How can we have priests like this

martingriff

This is the 1st thread I ave done but I had decided to write about this.

Today I went to weekend mass. We were having a vsiting priests as 1 of ours was on holidays. There was a lady who came in to mass with a child in a wheelchair that was medically handicap. Now the priest was 20 minutes late (this is the 2nd time he has done this) Before he came the child was getting agitated so the mothers other daughter went out to get her something to play with. It was a rattle type of toy with buttons you can play music with.

Now she started playing with it and playing the music and was very calm. Eventally the priest came and started mass (no apologies exept thaught the mass was later) Then the the sermon was to begin and the priest just stares at the lady and her daughter for a few minutes and then said can you turn off that how can we concentrate with that on. Mother mortified turned it off luckly the child stayed calmess for a while but eventally started getting agitated again.

When my mother was coming down from cummunion she said turn that on dont worry about that priest.

Seriously if he had been our priest I would either not be going to mass or fidind another one. Thought priests were meant to be holy. No wonder they are getting a rough ride with priests wth this attidude.

Rant over

gimmebroadband

Priests are human too, they can get agitated by noise as much as the next person. TBH I don't like noisy distractions at Mass either. Most churches nowadays have 'crying' rooms for boisterous children, I use to have to take mine there when younger. Has your local church not got one?

BTW Jesus had a bit of a temper too, when he ran the money lenders out of the temple, and He is Holy!

Medicine333

While I can understand your anger, it was inappropriate to have a toy that plays music on during Mass, regardless of the situation. It interrupts the Church proceedings and can be very distracting, both for the priest and congregation.

I'm afraid it was the mother in the wrong, not the priest.

martingriff

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Priests are human too, they can get agitated by noise as much as the next person. TBH I don't like noisy distractions at Mass either. Most churches nowadays have 'crying' rooms for boisterous children, I use to have to take mine there when younger. Has your local church not got one?

BTW Jesus had a bit of a temper too, when he ran the money lenders out of the temple, and He is Holy!

Should say noise was qute low and yes we d have a crying road. Trust me when I say you would not have heard it most.

In relation to Jesus kicking out the money lender he was doing it as they were defilng the synagogue for there own use and not for its indended use (check the bible before makng as smartass comment)

martingriff

Medicine333 wrote: »

While I can understand your anger, it was inappropriate to have a toy that plays music on during Mass, regardless of the situation. It interrupts the Church proceedings and can be very distracting, both for the priest and congregation.

I'm afraid it was the mother in the wrong, not the priest.

I would agree with you if it had been loud and off putting but this was barebly noiceable. Most people I was talking to and met after were saying the exact same thing as myself

Medicine333

martingriff wrote: »

Should say noise was qute low and yes we d have a crying road. Trust me when I say you would not have heard it most.

In relation to Jesus kicking out the money lender he was doing it as they were defilng the synagogue for there own use and not for its indended use (check the bible before makng as smartass comment)

Well, the mother had the opportunity to use the room. I know it can be very difficult for a mother to have to deal with their child making noise, and very unsettling in this case because of her child's disability, but please understand it from the priest's point of view, and the congregation's as well:

It is hard to concentrate and listen to the Word of God when their is a musical toy on in the background, and that's the reason why they have a children's room, so people can use it when situations like this arise.

Don't be angry at the priest. It is an unfortunate situation, but it could have been resolved by the mother of the child.

Medicine333

martingriff wrote: »

I would agree with you if it had been loud and off putting but this was barebly noiceable. Most people I was talking to and met after were saying the exact same thing as myself

Even if it wasn't noticeable, which I find hard to believe, it is disrespectful.

lmaopml

martingriff wrote: »

Should say noise was qute low and yes we d have a crying road. Trust me when I say you would not have heard it most.

In relation to Jesus kicking out the money lender he was doing it as they were defilng the synagogue for there own use and not for its indended use (check the bible before makng as smartass comment)

I don't think Gimmebroadband was trying to be a smartass martingriff - It's true that they are only human at the end of the day, and they can have the odd off day too.....like most of us.

There's a family that attend my Parish, they have three children and always sit in the same spot, they attend the vigil mass - the kids sometimes sing to themselves, or practice doing a few twirls, but they smile their brains out and would melt the hardest heart - they go around shaking everybodies hand during the sign of peace......gorgeous kids. The Priest sometimes looks tempted to say something, because it can be a little off putting when he's saying the Gospel and there's an alternative in the corner blasting out lady ga ga for attention..lol...He holds it in though, and I've often seen him give them a wink.

Everybody can have a bad day.

martingriff

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think Gimmebroadband was trying to be a smartass martingriff - It's true that they are only human at the end of the day, and they can have the odd off day too.....like most of us.

