I can envision this happening in a positive fashion, and this seems like a decent set of guidelines; I've just never seen it happen that way. What I have seen a couple of times is clergy driving a parishioner out because the parishioner was blowing the whistle on something the clergy member was up to.

Michael Harnois

As God's "frozen chosen," this probably is not a bad outcome in some cases. As I said in a posting outside this site, laity have an almost unlimited ability to torment clergy. Clergy, however, rarely have the opportunity to return the favor. Fair is fair.

Eric Bonetti

I've never had this happen to me, but often clergy take the high ground with a troubled parishioner and treat him/her with love and respect. It kills that person so much that s/he leaves on his/her own accord - normally in a fit with a big show.

There are honestly some people whom parishes are better without. It is a good question about how to end a pastoral relationship with someone. My inclination would be in a last resort after confronting the person on a number of occasions, to simply tell him/her that s/he has been transferred to another parish. Having said that, I can't actually imagine doing this.

Having been on the wrong side of a toxic parishioner, I wish that more priests would take this idea to heart. One toxic person can drive away so many and the community may not even realize all the damage that is being done. People leave without articulating the reason for their departure, which is often flight from the abusive member. Yes, that person should be loved and cared for, but at what cost? Sometimes it is better for the whole community if the leader will say to that toxic person that their needs should be addressed elsewhere.

I have seen a toxic parishioner "fired," much to the relief of the congregation. I have also seen "toxics" leave of their own volition, again to the relief of a goodly portion of the congregation.

The major issue lies in the return of those who had left: will their agenda have changed so they can be assets to the congregation?

" Clergy, however, rarely have the opportunity to return the favor. Fair is fair."

Excuse me? Clergy have an infinite opportunity to torment a whole parish. And you can't fire them.

Yes there are some toxic parishioners, but it takes two to tango and often the priest is just as much to blame for a bad relationship.

And like most professions, priests (and therefore bishps) are reluctant to purge their own ranks of incompetent colleagues - they just shuffle them off to the next victims, er, parish.

Hi Dave. Thanks for your comments. Agree that there are toxic clergy as well, but the paradigm here is built around the toxic parishioner. In a one-on-one situation, clergy's almost always expected to take the high road and work things out. And while I'm aware of situations where, for example, the priest had to get a restraining order against a parishioner, the opening, welcoming nature of our parishes make it hard to shut a bad parishioner out.

Apropos firing clergy, I've certainly seen several get shown the door. In those cases, what's concerned me has been less about the departure, and more around lack of transparency/accountability. Yes, HR issues are typically not the sort of thing that's handled via an open meeting, but in most parishes I've attended, the HR committee, if there is one, is the old guard--folks who have been around forever, and often wield power mainly because they can.

On the issue of problem priests, I've had more bad ones then good, including a screamer (how she got called in the first place remains a mystery!), but with the current glut of clergy, we do seem more willing to address serious performance issues. My sense is that the more difficult issues to resolve are the ones where the priest means well, but undercuts his or her own pastoral relationships through behaviors like repeatedly failing to follow up on commitments made in the course of pastoral care. Issues like that can be akin to a hidden leak in your home--insiduous, diffiult to detect, and capable of causing serious damage over time.

Eric Bonetti

PS. I should also have more clearly said that I am not sure it's always for the best when we creat an implicit understanding that problematic laity get shown love and kindness, versus the door. Lots of time and energy can wind up being spent on an issue where the outcome is clear from the get-go, which is that the parishioner would be happier somewhere else.

Eric B.

Exactly what are the characteristics of a "toxic parishioner" or "toxic clergy"??

Not to put too fine a point on it, but parishioners aren't the clergy's customers. Nor is it up to the clergy to decide who stays and who goes based on personality issues.

Random thoughts:
1) The previous President of Southwest Airlines said often that "the customer is not always right."
2) Scott Peck said (echoing Friedman) that organizations that are perceived to be strict (that is, authoritative rather than authoritarian)have higher moral than organizations that are perceived to be liberal.
3)A colleague once said that there was nothing wrong with my church leadership that three good deaths wouldn't cure. Two transferred and one got sober, and the congregation has been forever better off.
4) In the modern era clergy need to understand human toxicity, and the effect it has on groups as well as the deleterious effects on the pastor. Because we want to be "nice" churches become collectng points for persons who want to act out. One of the primary jobs of the pastor is boundary definition and maintenance. Strong leadership begets strong congregations.
5) Strong leadership decreases the psychic space (emotional field?) in which toxic persons can act. That's why most of them leave of their oen volition: it is too uncomfortable for them.

Peter J. Van Hook