Welcome back, intrepid Traddie travelers! Although today's game has elements similar to last week's, there are important differences. The whole family will have hours of fun teasing them out before rendering the guilty verdict and passing harsh sentence on a thief. Today's case is shorter than last week's, so now's the time to have one of the crumb-crushers read. For a refresher on how to play the game, see last week's post.
Ready? Let's get rolling with case #2:
Immediately after Sunday Mass, a rotating sede priest orders the chapel's coordinator to turn over to him the collection baskets (a practice theretofore unknown). Upon delivery, the sticky-fingered priest snatches sundry large bills and greedily stuffs them into his pocket without telling the lay coordinator how much he has taken. The stunned layman is too meek to protest. Several other lay people witness the misdeed and are gravely scandalized. Learning of the pilferage, many chapel members vow to curtail their weekly offerings.
In your deliberations, consider that in this case the priestly delinquent makes no attempt to diminish his culpability by shifting the moral burden to a layman, as last week's clerical miscreant did. Here the criminal priest engages in outright stealing. Will that difference influence your sentence? In considering the punishment, be sure to discuss the effect upon the chapel's social order when the priest's larcenous behavior was tolerated without grave moral sanction. For this case, you may decide whether the villain must make restitution. (Also you may pull off the road to ask a policeman or park ranger his opinion.)
WE URGE THE MOBILE TRIBUNALS TO
"THROW THE BOOK"
AT THIS THIEVING PIECE OF FILTHY, CLERICAL TRASH SPAWNED BY THE VILEST SCUM OF THE LOWEST SOCIAL CLASS!
AT THIS THIEVING PIECE OF FILTHY, CLERICAL TRASH SPAWNED BY THE VILEST SCUM OF THE LOWEST SOCIAL CLASS!
OK - Since this is most unusual, I'd actually let this go for now, BUT, next time he or any other priest came around, the lay coordinator needs to have an envelope all ready with either a check or cash to hand him. If this happens again, then I'd accuse him of stealing and the lay coordinator of cowardice. I've no idea what the punishment should be. I can't wrap my mind around laymen punishing priests yet.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular chapel, they always had a check for the stipend amount ($150.00) for the rotating priest to take back to the sending organization.
ReplyDeleteAm I correct in presuming that no one protested verbally to the pilfering priest in any way?
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct. No one protested verbally to the priest. Afterward, among the laity, there was much talk, but no one had the courage to confront the thief.
DeleteOK - I didn't know that this chapel had a check all ready for the priest. In that case, the priest is not only guilty of stealing but of GREED as well. Is there anything else we need to know about this case before we pass judgment?
ReplyDeleteThe pertinent facts are all there, except, perhaps, for the fact that this particular priest would have probably laughed in the face of anyone who objected -- and would have had a protester thrown out of the chapel.
Delete(As an aside, this case argues for strong lay governance. Even if the board could not have prevented the initial theft, it could have ordered a reduction in future stipends until the loss was restored.)
It is our belief, however, that if there were a lay board in place, the thieving priest wouldn't have dared to steal in the first place. Hence both chapel and priest would have been better off, the chapel fiscally, the priest spiritually.)
There is one person who was obviously wrong in this case-the priest. Those who failed to protest are culpable of negligence in failing to defend their collective property (the chapel's). The more interesting question is why they didn't protest.
ReplyDeleteJust because a man is a priest that man is still tempted like the rest of us, indeed even more so. Imagine if the people at this chapel found the priest violating their wife, son or daughter. Would they protest then? I would like to think so and indeed they probably would because such a case is pretty clear cut. Forgive me for harboring a little doubt because these folks failed to defend their material goods.
They've been subjected to emotional blackmail as cult members. Had there been a protest the priest would have excommunicated the protestor. Further had some gone as far as they could by backing the protestor, the priest would have dropped said mission from his circuit. Laypeople can't have that because of the brainwashing they've received from cult priests. They can't think outside the box and realize that most areas of the US have a traditional Mass within driving distance nowadays.
There is hope. These priests are not the only game in town for Traddieland.
Amen.
DeleteHas anyone contacted this priest's superiors to inform them of the priest's misdeeds? If not, why not? They need to know if he's keeping the money for himself or turning it over to his superiors.
ReplyDeleteFrom what we heard, someone conscientiously mentioned the incident to his "boss," who promptly made excuses for the creep. He actually said it was O.K. The history of all these priests shows a callous disregard for the collections. Years ago, a group of them thought it fine to pay for airline VIP lounge memberships from the collection receipts. There are loads of additional horror stories. For these lowlife, the collection is a private ATM.
DeleteIndeed the collection is a private ATM if the people are not doing anything about it. They deserve to be fleeced if they're that cowardly or downright stupid to put up with this. Why are they using this organization?? Surely there must be some other group who could take care of them. If not, I'd consider home-aloneism. There's just no way that I'd put up with this kind of behavior. These thieves need to be put in their place - & it most certainly isn't in an airport VIP lounge. Are Catholics really this dumb?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, many are. This week, we'll narrate the case of a chapel that DID object to thievery. AND WON! If you're an *aliquid pravist,* like us, you won't be entirely unhappy with the outcome. If you're an ardent sedevacantist, you'll hate these priests for the damage they wrought.
ReplyDeleteWhat's an "aliquid pravist" pray tell. Sorry - English is my only language. Can you tell us what organization this is? I'm not an 'ardent' sedevacantist but it's more than apparent to me that Jorge can't be the pope. He's quite the interesting imposter.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase comes from the Latin *aliquid pravi* and means "something wrong." In a nutshell, it holds that Catholics who recognize that something has gone dreadfully wrong in Rome since Vatican II are all brothers, regardless of whether they're SSPXers, sedeplenists, sedevacantists, or traditional Novus Ordites. The term is based on the fact that, absent the Chruch's declaration, no one really knows exactly what has happened, and every theory is merely a guess. Thus, it's far better to be united with those of similar beliefs against the lunacy of the modern papacy than to to quibble over conjectures. It's not a *kumbaya* approach, for it allows for individuals to attend the rites they prefer and recognizes that there are differences in thought. However, the most important element is shared opposition to the current regime and all successor administrations that are enemies of traditional liturgy and theology.
Delete