There's a family that attend my Parish, they have three children and always sit in the same spot, they attend the vigil mass - the kids sometimes sing to themselves, or practice doing a few twirls, but they smile their brains out and would melt the hardest heart - they go around shaking everybodies hand during the sign of peace......gorgeous kids. The Priest sometimes looks tempted to say something, because it can be a little off putting when he's saying the Gospel and there's an alternative in the corner blasting out lady ga ga for attention..lol...He holds it in though, and I've often seen him give them a wink.

Everybody can have a bad day.

If it was 1 bad day i would be agreeing you but we used to have this priest and its not an off day. If during parayers you go a bit faster than him he has stopped people and started them again and told them to slow down. Also not at least apologising for been late I thing was a bit mean. Also he parked his car n the middle of the lane up to the church so no one was able to get home who was in the back of the church untill he came out (about 10-15 mins) Even the most religous people (My mam would be in that group) were cursing him.

martingriff

Medicine333 wrote: »

Well, the mother had the opportunity to use the room. I know it can be very difficult for a mother to have to deal with their child making noise, and very unsettling in this case because of her child's disability, but please understand it from the priest's point of view, and the congregation's as well:

It is hard to concentrate and listen to the Word of God when their is a musical toy on in the background, and that's the reason why they have a children's room, so people can use it when situations like this arise.

Don't be angry at the priest. It is an unfortunate situation, but it could have been resolved by the mother of the child.

I do see what your saying thought as the kid was in a chair no way she be able to get into the room and think it was the point where he just sundenly stopped and glowered down at the lady and his tone to turn that thing off

Medicine333

martingriff wrote: »

If it was 1 bad day i would be agreeing you but we used to have this priest and its not an off day. If during parayers you go a bit faster than him he has stopped people and started them again and told them to slow down. Also not at least apologising for been late I thing was a bit mean. Also he parked his car n the middle of the lane up to the church so no one was able to get home who was in the back of the church untill he came out (about 10-15 mins) Even the most religous people (My mam would be in that group) were cursing him.

Cursing a priest?

I absolutely applaud a priest who stops the congregation from simply reaming off prayers. All too often at Mass, many people put no thought into the prayers or responses they make. Fair play to the priest!

He should have apologised if he was late, but maybe he had something important to do like giving the last rites to somebody-always give people the benefit of the doubt!:)

You should see how half of my Parish's congregation park:pac:

Medicine333

martingriff wrote: »

I do see what your saying thought as the kid was in a chair no way she be able to get into the room and think it was the point where he just sundenly stopped and glowered down at the lady and his tone to turn that thing off

I wasn't there so I don't know what sort of tone or facial expression he had, but it would have been fiercely annoying to have music on during Mass, so I can understand his frustration.

gimmebroadband

martingriff wrote: »

Should say noise was qute low and yes we d have a crying road. Trust me when I say you would not have heard it most.

In relation to Jesus kicking out the money lender he was doing it as they were defilng the synagogue for there own use and not for its indended use (check the bible before makng as smartass comment)

I wasn't intending to be a smartass!

Jesus is fully human also, and displayed his temper because the money lenders were being disrespectful in the temple. The woman in your church was (most likely unknowingly) being disrespectful in allowing a musicbox to be played during the Holy Mass. As you pointed out, there was a 'crying' room available, which she should have used.

neuro-praxis

Go talk to him if you're so p1ssed off about it.

Onesimus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I wasn't intending to be a smartass!

Jesus is fully human also, and displayed his temper because the money lenders were being disrespectful in the temple. The woman in your church was (most likely unknowingly) being disrespectful in allowing a musicbox to be played during the Holy Mass. As you pointed out, there was a 'crying' room available, which she should have used.

Could you show me that passage of scripture and where it says Jesus got angry? Because Jesus didnt get angry. He took ''action'', an action that was without anger but one with a Divine anger that is beyond human anger and as St.Thomas aquinas says is a merciful anger. God's anger is certainly not our anger even though Jesus assumed our human nature he didnt take all of our nature such as anger which is a sin for us humans to commit. And as we know Jesus was without sin.

All said...it is important to obey the priest. If he finds it difficult to carry on with the Mass due to his own weakness to disquiet due to something that makes a lot of noise or even just a little noise, it is important he is respected and obeyed by the congregation.

His instruction to turn off the machine was not due to hatred of the person or disrespect to those with a disability. And this is coming from a person who disagrees strongly with a crying room. All are welcome at the table of Christ but some priests differ to others in their ability to say a homily with a lot of noise going on.

