Lay people have rights
I hope people in dioceses where many parishes are being closed – including my home Diocese of Brooklyn – will see this AP story affirming that bishops don’t have the right to shut churches as they please. The story looks back on recent determinations the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy made concerning decisions to close parishes in the dioceses of Allentown, Pa., and Springfield, Mass. According to the article:
It appears the Vatican panel, in overturning the decisions in Allentown and Springfield, has ruled that the bishops should have considered the rights of the laity in deciding to close the churches, according to Nicholas Cafardi, a law professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and an expert in canon law.
“If that legal theory has legs, you could see more and more decisions to close churches being overturned,” said Cafardi, former general counsel for the Pittsburgh diocese. “It’s a very correct reading of the canons. It’s just one that I’ve not seen before.”
In my own diocese, many people are deeply worried that their parish will be closed. Since the standard the diocese set was financial self-sufficiency, the worries are most intense in poor neighborhoods. There was a process – inadequate, in my view – to collect input from the laity in every parish. I don’t think many people are aware that canon law imposes limits on the ability of bishops to shut parishes and grants certain rights to the laity. The diocese, and many others, face very difficult financial problems. But the whole matter needs to be opened up to greater discussion, and some of the underlying assumptions should be examined. In the case of Allentown, it appears from the AP article that the underlying rationale – that the diocese had to close parishes because of a shortage of priests – was found lacking.
I’d be interested to hear how other dioceses are handling this.
If this idea takes root, and the Vatican supports it, what does this have to say to the whole concept of “Corporation Sole?” Legal challenges lurk in the wings.
I have experienced the closure of 2 parishes by the Archdiocese of New York under their 2004-2007 “Realignment”initiative. One, St. Stanislaus Kostka, was better executed (no pun intended) than the other, Our Lady of Vilnius.
On January 30, 2011 the pastor of my current geographical parish presented the “Making All Things New” initiative. The 10 member advisory committee had already been appointed. A questionnaire was distributed. http://www.archny.org/media/files/Making%20All%20Things%20New%20Parish%20Survey%20-%202.pdf“.. It requires only a parish name and ID. Respondents can opine early and often or not at all. Also, I would like to answer many questions that are not asked. I will respond with skepticism when this data is later cited as the voice of the laity.
When “the laity” is invited for participation, it is often a handpicked subset that is close to archdiocesan or parish administration; people who are known to be loyal and are likely to endorse a preset agenda regardless of its content.
Soon Our Lady of Vilnius will receive a hearing date from the New York State Court of Appeals. The legal issue at hand is whether the parishioners of a suppressed parish also the members of the religious corporation and, as such, have the right to vote re the demolition of the church building. The pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, if the plaintiffs Blaudziunas et al. were to win, is a standoff and a dialogue.
I think that the supporters of Our Lady of Vilnius have a lot to teach the archdiocese about what makes a parish valuable to parishioners and how to treat them when closure is inevitable. Despite this, I don’t see any way to enter the “Making All Things New” process except through the extremely limiting questionnaire.
If I read it correctly, I think that this is an important contribution of the Vatican to more collaboratively oriented processes with respect to administrative decisions made. Oh that more boards and secular administrative bodies would follow the Vatican’s lead in this regard!!!
Christina raises important issues surrounding the process of consultation and whether it is simply a perfunctory trick that leaders perform to railroad an already made decision.
At a minimum, it is simply good practice to be transparent and to outline accurately and fully the process by which a decision was made. I do think consultation needs to be meaningful. This means that consultations should be made before a decision is made and during the contemplative part of the decision making.
If it is any consolation, I don’t think dioceses are the only ones who need to do better at consultation.
At least two parishioners from St Boniface are on the 30+ member committee that is studying the closings and as far as I can see their proceedings and deliberations have been open and honest. In addition, Bishop Frank Caggiano, the vicar general, is overseeing all of this and I have found him to be an extremely bright, fair and just man who also possess a kind heart.
