Zubik & church’s challenges |

Zubik & church’s challenges

Bishop David Zubik says, “We need to make our worship better.” ( “‘We need to make our worship better,’ Pittsburgh Bishop Zubik says” ). Very true. But good luck if you think better homilies and better music will transform this diocese.

Perhaps with stronger, manly preaching without regard to those who perceive the truth as offensive and pastoral attention for the souls of those in your flock, rather than an assessment of the size of their wallets, the church in Pittsburgh may again flourish.

It is inconsistent to hear about parish financial troubles; the Church Alive drive pledges exceeded its target by 84 percent. If you would cease demanding money from those in your flock, maybe they would be more able to support their own parishes.

Zubik talks about 2025 and 115 priests. It’s a 24/7 vocation; don’t complain, do your job. Don’t bore us with scare talk about deacons and lay leaders. Neither of these groups can confect the Eucharist nor furnish absolution.

Zubik talks about consultation sessions as if they mean something. That is a joke. There seems to be no direct path to correspond with you — so much for needing to hear from people. He talks about enlivening people’s faith yet seems to be most interested in financial stability, new types of ministry and hospitality.

If the current wisdom prevails — fewer churches and fewer Orthodox priests — then the diocese will experience even more “Empty pews correlate with dwindling coffers.”

Peter A. Caruso

West Mifflin

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.