I do remember Archbishop fulton sheen saying to a woman who was leaving the church because her kids were screaming : ''I hope you are not leaving because of anything I said?'' He didnt want her to leave. They didnt have crying rooms for centuries until post vatican II. Which begs the question that if they done without them then, can they not do without them now?''

I am sure that those kids were making a lot more noise than a little machine. But in the end Holy obedience to our priests at Mass is important. Perhaps the Mother next time can take a favourite toy of the childs that is not noisy at all and that will settle everything.

Keylem

Onesimus wrote: »

Could you show me that passage of scripture and where it says Jesus got angry? Because Jesus didnt get angry. He took ''action'', an action that was without anger but one with a Divine anger that is beyond human anger and as St.Thomas aquinas says is a merciful anger. God's anger is certainly not our anger even though Jesus assumed our human nature he didnt take all of our nature such as anger which is a sin for us humans to commit. And as we know Jesus was without sin.

All said...it is important to obey the priest. If he finds it difficult to carry on with the Mass due to his own weakness to disquiet due to something that makes a lot of noise or even just a little noise, it is important he is respected and obeyed by the congregation.

His instruction to turn off the machine was not due to hatred of the person or disrespect to those with a disability. And this is coming from a person who disagrees strongly with a crying room. All are welcome at the table of Christ but some priests differ to others in their ability to say a homily with a lot of noise going on.

I do remember Archbishop fulton sheen saying to a woman who was leaving the church because her kids were screaming : ''I hope you are not leaving because of anything I said?'' He didnt want her to leave. They didnt have crying rooms for centuries until post vatican II. Which begs the question that if they done without them then, can they not do without them now?''

I am sure that those kids were making a lot more noise than a little machine. But in the end Holy obedience to our priests at Mass is important. Perhaps the Mother next time can take a favourite toy of the childs that is not noisy at all and that will settle everything.

Onesimus, with all due respect, Jesus was angered according to the CCC. Paragraph 584.

Jesus went up to the Temple as the privileged place of encounter with God. For him, the Temple was the dwelling of his Father, a house of prayer, and he was angered that its outer court had become a place of commerce. He drove merchants out of it because of jealous love for his Father: "You shall not make my Father's house a house of trade. His disciples remembered that it was written, 'Zeal for your house will consume me.'" After his Resurrection his apostles retained their reverence for the Temple.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/584.htm

Onesimus

Keylem wrote: »

Onesimus, with all due respect, Jesus was angered according to the CCC. Paragraph 584.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/584.htm

Thanks Keylem and I am always open for correction but Jesus anger wasnt a human one that carried sin. Thats the ultimate point about that part of scripture. This piece of scriptures gives us no excuse to get angry unless our anger was one without sin, a very rare occurrence. Again there is no knowing the priests heart and intentions though so we will leave that to God who alone knows our souls and inner secrets.

Baggio1

seems to me that the OP is picking every conceivable excuse to down the priest in question just because she/he wasnt pleased about being corrected over the distraction... ,,,, i think the priest was correct, no point crying like a baby about it and ranting about "other things" he was guilty of... get over it....

gimmebroadband

Onesimus wrote: »

Could you show me that passage of scripture and where it says Jesus got angry? Because Jesus didnt get angry. He took ''action'', an action that was without anger but one with a Divine anger that is beyond human anger and as St.Thomas aquinas says is a merciful anger. God's anger is certainly not our anger even though Jesus assumed our human nature he didnt take all of our nature such as anger which is a sin for us humans to commit. And as we know Jesus was without sin.

Christ did drive the money changers out of the Temple. All four evangelists record that event (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45, and John 2:14), and although they don't use the word anger, the actions they describe (making a whip out of cords, overturning tables, and driving the offending vendors out of the Temple, suggest that it was done with more than a little vehemence. St. John reports that the disciples of Christ, who witnessed the event, "recalled the words of Scripture, 'Zeal for your house will consume me?'" So 1 guess you could call it righteous anger on the part of Jesus, who, being like us in all things but sin, did this without sinning.

http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=19611

Did not the priest in question also have zeal for the house of God, where Jesus is Present in the Tabernacle? And isn't it possible that he may have had a holy anger too because he wanted the congregation to show repect in midst of the Divine Presence?

Believe me I once saw a priest who stopped the Mass just before the Consecration because of mobile phones sounding off, and being peeved over it too - he was right, because it shows disrespect in the house of God.

The OP is also questioning the priest's holiness on his asking a member of the congregation to keep the noise down, only God can know the heart and soul of the Priest!

I think anger without just cause is sinful to varying degrees, such as vengeance etc.

@ JimiTime, I think your bigotry towards Catholic Beliefs is appalling, and against charter rule No. 3.

Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own.

martingriff

Baggio1 wrote: »

seems to me that the OP is picking every conceivable excuse to down the priest in question just because she/he wasnt pleased about being corrected over the distraction... ,,,, i think the priest was correct, no point crying like a baby about it and ranting about "other things" he was guilty of... get over it....

If you look at my starting message you will see I was talking about all those "excuses" as you call them from the beginning and replying to people and I am not crying like a baby. I think it was wrong in the way the priest went in telling the mother to shut the music off in the way he did he could have done it differently. All the other people on this site are entilted to there opinion

martingriff

I thaught I would right a reply all in one here to everyone. I can see why people can and do be distracted by noise and ask to be turned off I think my problem here was in the way he did it. By just stopping talking staring straight at the woman and then looking at here by saying turn that off. I think hr could have handled it better by maybe saying could the music be turned off and not looking straight at the person.

Also in another post I used the word cursing again was a bit strong should have been anoyed with how he did it.

Someone said maybe there was a reason why he was late (sorry I forgot who). There was actually no reason he just thought we be having it at another time and then became annoyed when someone rang to see if he was on his way. As if to wait matter how long for him.

JimiTime

gimmebroadband wrote: »

@ JimiTime, I think your bigotry towards Catholic Beliefs is appalling, and against charter rule No. 3.

I probably was a little bit too colourful, but bigotry? Hmmmmm. I certainly disagree strongly with your rituals etc and overemphasis on the whole 'holyness' of objects etc, but bigotry? I tolerate it, but disagree strongly, so that knocks bigotry to touch. In all honesty, your response comparing Jesus with this guy, and this story really annoyed me. Combined with the fact that I was at a funeral last week at a RC church that was horrendous in terms of the service and a very disinterested and cold priest, I probably vented a bit. Nothing bigotted though. Obviously a mod wasn't happy with it though as it was deleted. Shame, as it was from the heart.

homer911

Unintended noise in a church can be very distracting - for the priest/minister and for those wishing to focus on the worship/mass/prayers..

While I have never seen a priest break off to criticise a parent/child (indeed they usually try and soldier on!), it is the parents responsibility to recognise the disruption that their child is causing and to do something to prevent it or stop it. Just because nobody says anything, doesnt mean they aren't thinking it!

To all parents, if your child has a history of being noisy, be prepared - bring a colouring book or a story book for them to read, or give them a challenge like counting how many times the priest says a particular word during the service - it helps them to listen. A few sweets doesn't hurt either! Taking then out should be the last option..

qrrgprgua

martingriff wrote: »

If it was 1 bad day i would be agreeing you but we used to have this priest and its not an off day. If during parayers you go a bit faster than him he has stopped people and started them again and told them to slow down. Also not at least apologising for been late I thing was a bit mean. Also he parked his car n the middle of the lane up to the church so no one was able to get home who was in the back of the church untill he came out (about 10-15 mins) Even the most religous people (My mam would be in that group) were cursing him.

A. You said it was not the regular priest? was he filling in? Was he coming from another mass?
B. Sometimes priests are late for mass, Confessions, traffic, Being a priests means to serve and from experience working with priests its not always easy.
C. Children yes, priests can forgive them.. But toys playing music.. No. Sacristy or Family room is the place. Not for the priests sack,, but for the rest of the congregation.

gimmebroadband

JimiTime wrote: »

I probably was a little bit too colourful, but bigotry? Hmmmmm. I certainly disagree strongly with your rituals etc and overemphasis on the whole 'holyness' of objects etc, but bigotry? I tolerate it, but disagree strongly, so that knocks bigotry to touch. In all honesty, your response comparing Jesus with this guy, and this story really annoyed me. Combined with the fact that I was at a funeral last week at a RC church that was horrendous in terms of the service and a very disinterested and cold priest, I probably vented a bit. Nothing bigotted though. Obviously a mod wasn't happy with it though as it was deleted. Shame, as it was from the heart.

The comparison wasn't with Jesus himself, but with his zeal for the house of God, there is a difference. I don't know how you saw that in my response, unless zeal your own faith blinded your judgement, or I worded it badly, or a bit of both!

Medicine333

martingriff wrote: »

I thaught I would right a reply all in one here to everyone. I can see why people can and do be distracted by noise and ask to be turned off I think my problem here was in the way he did it. By just stopping talking staring straight at the woman and then looking at here by saying turn that off. I think hr could have handled it better by maybe saying could the music be turned off and not looking straight at the person.

Also in another post I used the word cursing again was a bit strong should have been anoyed with how he did it.

Someone said maybe there was a reason why he was late (sorry I forgot who). There was actually no reason he just thought we be having it at another time and then became annoyed when someone rang to see if he was on his way. As if to wait matter how long for him.

