Valid but illicit is no way to go through life, son. ;-)
ANYWAY, that we should all expect valid, licit celebrations of the Mass as the Church expects is pretty obvious. That the Church needs to periodically police abuse is unfortunate, but I trust the Magesterium to lead us correctly in this area. RS is a great example of that periodic house-keeping.
If you'd rather avoid LifeTeen well then avoid it! And rest assured that our Mother Church is bringing many people closer to Our Lord through valid & licit celebrations of the Mass of all kinds, including LifeTeen.

Bob,
I think this poster said it best:
"But why should Catholics have to accept "valid but illicit" every time they step away from their home parish--and very often, even within it?"
Redemptionis Sacramentum states we have the right to the Liturgy as the Church expects.
[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cc...
I personally use Masstimes.org when traveling and look at the indicators mentioned in the hope of finding the Liturgy celebrated as the public worship of the Holy Mass and not just that of one parish. And if possible I avoid LifeTeen like the plague.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Georgette, I travel frequently and have found (though this is clearly inherently subjective and by definition my own opinion), that the #1 correlation between some signs of obvious health (such as # of folks attending daily Mass) has clearly been the extent and participation in regularly scheduled adoration.
And I agree on some of your other indicators, and disagree on one.
Perhaps reporting some of the other information without judgement is the key - then each person can apply their own criteria. Personally, I favor either monastic communities with very traditional chants & latin acclamations, or LifeTeen Masses (especially if they have committed communities and quality musicians - not "zippy").
Either way, the key is reverential acknowledgement of the real presence of our Lord.
Having said that, isn't one one of the liturgical abuses that we are to guard against separation from the parish community? If we always look for only those people who participate in the Mass exactly as we'd prefer, then aren't we defacto separating ourselves from (the clearly imperfect and unfinished) Body of Christ?
Applying this to my own personal experience, using Masstimes.org to find Masses that work because of time and location has brought me into some really awesome communities. While I have been to an occasional Mass where attendance was lower than hoped for, or where the priest ran through the liturgy faster than I prefer, even there IT WAS STILL THE MASS, and we still received our Lord entirely.
And what could be better than that?

I think the site could easily be done-- and possibly even by the bishops themselves. It could use an objective format, similar to the Bishops's movie assessment rating system.
There could be a variety of categories, and a number of stars or yes or no answers to questions for each category or query.
Categories and queries could be things such as:
Does parish have perpetual adoration?(Good indication that it is orthodox!)
Does parish have an active Legion of Mary? (Also good indication of orthodoxy)
Does parish have LifeTeen Masses? (I sure would avoid one that does!)
Does parish support a local crisis pregnancy center or post abortion counseling center?
Does the parish have regular confession? What is the schedule? Or is it by appointment only?
Where is the Blessed Sacrament located in the church?
Does the parish have liturgical dance? If so, list schedule. (So you could avoid it!)
Latin Mass offered? If so, list schedule.

Zhou, just reading the reviews of Wilkes's book had me snickering.
We just go to the available church when we're on vacation, usually not much choice given travel arrangements. Generally, we haven't stumbled into liturgical abuses. Ok, there was that time in Washington State that we went to church on an Indian reservation and it turned out that it was really a eucharistic service, and what was worse, there actually was Mass ten minutes down the road, but they didn't bother telling us. But other than that memorable occasion, it's usually been ok.
A few dumb sermons, but the same goes for home. One of the best sermons I've heard was given by a layman, an ex-marine, at a eucharistic service on the northern Queen Charlotte Islands, where there is no priest anymore on any of the islands. And yet, I've no doubt that he and the other Catholics there would have welcomed a priest even if he gave insipid sermons. Count your blessings and all that...

I think Tope and Ukok make some good points; however, as is often the case, we have to be careful not to generalize. Certainly in looking for a parish family a lot of things have to be considered besides liturgy, although liturgy may be the most important single point since it is the prayer of the Church. For example, does the parish respect life? Are there opportunities for the faithful to take part in the ministry of the Church?
But I think it's important to remember that it's not what you're "looking for" as much as it is "looking for what you need." Some of us are called to grow spiritually through adversity. Others, however, are to grow spiritually in different ways. Some who are put in a trying situation will offer their suffering up, and will work from within to change things. Others may find themselves in a situation where their beliefs are being threatened (I've known people who left the Catholic Church because their parishes were giving them a false sense of what the Church taught, and they weren't well-enough taught themselves to be able to tell the difference.)
So we're all at different points in our own faith. In the end, we have to listen to God, offer up our own specific situation, and let Him work within us to lead us where we are supposed to be. Sometimes the answer is to stand your ground and try to change from within; other times the answer is to find another parish. (Which I would contend is not a case of reinforcing your current beliefs as much as it is providing an atmosphere for the Holy Spirit to work within you.) Remember the old saying, "If they don't miss you in the pews, they'll miss you in the collection plate."
Of course, need I point out that this wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if there was a standard way the Mass was said, rather than the liturgical smorgasboard we're often subjected to?

