Bishop Blair to Meet with Parishioners of St. Rose
From the Toledo Blade:
My Comments:Bishop Leonard Blair has agreed to meet with three members of St. Rose Catholic Church in Perrysburg who are asking him to keep the Rev. Thomas Leyland as their pastor.
But the meeting won't be held until Monday - the day after Father Leyland is scheduled to retire.
"His timing is unfortunate because it's the day after Father Leyland's last day," said Joan Foster, one of the parishioners who will meet with the bishop. "But some of the others are delighted. They feel it's our one chance to talk to him."
Bishop Blair has appointed the Rev. David Nuss as St. Rose's new pastor, and the Rev. Marvin Borger, chancellor and vicar general of the diocese, as part-time associate pastor, effective Monday, the day of the meeting.
Mrs. Foster, Gary Forquer, and James Schaller delivered a petition with more than 1,500 signatures to the bishop's office Monday, asking him to reconsider his plan to replace Father Leyland. They also requested an open meeting today with the bishop for all of Father Leyland's supporters .
Sally Oberski, director of communications for the Toledo diocese, said yesterday that there is "no change in the status of Father Leyland's retirement and Father's Nuss' appointment as pastor" and that "nothing will be postponed."
Bishop Blair agreed to meet with the trio because "he wants the representatives to understand that he is well aware of their concerns," Ms. Oberski said.
"He wants them to understand that he is not removing him as any kind of negative reflection on Father Leyland. He is, in fact, not renewing his term, which expired two years ago. Father Leyland was offered the opportunity to accept a new assignment. He chose to retire."
The petition describes Father Leyland as "a strong and faithful spiritual leader to his congregation" and a priest who "has served the Toledo diocese with devotion for over 40 years. He deserves, as do we his parishioners, a fair, just, and open hearing into the reasons that Bishop Blair is terminating Father Leyland's pastorate at St. Rose Parish."
A native of Perrysburg, Father Leyland, 69, went to St. Rose Elementary School and has been pastor of the 8,100-member parish since 1999. Father Leyland has said he wanted to continue serving at St. Rose for several more years.
The older brother of Detroit Tigers Manager Jim Leyland, Father Leyland contends that Bishop Blair is forcing him into retirement as punishment for publicly criticizing the bishop's handling of the creation of a new Perrysburg parish, Blessed John XXIII, which cuts into St. Rose's boundaries.
Father Leyland has filed an appeal with the Vatican asking it to overturn Bishop Blair's decision.
Claudia Vercellotti of the Toledo chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said yesterday that the bishop's willingness to meet with St. Rose's parishioners after Father Leyland's retirement "is analogous to a governor agreeing to consider a stay of execution - the day after the execution."
Obey your Bishop. Even when you disagree with him.
Some of the
Labels: Bishops, Diocese of Toledo, Priests
posted by Pro Ecclesia 9:46 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
As a former St. Rose Parishioner, this is one issue I was certainly staying on top of. I haven’t been going to St. Rose since all of this started, we’ve switched to another parish but not Blessed John, so my point of view is only from what I’ve observed by talking with friends who are parishioners and reading about it in the blade. But it sounds like the only one making an issue out of this is Fr. Leyland himself! He acts like this is politics, that maybe if he goes to the media and creates a public demand for him to stay that the Bishop will give in. It’s downright embarrassing, I’m glad I’m not a parishioner there anymore because if it were my pastor acting like that I would be ashamed! About all he has going for him at this point is that his brother is the manager of the Detroit Tigers, which I find funny the blade always finds a need to point out!
According to Fr. Leyland, his removal from St. Rose boils down to the fuss he made about Blessed John being built only a few miles from St. Rose, and that it would cut into his parish boundaries (err collections). I’ve been to the new start up parish, Blessed John, and the masses are filled with families! St. Rose has 5 Sunday masses with only a ½ hour lapse in between, the parking lot has hardly emptied before it is filling up again and the church is standing room only by the first reading, again families as well! Fr. Leyland’s semmed more concerned with his parish budget, opps boundaries than the needs of the Catholic's in the area! The large Catholic population in this small area needed another parish!
I am very pleased to know that my diocese is in the hands of Bishop Blair, his handling of Fr. (stomp his feet and pout) Leyland has been very good. Thanks for the mention of this Jay!
PB,
Thanks for your input.
By the way, I'm pretty impressed with the man who will be St. Rose's new pastor, Fr. Nuss. He used to be Vocations Director for the diocese.