You do realise that that is a reason, right? He was a visiting priest, it is no surprise that he wasn't sure of the time of Mass.

The priest acted appropriately, and while it is understandable for you to be annoyed, your anger at this stage is clouding your judgement. Everybody on this page has expressed their opinion that what he id was right.

I think you should put that into context and accept that the priest did, because it was right.

Wh1stler

Medicine333 wrote: »

You do realise that that is a reason, right? He was a visiting priest, it is no surprise that he wasn't sure of the time of Mass.

The priest acted appropriately, and while it is understandable for you to be annoyed, your anger at this stage is clouding your judgement. Everybody on this page has expressed their opinion that what he id was right.

I think you should put that into context and accept that the priest did, because it was right.

Next you'll be saying that cring babies should not be Christened; that mass should not take place during a thunderstorm; that mass should not take place in churches built near airports or air-force bases.

And obviously, disabled children should be barred from becoming Catholics altogether.

There are none less holy than Catholic priests and if Jesus was around today, you would observe a different class of righteous anger from Him.

lmaopml

Wh1stler wrote: »

Next you'll be saying that cring babies should not be Christened; that mass should not take place during a thunderstorm; that mass should not take place in churches built near airports or air-force bases.

And obviously, disabled children should be barred from becoming Catholics altogether.

There are none less holy than Catholic priests and if Jesus was around today, you would observe a different class of righteous anger from Him.

How could you get that out of the postings? I doubt very much just because a Priest asked a parent to turn off a musical toy, rightly or wrongly in anybodies opinion,

.... that all Catholics now don't love disabled children - and think they shouldn't be Christened, and therefore ALL Priests are very unholy too


Seriously Whisler..

Jeepurs, but the generalisations, and magnificent leaps to conclusions are really ott on this board sometimes.

gimmebroadband

lmaopml wrote: »

How could you get that out of the postings? I doubt very much just because a Priest asked a parent to turn off a musical toy, rightly or wrongly in anybodies opinion,

.... that all Catholics now don't love disabled children - and think they shouldn't be Christened, and therefore ALL Priests are very unholy too


Seriously Whisler..

Jeepurs, but the generalisations, and magnificent leaps to conclusions are really ott on this board sometimes.

Just the mere mention of "Catholic" or even "Priest" can send some people into a gibberish spin!

Medicine333

Wh1stler wrote: »

Next you'll be saying that cring babies should not be Christened; that mass should not take place during a thunderstorm; that mass should not take place in churches built near airports or air-force bases.

And obviously, disabled children should be barred from becoming Catholics altogether.

There are none less holy than Catholic priests and if Jesus was around today, you would observe a different class of righteous anger from Him.

This is a really poor post. I simply said that a mother gave her child an electronic, musical toy to play with during Mass, distracting and irritating both the priest, and undoubtedly, the congregation. It was inappropriate for her to do that, and she should have used the children's room.

You over-use of hyperbole and sarcasm in your post is truly ineffective, by the way.

Wh1stler

lmaopml wrote: »

How could you get that out of the postings? I doubt very much just because a Priest asked a parent to turn off a musical toy, rightly or wrongly in anybodies opinion,

.... that all Catholics now don't love disabled children - and think they shouldn't be Christened, and therefore ALL Priests are very unholy too


Seriously Whisler..

Jeepurs, but the generalisations, and magnificent leaps to conclusions are really ott on this board sometimes.

You made that out of my post and you have the audacity to accuse me of over-generalisation?

My post was a direct response to Medicine333 and not to all Catholics..

Jeepurs yourself.

But if the cap fits and all that...

At any rate, the priest being discussed here is an ignoramous. Who is he to treat the mother of a disabled child like a naughty schoolgirl.

Jesus will be more pleased with her than He will be with him.

But you go ahead and defend the indefensible.

Wh1stler out.:p

Medicine333

Wh1stler wrote: »

You made that out of my post and you have the audacity to accuse me of over-generalisation?

My post was a direct response to Medicine333 and not to all Catholics..

Jeepurs yourself.

But if the cap fits and all that...

At any rate, the priest being discussed here is an ignoramous. Who is he to treat the mother of a disabled child like a naughty schoolgirl.

Jesus will be more pleased with her than He will be with him.

But you go ahead and defend the indefensible.

Wh1stler out.:p

The priest an ignoramous? He is human, like all of us. It was utterly inappropriate for a musical toy to be playing during Mass. It is no wonder he was annoyed.

Wow, do you have a direct line to our Lord? You talk about generalising with regard to lmaopml, who was simply making a very valid point about your generalising, and then you come along and speak for God?!?:rolleyes:

Run along now, you are the one who has been defending the indefensible.