I would have thought it would be far more fruitful to put ones time, efforts and personal resources into tithing ones own gifts to the parish that one attends.
If we bail ship everytime something 'jars' with us, where is the improvement going to be made in the parish that is most in need of attention and support?
The Mass is the Mass, the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church... whether it offers daily Confession or weekly Confession, Adoration or no Adoration, has leagues or groups or non at all.
A couple of years ago our parish had next to nothing going on, but God has used myself and others to generate possibilities for us as parish and the Holy Spirit has breathed life into our parish community.
I longed for an active RCIA programme that would run throughout the year,for a priest who would be open in sharing the Ministry of Evangelisim and Catechesis,God answered my prayers, now I'm helping to co-ordinate and run our Catechetical programmes and I know that what I am doing is valued and appreciated, I feel a sense of pleasure in knowing that I use my talent's (small though they may be) for the benefit of the Church.
Sometimes God calls 'us' to change things from the inside, not for us to change parishes (unless absolutely necessary).
God Bless.

I understand that there are a lot of frustrations with liturgical abuses/poor music/silly homilies, but it seems to me that rating churches for the purpose of helping people find "what they are looking for" is a Not Very Catholic way of thinking. It's pretty classically Protestant (from my perspective as a catechumen).

The saddest thing to me, reading this thread, is that this is necessary at all; yet some clergy act amazed when they learn that travelling parishoners go through this process, because, Father insists, Mass is the same everywhere and the chances you're going to encounter something actually invalid is small.
One sees their point, of course. But why should Catholics have to accept "valid but illicit" every time they step away from their home parish--and very often, even within it?

A few years ago, when Dr. Warren H. Carroll was moderating the History Q&A at ewtn.com, people used to write in mentioning that they were going to be traveling through a particular area, and asking if there were any recommendations on a good, orthodox parish to attend (I did this once myself). People would then write in with suggestions of particular parishes, and why they were recommending them.
I agree with those who are leery of a "ratings system" per se, particularly for the reasons they've mentioned. At the same time, I also agree that masstimes.org is only of limited help. On a recent trip to the Chicago suburbs, we had a very difficult time finding an orthodox parish outside of the Chicago downtown area itself (usually when we stay in Chicago proper we go to St. John Cantius). And while parish websites and archived bulletins are extremely helpful (I'm going through that process of searching right now), there are still far too many parishes, including some real "hidden gems," that remain a mystery to the world at large.
We are, unfortunately, in an era of the liturgical equivalent of "speed dating," where people are willing to drive 20, 30, or 40 miles one way to attend a parish that suits their spiritual and/or aesthetic needs. Given this, I think it's not only inevitable but necessary that some type of resource arises to help people make informed decisions. Whether this takes the form of an internet forum (closely monitored, of course), a loosely-held organization of people each responsible for transmitting information in their own areas, or an organization such as the LLA that posts information on various parishes. Again, I don't think it should be a snarky "ratings site," but I do think that some type of objective informational site for people to consult would be a welcome development.

Perhaps each bishop could evaluate his parishes yearly, and the Vatican could evaluate dioceses yearly, on indicia like number of parishioners per mass, per-capita financial contributions to the Church, number of vocations, lay organization meetings, etc.? Seems like that wouldn't be too hard to do, and it would at least be a start...

Back in 2001, Paul Wilkes published Excellent Catholic Parishes: The Guide to Best Places and Practices (Paulist Press).
Lets just say that some people think he has produced a list of "Best Parishes....to stay away from."
I don't recall any objections by any Bishops, and I know that some of the parishes in the book definitely were "blowing their own horn" for some time afterward.

Rather than a "ratings" website, I think the personal recommendations of folks you know and trust would be far more helpful. For example, if Jimmy, Mark Shea, and Amy Welborne all had good things to say about a parish I would say that is a good thing.

The free market will provide this service in due time, for free even. Just be patient. This kind of thing is coming, inexorbaly at that.