You might want to give St. Rose a second look once Fr. Nuss is at the helm.
There may or may not be a legitimate beef over the removal of this pastor; but I have to say, as a person who lives in a diocese where priests are regularly shuffled around, this issue hits close to home. It didn't use to be like this: priests used to stay for decades at the same parish. Now, they're moved around every six years (often a lot less), on the grounds of the priest shortage.
I have never had anybody adequately explain to me why the priest shortage necessitates moving priests around: you still have the same number of priests after the big shuffle as before. And how can a priest be a good shepherd to a flock that he doesn't have time to get to know? The constant shuffling has to be at least as much a burden for the priest, who is thereby deprived of stability, as it is for the parishioners who lose a beloved shepherd.
Unless there's a compelling reason to move priests around, it's tantamount to spiritual violence. I think it also tends to degrade priests, reducing them to their functions and turning them into little more than glorified social workers and dispensers of sacraments.
I forgot to mention that I intend to go to a few masses once Fr. Nuss takes over, for one to show my support for him coming in while at odds with 1,500 of his new parishioners, but I also have heard great things about him as well!
I am also a St. Rose parishioner. I must say reading some of the postings has made me question why one would be angry that a group of people would want to show support and love for a fellow human being whether he is a priest or not.
I do not believe name calling should be in the same comment that says the Bishop should be regarded so highly. I believe they are both men. Both with faults yet we are called to love everyone. How can anyone be angry that a group of 1500 parishioners want to support a man that has spiritually guided them through many hard and suffering times?
Some may think Fr. Leyland was worried about collections more than being nice to the Bishop, but why do you think the Bishop wants to build mega-churches (his word, not mine) within 15 miles of each other and build retirement homes around them? It definitely has to do with money.
Father Leyland feels a committment to his parish and parisjioners. He was worried about the closing of St. Rose. Fr. Shock, who specializes in closing, merging and clustering of parishes will now be living in the St. Rose rectory. He will not be working at St. Rose.
The Bishop has also brought in his bookeeper of 17 years to now work at St. Rose. Is this all a coincidence? Many questions need to be answered. He is moving diocease money to Detroit banks. This is all published in the Catholic Chronicle. I am no genius, but these circumstances do lead a thinking person to form many questions about the future of St. Rose and its school.
The appointment of Fr. Nuss is also another issue that holds many tormenting days ahead for St. Rose parishioners. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests is asking the Bishop to remove Fr.Nuss due to his affair with a vulnerable woman. It is an issue that is being dealt with now in the Bishops Office. Now that is embarrassing. I am not embarrassed by a group of people supporting their priest. That is what life is about. It is easy to cast aside a person, it is hard to stand by while others hurl names. Look at the life of Jesus. Again, why so angry about the support of a holy man? Remember, the Bishop is only a man, too. He isn't infallible.
I, too, believe Father Nuss is a good priest. I do not believe for one second that 1500 people or 1 person in the parish will have bad feelings for Fr. Nuss for replacing Fr. Leyland. That is a completely negative thought that leads to many problems between people. How can one even comment on that without Fr. Nuss even saying one mass yet? Misplaced anger if you ask me.
I am not a friend of Father Leylands. I only know him through communion and confession. I just think that information is being distorted.
Just some issues to ponder.
TL
First, no anger here. Just dismay that people tend to be so critical of Bishop Blair. And the media is only too happy to report only negative things about our Bishop.
Second, "idiots" does not refer only to those at St. Rose, but to people in my own city and elsewhere in this diocese who have nothing but negative things to say about our Bishop.
And third, consider this fair warning: DO NOT make any reference to unsubstantiated claims about priests while commenting on this blog. Especially DO NOT use such dissident groups as SNAP as a source for such claims. I should delete your comment, but any future comments of that sort will definitely be deleted.
My comment was mainly intended to focus on the fact that the only one making a fuss about his transfer is Fr. Leyland himself. I also find it odd that Fr. Leyland feels the need to get the word out there that his own speculation for his transfer is that he voiced opposition when Blessed John was authorized only a few miles from St. Rose and therefore cut his parish boundaries in half. My point was that there is the Catholic population in the area to sustain two parishes so close together and why should Fr. Leyland be making such a big deal out of it? After all, another parish means more opportunities for the Catholic population to get to mass, and it appeared that Fr. Leyland was more concerned about the possible dip in his collection basket, than the fact that now the Catholic population will have more opportunities for mass.