Ash.J.Williams

Is it just me or is this thread utter garbage from the title to ....here:

lmaopml

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is it just me or is this thread utter garbage from the title to ....here:

It's probably much ado about nothing alright.

Wh1stler

Medicine333 wrote: »

This is a really poor post. I simply said that a mother gave her child an electronic, musical toy to play with during Mass, distracting and irritating both the priest, and undoubtedly, the congregation. It was inappropriate for her to do that, and she should have used the children's room.

You over-use of hyperbole and sarcasm in your post is truly ineffective, by the way.

And your mind-reading abilities are extraordinary. And you imply that the original poster was a liar since he said that the feelings of the congregation on this matter were unanimous.

The priest should have treated that mother with respect; that woman should be honoured not chastised.

The fact that you think the priest was correct in what he did and how he did it makes you equally as reprehensible as him.

Wh1stler

Medicine333 wrote: »

The priest an ignoramous? He is human, like all of us. It was utterly inappropriate for a musical toy to be playing during Mass. It is no wonder he was annoyed.

Like all of us?

No, he is a human with authority and doesn't he just love beating people with that stick of his.

Yes, the priest is a power drunk ignoramous and I suspect his impatience with children is the thin edge of his lack of humanity.

The priest is there to serve the congregation, not the other way around.

See you both in hell.

Medicine333

Wh1stler wrote: »

Like all of us?

No, he is a human with authority and doesn't he just love beating people with that stick of his.

Yes, the priest is a power drunk ignoramous and I suspect his impatience with children is the thin edge of his lack of humanity.

The priest is there to serve the congregation, not the other way around.

See you both in hell.

Actually, the priest is there to serve God.

As for your last sentence, it is testament to your maturity.

ISAW

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Christ did drive the money changers out of the Temple. All four evangelists record that event (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45, and John 2:14),

some points about the comments on this

1. Relates to "righteous anger". some posters are saying Jesus had some sort of "god anger" which is different to "human anger" and by implication that human anger is always sinful. I would not think that is the Christian position. Anger can be justified and justifiable.

2. the OP idea of priests being "holier" then non priests . I dont think priests would agree with this.

3. slightly off topic. the above "moneychange" quotes. Interesting Biblical conundrum of which you might not be aware. All four mention it but when did it happen. Before Jesus three year Ministry or after it?

4. One more point. suppose the above happened in a court of Law or the Dail . would the Judge/ chair be right in arriving late and not apologising? would the judge be wrong in asking someone to turn off music?

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

At any rate, the priest being discussed here is an ignoramous. Who is he to treat the mother of a disabled child like a naughty schoolgirl.
...

But you go ahead and defend the indefensible.

I'm not going to comment on the priest but i will say this. Have you considered it is insulting to disabled people to consider them all as angelic and incapable of doing wrong? disabled people can also sin. don't assume they have no free will. ditto for poor people and meek people.

Edit for "insulting" read "condescending" or "patronising"

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on the priest but i will say this. Have yu considered it is insulting to disabled people to consider them all as angelic and incapable of doing wrong? disabled people can also sin. don't assume they have no free will. ditto for poor people and meek people.

What are you on about?

I'm talking about a disabled child with an angelic mother.

And I'm sure that disabled people are grateful to have your permission to sin.

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

4. One more point. suppose the above happened in a court of Law or the Dail . would the Judge/ chair be right in arriving late and not apologising? would the judge be wrong in asking someone to turn off music?

And would the mother of the disabled child be open to some kind of punishment if she had simply disregarded the priest and told him to get a grip?

Are you saying that the priest has the same kind of authority as a judge or the chairman of the Dail?

Wh1stler

Medicine333 wrote: »

Actually, the priest is there to serve God.

As for your last sentence, it is testament to your maturity.

I'm sure you meant immaturity and your comments testify against you: where would the priest's authority be without the fear of the faithful of his authority?

I wish the mother had had a little more courage and defied the priest. What would he have been able to do then? Insist that the mother and her wheelchair-bound child leave the congregation? Halt proceedings until she had?

Excommunication?

That would have done Catholicism the world of good wouldn't it?

What the priest did was an abuse. He could have dismissed the whole thing with levity but instead, through free-will, he chose to use intimidation as his tool of manipulation.

As I said, I think Jesus would have strongly disapproved. You disagree and that is your right but Jesus would not have done what the priest did.

Go ahead, try again to defend that kind of arrogance from a priest; the more we discuss it the more you'll see that you are on shaky ground.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

And would the mother of the disabled child be open to some kind of punishment if she had simply disregarded the priest and told him to get a grip?