Mystery Shopper is very different, in that business actually pay to have themselves monitored and are anxious to see the results.
I complain about our bland, modernist sanctuary, and the overall slovenly and modernist spirit to much of the proceedings, but when we attend Mass we should do our best to see past the faults of the liturgy and give reverence to its true power and significance, which is Christ.
At each Mass, I hope to give full assent to the prayer "Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your church...".

I think all we need to is a site called confessiontimes.org !!!

Jimmy Akin would be a perfect resource for this type of effort. When I saw the headline of this article I thought that he was going to announce the results of one of his "secret projects." Rats. His list of "why not" reasons shows how smart he is!
Such a site could limit itself to objective observations. That would be key. For example, just tell me what was sung, and let me decide whether that is what I am looking for.
There are methodologies that work. Mystery shoppers are used extensively in retail outlets. The key is not to fire employees because of one bad mystery shop, but rather, to track how well the evaluator is doing!
It would wind up costing millions of dollars if you had to pay for each evaluation. But don't you think there would be lots of volunteers?

I think Ruthann puts her finger on the biggest problem. Reviews not done with an appropriate spirit of charity would tend to be skewed, too.
Simply looking at the availability of confession and adoration, as others have suggested, would probably be more reliable.

I disagree that you can tell from Masstimes.org how good a parish is. There is a parish in southern Oregon (which I'll not name) which has Eucharistic Adoration but also has more liturgical abuses than all other parishes I've visited... combined.

Hmm. I agree that sites like Mystery Worshipper have their points, especially if you're looking to find a particularly good place or avoid a particularly bad one. But I also agree that the natural biases of the reviewers is a problem, and you have to figure them out as well as the church.
It's easy to get restless and discouraged by looking for the perfect parish. Sometimes you have to ask yourself why you're looking for a church of angels when you're less than an angel yourself. But if you just look for a decent parish, you're very likely to find one.
Just don't let the cantor who sounds like she's going to cough up a lung put you off. 'Cause this past Sunday, that would've been me. :)

A couple of years ago I ran across a site containing a person's "rating" of Masses at all of the churches he attended, listing all of the songs sung, commenting on how the priest and congregation acted, to itemizing his perceived liturgical abuses. He made it a point to attend a different church every Sunday. I was appalled on so many levels. He actually had a score card of sorts on which he'd take notes DURING MASS. His comments were invariably very snarky and smug. This is Not A Good Thing.
'thann

When (or are) CONFESSIONS scheduled? It is part of our call board, bulletin, and newspaper piece that confessions are heard BEFORE EVERY MASS, plus an additional hour on Saturday. (And EVERY MASS means seven days a week with only one very faithful, orthodox priest to serve.)
A parish that schedules regular and frequest confessions times is likely to be orthodox. Ours is. We have even heard "Roman has spoken" spoken from the pulpit.

I agree with Barbara....MASSTIMES.ORG is all the site we need....you just have to know how to read the signs. For example, look for a parish that has adoration, and frequent times for confessions (not just 30 minutes on Saturday afternoons). These two things are always listed on the masstimes.org page. If you can link to the Church's website, and can even possibly look for a bulletin, any of these is a good sign:
-Knights of Columbus
-a pro-life group of some sort
-some sort of society/prayer group dedicated to Our Lady
-scheduled times to pray the rosary
Being a college student and traveling a lot to visit friends and having gone on a pro-life crusade from San Diego to Sacramento this past summer and seeing TONS of parishes I have become pretty adept at reading the subtle signs...but mostly I'm just annoyed that this is even necessary.

There are implicit ways one can evaluate those parishes that do have web sites: if you're looking for a parish with more traditional leanings, look to see how often they have adoration. If you want less tradition, look to see whether they have a "teen Mass". You would still be up against the problem of when the last time the web site was updated, but for anyone who is a bit of a detective, you'd be amazed at what can be gleened from a parish web site.

It IS great! Thanks for the heads up! Even our usual, little parish in Germany is on it, and the other one we sometimes go to. No Mass times, but there are phone numbers and directions, which is a good start.

Masstimes.org is great - I travel a lot and look for an area Mass.
Some of the parishes on masstimes link to their own website. The sites help me understand the "focus" of the individual parish and at least can give some kind of hint of orthodoxy.

One other point: I have never known of any activity in the Catholic Church that is regularly and objectively evaluated. I'm sure it must happen from time to time, but all the evidence points otherwise.
Bishops don't evaluate priests, pastors don't evaluate programs, etc., etc. It seems like we just want to declare success after success and move on.
An example: have you ever seen or heard of a proper evaluation by the Church of its vocation programs? To hear them tell it, they have year after year of success, bu the results always seem to point otherwise.