. We of course regularly preach about justice and fairness to the poor etc.
I am thankful to have a job though!!!

There are a lot of moral precepts which I believe are intrinsic and should be assumed, even though Jesus (and even the Church) is silent on them. For example:

"Don't treat people like crap."

Oh, yes- but if Jesus had really cared about whether we treat people like crap or not, he would have come right out and said it. Clearly, treating people like crap wasn't that important to him.

Systems, laws, rules... yeah, there could be improvements here, for sure. But, really- Bishops and seminaries need to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on being a jerk, a bully, or a spineless cretin.

All of this just goes to show that the Church is staffed with human beings who are just as good or bad as anyone else, and those of us who work for businesses are well aware of the fact that these things (conflicts, pettiness, bullying, spite, grasping for advancement, etc.) exist there as well.

It's made me very, very thankful for the situations I have found over the years where those were NOT the case.

Salieri

Money is only a significant factor in dioceses that are relatively flush, a rarer thing these days. It was a more salient factor during the centuries when bishops had sharecroppers, oops, "tenants" and got legally enforceable tithes.

Now, other incentives tend to be more salient.

The career path structure is a sympathetic one for addictive patterns, bullying and codependency flowing from that.