Are you saying that the priest has the same kind of authority as a judge or the chairman of the Dail?

Well yes i suppose. He would have legal authority on behalf of the parish over the Church building. He could lock the church up and not allow people in ; Although locking Churches Schools Gardai stations or courts etc. isnt really a good idea.

If people continually decided to listen to music or say hold a rave while Mass is going on then the priest could act on that. Usually before it would get that far the priest or someone else might just say "could you stop making that noise" to the people concerned. that seems to be what happened.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

I'm sure you meant immaturity and your comments testify against you: where would the priest's authority be without the fear of the faithful of his authority?

I think you ned to get out of the 1950s. the authority of clergy does not stem in fear . his authority is based on his office and the support of the church.

I wish the mother had had a little more courage and defied the priest. What would he have been able to do then? Insist that the mother and her wheelchair-bound child leave the congregation? Halt proceedings until she had?

Good question. But it is a "what if." why dont you ask him? I'm sure you have the courage.
If you don't just PM me his parish and Ill ask him if you want.

What the priest did was an abuse. He could have dismissed the whole thing with levity but instead, through free-will, he chose to use intimidation as his tool of manipulation.

In your opinion. We don't even know if the priest exists. But Ill accept your eyewitness testimony that he does.

As I said, I think Jesus would have strongly disapproved. You disagree and that is your right but Jesus would not have done what the priest did.

Go ahead, try again to defend that kind of arrogance from a priest; the more we discuss it the more you'll see that you are on shaky ground.

The only arrogance I witness so for is yours.
How many more people were there?

Keylem

Anger is not a sin if it's justified. Justifiable Anger is necessary in certain situations as long as there is no tinge of hatred and no desire for revenge. I don't think this priest was at fault for trying to maintain respect for the house of God, and more especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Unjust anger seeks to do evil to another for its own sake, the harm to body or soul that it entails. While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake. To desire some slight injury for an evil motive would be venially sinful. To desire grave injury or death would be gravely sinful. A Christian may never, of course, desire the damnation of the evil doer. Charity requires that we will the good, especially the ultimate good, salvation, for every human being.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

PDN

Keylem wrote: »

Anger is not a sin if it's justified. Justifiable Anger is necessary in certain situations as long as there is no tinge of hatred and no desire for revenge. I don't think this priest was at fault for trying to maintain respect for the house of God, and more especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I agree that anger is not necessarily a sin. I think every Christian should be angry at injustice and cruelty, for example. If we read about a child having its limbs hacked off for refusing to join a rebel army in Africa, for example, then I think there is a real moral deficiency in us if we don't feel anger.

But I think you've got a much harder job on your hands trying to convince anyone that such righteous anger is justified because a child was playing with a toy. The closest parallel I see in Scripture is not Jesus cleansing the Temple, but rather Jesus saying, "Let the little children come unto Me."

Medicine333

Wh1stler wrote: »

I'm sure you meant immaturity and your comments testify against you: where would the priest's authority be without the fear of the faithful of his authority?

Actually no, I meant maturity. The comment testified to your maturity because it was such a peurile, low-grade comment, it reflected terribly on you:) Only correct someone if you are 100% right:)

I wish the mother had had a little more courage and defied the priest. What would he have been able to do then? Insist that the mother and her wheelchair-bound child leave the congregation? Halt proceedings until she had?

Excommunication?

No. The mother would simply have defied the priest and kept annoying and distracting the priest and congregation with her inappropriate toy she allowed her child to play. It was insensitive of her to allow her child to play it, compounded by the fact that there was actually a children's room.

That would have done Catholicism the world of good wouldn't it?

What the priest did was an abuse. He could have dismissed the whole thing with levity but instead, through free-will, he chose to use intimidation as his tool of manipulation.

Are you for real? An abuse? Don't make me laugh. The priest did something which was 100% correct. He told the mother to turn off the musical toy, which was incredibly inappropriate to have on anyway. It was the priest's place to say that, and priests are human, nobody is fully altruistic. You speak as if priests are saintly representatives of God on Earth. They have ears, eyes and there own human level of toleration too. It is no wonder he got annoyed.

As I said, I think Jesus would have strongly disapproved. You disagree and that is your right but Jesus would not have done what the priest did.

Wow, speaking for Our Lord again. Then you call the priest arrogant.

Go ahead, try again to defend that kind of arrogance from a priest; the more we discuss it the more you'll see that you are on shaky ground.

You are the only person who is, as you describe it, 'defending the indefensible.' Perhaps you should take that as your argument on 'shaky ground.' There was no arrogance from the priest, just annoyance that there was a toy playing when people were trying to pray and listen to the Word of God.