Finances, obviously, will drive a lot this. The diocese is practically broke as are most parishes. We can no longer support hulking buildings constructed in the alte 19th century on the backs of dwindling congregations. Are people asking the larger questions that are keeping people away from Church or who we are willing to ordain? Obviously the question is no. Unless those questions are opened up to conversation (and I suggest no one holds her breath), I just can’t see trying to sustain 200+ parishes (all all their buidlings) in the diocese. At St Boniface, which is one of the parishes that operates in the black, the care of the buildings consumes an enormous amount of energy and we have a strong congregation that is willing to support the staff necessary to handle all this. I just don’t see how some similar can practically be done at most other parishes in the diocese
Anthony, good comments. Your comments actually tie into our conversation about church architecture as well. Appropriately-sized worship spaces that are efficient at heating and cooling usually aren’t as beautiful.
If I’m a bishop, and I can’t close a parish to fix my finances, then I’d think the obvious Plan B is to look elsewhere to slash expenses.
I wonder if schools are subject to this ruling, or if a bishop has more leeway to close a school that is not supporting itself.
Layoffs in the diocese would be another area to be considered, I’d expect.
Responding to Anthony Andreassi regarding the process for gathering lay input in the Brooklyn diocese … As I understand it, each parish in the diocese held a meeting with parishioners to gather information for the parish’s report to the diocese – the information that the committee you refer to would use to make its recommendations to the bishop on which parishes to close. There were three or four questions parishioners were to discuss in groups … for several minutes each. The questions narrowed the scope of discussion a lot, and there was no time for any meaningful discussion or input. I consider it inadequate.
I recognize the names of many fine people on the committee you refer to. I don’t mean to criticize them. Their task is very difficult.
But is there no alternative to the bishop’s position that parishes will no longer be subsidized?
This was a particularly nasty fight in San Francisco a few years back:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-02-03/bay-area/17361891_1_archdiocese-historic-designation-landmarks-preservation-advisory-board
http://www.st-brigid.org/index.html
Paul,
I wonder if there is no alternative. Maybe there is? As you know, the costs of operating these urban parishes with their sprawling plants are massive. Just the property insurance alone runs into the tens of thousands. Not to mention heating etc. The Brooklyn diocese has never had as many deep pockets as the archdiocese across the river has had. Again, if we are not going to ask those deeper fundamental questions, which of course are intimately related to the financial ones, then closings seem to be the only way to go.
A
Why should bishops complain about the Vatican overruling their decisions to close/consolidate parishes when bishops were, in fact, appointed to their sees by the Vatican in the first place?
I bet if polled, most Catholics would endorse application of the principle of subsidiarity to decisions to close or not close parishes.
Unless, of course, application of this principle results in an adverse decision.
In which concerned Catholics would then say, To hell with his decision; let’s appeal to Rome!
Joseph:
This is no time to play the consistency card :P
George D, I know you’re right :-)
Here’s an older essay by Commonweal contributor Julia Vitullo-Martin. She describes several potential forms of collaboration among church leaders, preservationists, developers, financiers, advocates, and city officials.
“A celebrated example is St. Theresa’s, at 10 Rutgers Street, in Lower Manhattan. When its vaulted ceiling collapsed in 1995, St. Theresa’s looked doomed. But by selling air rights and a parking lot next door to developers, who built a market-rate apartment building, the parish was able to finance the renovation of its 1842 Gothic church.”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter12-07.html
Correction: Our Lady of Vilnius was not part of the Archdiocese of New York “realignment” initiative.
Speaking of cooperation between religious institutions and developers —–
http://www.getreligion.org/2008/01/old-churches-converted-to-new-condo-buildings/
Jimmy Mac says:
January 15, 2008, at 5:04 pm
In San Francisco a former Catholic hospital has been converted into condos. The free-standing chapel in the round is now a social space for rent. Stained glass, interior religious art, etc. all remain. The raised platform that used to be where the altar stood is now the space for the bar! The last time I went, I was asked by the bartender what kind of wine I wanted: red, white or sacramental! Yuk, yuk.
Things do change.
The church of St. Stanislaus Kostka, my former parish in Hastings-on-Hudson, was sold by the Archdiocese of New York to the Saul Silbert Charitable Trust. It will open soon as The Purple Crayon Center for Learning and Social Innovation. Look at “The Sanctuary”.
“Lay people have rights”
And with Summorum Pontificum, we have rites, too.
And we have wrongs, thongs and sarongs, too!