Peaceful occupation
The New York Times has a story by Abby Goodnough about Catholics resisting the closing of parishes in the Boston Archdiocese by refusing to leave. At St. Frances Xavier Cabrini church in Scituate, Massachusetts, a group of parishioners have been occupying the church in shifts since 2004. What impresses me most is the way these people have formed a cooperative community around this effort, and how much of themselves they’re willing to devote to the cause.
Many of the St. Frances holdouts describe being transformed from passive Catholics to passionate, deeply involved members of a spiritual community that they say could be a model for the future of the troubled Catholic Church.
…Since St. Frances has no priest, parishioners lead services that include everything but consecration of the host. On the Sunday before Christmas, about 50 parishioners attended a service conducted entirely by women, including two who distributed communion. The hosts had been consecrated elsewhere by a priest described… as “sympathetic.”
They may lose the fight for the building. But I hope they’ll keep what they’ve gained along the way.
I am sorry, but I have a hard time ginning up sympathy for these people. As a member of the Archdiocese, I understand there are real and serious financial problems – and they are likely to get worse. Most of these parishes – including St Francis, are in relatively affluent communities. Before the abuse crisis and subsequent financial problems most of them – and I include my own parish – were content letting things ride. Doing nothing to revitalize their communties – nothing to promote and nourish vocations – content as one of these protesters says, to be “passive Catholics.” No one cared anything about the coming problems and no one did anything about it.
This is about buildings – it’s about nostalgia – it’s all about “this is where I was married” and “this is where my kids were baptized” – that’s the cause to which they are devoting themselves. This is nothing like the early church – the comparison that they try to make. In the early church the focus was on the mass and the sacraments – not the location. These people have turned that on its head. I think they have gained nothing and lost a lot.
Sean
It’s “St. Frances”.
These unfortunate people trusted the leaders John Paul “the Great” sent over. That was their chief mistake.
I don’t know, Sean — I can’t say I’d join the occupation forces if I were in their place, and I certainly can’t say that this is the “right” way to respond. But I think the protests are about more than the buildings. My impression is that these people feel their parish community was disrespected or disregarded when the diocese decided to sell the property. It seems that’s what they’ve come to value more and more since 2004 — the community, not the no-longer-active church building (some of them, at least, have joined other parishes to worship). And it sounds like that’s the message the archdiocese is getting, at least based on the few quotes in the article: if the “realignment” process had been more pastoral, transparent, and cooperative, they might not be in this ugly standoff today.
There are concommitant stories about New Orleans today and folks again trying to hold the fort against parish closings.
The issue strikes me as far more complex than fiscal considerations, including the one prioest/one parish notion, what should a parish be and, as we dicussed at length below, how the furture shape of interrelated ministries in a localitry should happen, especially with some special concern for the poor.
I think that kind of conversation isn’t really happening and the current approach continues to be “standard brands” what we’ve done.
Our Lady of Vilnius, never part of the Archdiocese of New York’s realignment process, was closed on February 26, 2007. We are pursuing a canonical appeal and have availed ourselves of civil remedies to protect the structure from demolition until the verdict from Rome is delivered. While my motives for participating in this cause are multiple, it is far from a sentimental journey. The closure of the church extinguished a culture, a parish culture, not necessarily a specifically ethnic culture. I believe that all of the parishes were closed had unique merits. No effort was made by the archdiocese to learn what these merits are, and no opportunity created for the displaced parishioners to propagate them elsewhere. The closures resulted in a loss of diversity for the archdiocese. Humans are not identical and it takes different means to raise our hearts and minds to God. I am fighting to preserve what brought me closer to God and to see the Church hierarchy act within the spirit, not just the letter, of their own law.
My wife, Katie, and I had a conversation about this story over breakfast this morning and were both initially moved by the action, as Mollie suggests. But, the article ends with a strange quote from one of the “occupiers”: “I cannot go back to the priest and the vestments and that, I always felt, prince-of-the-church approach,” said Mary Dean, 61, who keeps vigil at St. Frances at least four hours a week. “I’ll always be a Catholic, but I may not be able to worship in the mainstream Catholic Church.”