That's not arrogance.

gimmebroadband

PDN wrote: »

I agree that anger is not necessarily a sin. I think every Christian should be angry at injustice and cruelty, for example. If we read about a child having its limbs hacked off for refusing to join a rebel army in Africa, for example, then I think there is a real moral deficiency in us if we don't feel anger.

But I think you've got a much harder job on your hands trying to convince anyone that such righteous anger is justified because a child was playing with a toy. The closest parallel I see in Scripture is not Jesus cleansing the Temple, but rather Jesus saying, "Let the little children come unto Me."

You are right PDN, we are right to get angry with injustices etc.

Children and babies ARE always welcome in the CC, which is why most churches provide 'crying' rooms. They can help take the strain off mothers if their children get cranky or fidgety. They can use their colouring books, and toys there without disturbing the wider congregation, or the proceedings of the Mass. The OP said there was such a room in his/her church, the women in question chose not to use it. In this case it was the music box and not the child that disturbed the priest. Jesus also said "My house is a House of prayer".

Pax.

Onesimus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Children and babies ARE always welcome, which is why most churches provide 'crying' rooms. They can help take the strain off mothers if their children get cranky or fidgety. They can use their colouring books, and toys there without disturbing the wider congregation, or the proceedings of the Mass. The OP said there was such a room in his/her church, the women in question chose not to use it. In this case it was the music box and not the child that disturbed the priest. Jesus also said "My house is a House of prayer".

Pax.

When was the crying room invented? Didnt seem to bother St.Paul and the Early Fathers. And it certainly does not annoy us Eastern Catholics. I've yet to come across an EC parish that has a crying room. I do not think that children should be removed from the Sacrafice of the Mass. I've seen in my local Church now the Roman rite liberalists have even begun to have ''childrens liturgy'' which is another attempt at taking those annoying children away from disturbing the Mass and taking them to their own room. and the only kind of churches who do this always seem to be the ones with no crying room.

If the many priest saints down through history can put up with it, so can we.

All measures should be taken though by parents to prevent any kind of disturbance, but try stopping a two year old from throwing a tantrum in the Church, it is really difficult. and many tantrums are thrown in an EC parish but the priest and deacons as well as the congregation get on with it.

I've no problems with what the priest did in the OP but seriously...everytime I hear the words ''Crying room'' I cringeeeeee and get ....angry :P:mad:

gimmebroadband

Onesimus wrote: »

When was the crying room invented? Didnt seem to bother St.Paul and the Early Fathers. And it certainly does not annoy us Eastern Catholics. I've yet to come across an EC parish that has a crying room. I do not think that children should be removed from the Sacrafice of the Mass. I've seen in my local Church now the Roman rite liberalists have even begun to have ''childrens liturgy'' which is another attempt at taking those annoying children away from disturbing the Mass and taking them to their own room. and the only kind of churches who do this always seem to be the ones with no crying room.

If the many priest saints down through history can put up with it, so can we.

All measures should be taken though by parents to prevent any kind of disturbance, but try stopping a two year old from throwing a tantrum in the Church, it is really difficult. and many tantrums are thrown in an EC parish but the priest and deacons as well as the congregation get on with it.

I've no problems with what the priest did in the OP but seriously...everytime I hear the words ''Crying room'' I cringeeeeee and get ....angry :P:mad:

You are nit-picking Onesimus. As I pointed out already, it was the musicbox that caused the disturbance, not the child. Before the days of the 'children's room', parents walked out when their child misbehaved, which I'm sure caused much embarrassment for them. Now they have the option of a play area for the children. I would call that progress, as it makes for a happy experience for both parent and child. Please lighten up!

Onesimus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You are nit-picking Onesimus. As I pointed out already, it was the musicbox that caused the disturbance, not the child. Before the days of the 'children's room', parents walked out when their child misbehaved, which I'm sure caused much embarrassment for them. Now they have the option of a play area for the children. I would call that progress, as it makes for a happy experience for both parent and child. Please lighten up!

But the music box is not something I have a problem with. its the whole idea of a crying room and seperation of child from the Mass. Archbishop fulton sheen was a holy man. When he saw a mother taking her children out because they were crying he asked them to stay.

Whats embarrassing about your child crying? I dont find it embarrassing at all. It is a child and he/she cries and moans every now and again so what? *shrug*

When the president of the united states comes over and is giving a speech does he ask the children in the audience to leave?

Ok so the Lords house is one of prayer and not exactly a presidential speech but what would Jesus do? Can you picture Jesus standing there and saying ''Please leave, you are disturbing my Divine Liturgy?'' the apostles saw the children as a disturbance but Jesus approach was quite different.