As Jay said, ”Obey your Bishop. Even when you disagree with him.
As for Fr. Leyland himself, I’ve never said more to him than a random “have a nice day” as I shook his hand while leaving mass so I am hardly in a position to judge him as a person. His homilies have always been good as well as the letters to the parishioners in the bulletin, although I haven’t been to mass there since before all of this started. I was also very impressed with Fr. Leyland’s response to the parish social justice group regarding some heated discussions prior to the Minimum Wage Issue on the November 2006 election ballots. Although the very next weekend the very liberal “Voting for the Common Good” hardly Catholic voting guide was passed out after mass. There is nothing wrong with 1500 people showing support for him, I just don’t happen to be one of them.
Yes as Jay said . . .idiots obey your bishop!
Because the so-called "thinking Catholics" generally do as their spiritual father and say "Non serviam!"
Okay, since Anonymous seems to be hung up on the word "idiots" (we've all seen the routine: hone in on one aspect of a person's argument that is fairly unrelated to the overall point and hammer on that), I'll apologize for using that epithet.
In fairness, however, I never referred to anyone in particular as an "idiot", but referred to those "around here who criticize our Bishop" and who "don't recognize what a gift we have in his spiritual leadership". I clarified in my second comment above that it refers to those "who have nothing but negative things to say about our Bishop".
If that doesn't describe you or anyone you know, then relax because I wasn't referring to you or them as "idiots".
If it does describe you, then I think you got off fairly lightly by my using the term I used.
Out here on the West coast, I don't know the issues involved there. The Lord knows that we have plenty of issues out here. And I know what it is like to disagree with the local prelate (remember who is out this way). But Jay, I have to agree whole heartedly with your statement:
"Obey your Bishop. Even when you disagree with him."
Amen! Sometimes the tongue will bleed with that advice. I have look at these times as opportunities to learn humility.
Rob,
I say "obey your bishop even when you disagree" as much for my own benefit as for anyone else's. They're very often hard words to live by.
Bowling Green Sentinel
Breaking News: Nuss declines; Borger new pastor at St. Rose
PERRYSBURG — Father David Nuss, who was to have become pastor of St. Rose Catholic Parish, Perrysburg on Monday has chosen to not accept the position according to the Toledo Diocese “for personal reasons.” The diocese made the announcement on today.
Nuss was to have succeeded Father Thomas Leyland, pastor since 1999, who officially retired on Sunday. Bishop Leonard Blair chose not to have Leyland continue at the historic Perrysburg church, so Leyland chose to retire rather than accept an assignment to a new parish.
Leyland contends he was forced into retirement due to his criticism of Blair regarding issues involved with the new Perrysburg parish, Blessed John XXIII, which has cut into the parishioner base of St. Rose.
Father Marvin Borger was named as the new pastor by Blair on Thursday effective immediately. Blair also appointed Father Ronald Schock as a part-time associate pastor for the parish in addition to his duties as vocation director of the diocese.
The Sentinel-Tribune will have further details on Friday
I want to acknowledge that you removed the word idiots from your post. However, I am curious Jay.
Why can't you see that chastising people for not obeying the bishop while you simultaneously call those same people idiots is a contradictory stance.
Those of us who point out how ridiculous it is are not utilizing a "routine" to hone in on one "unrelated" aspect of your argument.
Perhaps Jay. Just perhaps, you were wrong to say utilize name-calling to defend your position of obedience to the bishop.
It would not undermine your "position" to humbly (that is the key Jay) admit that you were wrong to do that or to admit that even conservative catholics get carried away by their anger. As a matter of fact, admitting that might heighten your authenticity to your readers and help you to grow spiritually and emotionally.
You require a lot of your readers. You insist (and rightly so . . . you are an orthodox catholic) that the only way to practice catholicism is to do so in an absolute manner.
Presumably, you consider cafeteria catholics to be sinful and yet while you chastise them for their lack of obedience you call them names.
I don't get it.
What I find disgusting about this whole situation is how The Blade will only report what they're told by one group and not research the facts. Let's just look at the numbers. Fr. Lehman claimed St. Rose would lose 425 families. Blessed John has a little over 200 families so if this is true, where did the other families go. I think you will find St. Rose has lost very few families.
St. Rose has between 7-8000 members. The church will hold 5-600 parishoners a mass. Let's see, 5 masses on the weekends equals about 3,000. So where do the rest of them go for mass.
Seems to me there is a need for another church.
Post a Comment
<< Home