This sentiment seems to be indicative of the very attitude that Sean suggests lead to the current situation requiring the closure and sale of parishes. Understandably, after the clergy abuse scandal, many lay Catholics felt hurt and betrayed by the Church and responded by withholding donations saying that they refused to give the Church money that would “only” go toward court settlements that the parishoners themselves did not feel responsible to, indirectly, pay. This seems to have been a misguided distinction between laity and Church that only reinscribes the pathology that lead to scandalous cover-ups. It seems more constructive to realize that we are all the Church and that we as laity should stand in solidarity with those good clergy who have been just as hurt as we have been by the scandal. I mean these men and women are losing more than Church buildings to payouts, but presumably, pensions, health benefits, salary, homes, etc. Furthermore, we should be happy to contribute to funds going to the victims of abuse rather than trying to abdicate responsibility for the crime by abdicating responsibility to its victims.
I think it’s strange that the parishoners in Boston are simultaneously trying the take ownership of their parish while disavowing their Church.
The bottom line is that the victims of abuse must be financially compensated, however inadequately, for the harm done to them both by court and, I would say, moral mandate. The money has to come from somewhere. If parishoners are really that concerned about holding onto their home parish property, they should put their money where their mouths are and offer to pay the settlements on behalf of the Church in exchange for some co-ownership of the property. This might also go some way toward materially reversing the laity/clergy divide by giving the laity true ownership of the institutional Church. Of course, the problem is that the Church hierarchy is likely reluctant to give up complete control over their properties, but it really would only be a formal recognition of how the facts have stood for decades. Afterall, who has paid the electric bill all these years?
We use language so unconsciously that we sometimes don’t even realize how conflicted our views are:
“It seems more constructive to realize that *we are all the Church* and that we as laity should stand in solidarity with those good clergy who have been just as hurt as we have been by the scandal.”
“Of course, the problem is that the Church hierarchy is likely reluctant to give up *complete control over their properties,* but it really would only be a formal recognition of how the facts have stood for decades.
“Afterall, who has paid the electric bill all these years?”
Who, indeed?
Yes, that would be strange–but how many Boston Catholics hold that view?
If the problem was mainly fiscal, I’d say Eric has a point.
But there’s so much more.VOTF last year tried to find a “Bishop of Integrity” but few here other than por Gumbleton were mentioned.
The notion of a parish (and is it coterminus with a worshipingcommunity?) may well be in eveolution if say (as the thread on importing priests raised the issue) we areliving with stopgap solutions.
To say “we are all the Church” needs to recognize we are deeply divided on ecclesiology issues.
Then there is clericalism _ I’ve heard many VOTF folks praise a priest on line, but the effect of the current clericalistic top down structure needs to be better attended to or folks have, do and will continue some sort of “disavowal” of the institutional structure.
I haven’t even mentioned the hot button issue that get surpressed in the institution and the supression itself creates further alienation toward actions of the Bishop, who, rightly or wrongly( and it probably depends on the case) is perceived as a kind of supermanager acting esentially top down – not exactly a Gospel paradigm.At bottom, I think most Catholics want a loving community to worship in built on the Eucharist and strong community.
The differences mentioned above are usually borne until their bloved plac eof worship where they know each other and work togther is taken away.
If they feel that the rationale is administrative concern alone, it seems that that’s out of line with an ideal of only taking one cloak for the journey.
“services that include everything but consecration of the host”
If this is what was taught in the parish, or is part of the parish culture, the church should be closed.
If the parishioners are beginning to take ownership of the community, I hope they develop a sense of their own priesthood, offering themselves with Christ at every Eucharist. That might help them see the proper role for a priest, and place parish closings in a proper context. As it is now, it appears they were raised with a deficient theology, and that may be the basis for the dispute. Ultimately, the priests who created a social community without deep roots in the Eucharistic prayer are responsible for a community that does not think the priest is all that important.
