I feel a bone weariness continuing to read stories (like this one) of people subjected to a revised hierarchy of employment (see above). Note how the tattletale (often moneyed, but not always) is boss of the bishop, bishop (or pastor) of administrator, administrator to the pink-slipped. On the surface, the prelate seems to take charge either up-front or behind the scenes. But he’s as obligated to obey orders from above as anyone else in the chain. While he can’t be fired, he can be the object of a Truth Campaign online and will probably be put on the clock somewhere. Like here.
Complainers often wrap themselves in the mantle of orthodoxy, but often enough it is a personal profession of faith, as the blogger linked confessed:
I believe they are bad bishops and I would be happy to give chapter and verse as to each bishop noted as time allows.
“I believe …” and “I would be happy …” Of course. The top of this kind of pyramid is about little more than personal beliefs and personal edification.
I don’t believe pastors do themselves any favors by kowtowing to such persons. That an offender could continue to work for several years for the Church puts a whole bunch of higher-ups under suspicion. I wouldn’t expect gratitude from the complainers for pink-slip action.
These misadventures in employment, especially in a school setting, do teach a lesson. We can all be sure of that. Anybody in the food chain care to ask students a month, a year, or a few years after a beloved teacher was fired what they think of the Church or what they learned from their experience of loss, protest, and business-as-usual?
Good catechists must be able to communicate that which they intend to impart. Otherwise, we’d have to admit the lesson was a failure, no? Refreshing a lesson for those already learned in things isn’t really the object, is it?
But let’s keep the lights turned on on the front porch.