Yeah, Eric, I found that view unfortunate (especially as the note on which the article ends). But I would hesitate to assume that woman’s view is representative of anyone else’s. Even in that brief article I got the sense that the protesters involved are coping in a variety of ways and acting on a variety of motives. To me that quote was a reminder not to interpret this as an easy, black-and-white issue — I think there are good and bad intentions and motives on all sides, and probably every one of the “occupiers” has their own way of thinking about what they’re doing. For some it has been an occasion for detachment from the institutional or traditional Church, and for others it has been an opportunity to think harder about how they see their role in the Church and why they value it.
Jim McK: First of all, the church has been closed. But I think your interpretation of the communion services the parishioners hold is completely backward. This isn’t some faux liturgy concocted by dissenters: they’re doing exactly what the Church recommends that parishes without priests do. It’s a sign of their continued respect for the role of the clergy and the centrality of the Eucharist.
Grant and Mollie – Your point is well-taken. I should only have said that the attitude of Mary Dean (the woman quoted in the article) seems strange and not generalized to all Boston Catholics.
Bob Nunz – I agree this situation is about more than money, and the closing of these parishes should challenge the Church (both laity and clergy) to rethink ecclesiology, both theologically and politically.
Barbara – Yes, it seems potentially contradictory to say both “we are the Church” and in the same breath talk about negotiating control over Church property with the hierarchy. But, these seem to be the two poles we must hold in tension as we live in a Christian community both “in the world but not of it.” That is to say, a Church that is both an worldly institution concerned with practical matters like paying electric bills and court settlements and a divinely inspired community called to live out certain theological truths. This is no easy task, indeed.
I give Cardinal O’Malley credit – he’s more patient than I would be.
I wish these groups would channel their energy and dedication into helping the poor or fighting real injustice in the area, or spreading the Good News. It makes me want to scream to think that working jigsaw puzzles and paying bills in a defunct church building is somehow a Christian way of living.
If they want to maintain their former parish identity, someone can create a website for them, and they can get together for drinks once a quarter. C’mon people, life goes on. You’ve made your point. Time to move on.
Jim – But is maintaining their former parish identity the point? I think they’re protesting the way the decision was made and handed down, not just the loss of their parish. The most prevalent point I see these people making is that that parish closings and other financial decisions require a respectful, pastoral approach, especially if they’re related to the crisis of leadership that brought about the sex-abuse scandal. It does seem like that point is being taken by Cardinal O’Malley — I think he’s been patient because he sees the bad feelings the closings stirred and doesn’t want to make it worse. (A lot of other bishops have been less sensitive.) I don’t know what positive outcome is possible in this case, and it may be true that the people could be spending their time more fruitfully. But I think they are trying to witness to something deeper than just their own loss.
Whether this is true or not, it will be seen by the parishioners as the truth until proven otherwise:
Much of the St. Frances parishioners’ anger comes from the sense that their church was unfairly singled out. Unlike others, it was in good physical condition and financially solvent, said Jon Rogers, 49, a vigil organizer. He and others say they believe the church’s location doomed it. When it closed, the property had an assessed value of $4.4 million. “We have 30.3 acres of prime coastal realty here,” Mr. Rogers said. “It’s a land grab; they need the money.”
We had a similar situation in San Francisco a few years back with the infamous closing of St. Bridget’s (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/25/MNGRSKRH2E223.DTL) To this day the Archdiocese has done nothing to abuse the public nor the former parishioners of the idea that land value wasn’t the real issue. And, yes, St. B’s was sold to a real estate accumulator masquerading as an arts college for major dollars.
And, like it or not, the clergy had better start worrying a LOT about this:
“I cannot go back to the priest and the vestments and that, I always felt, prince-of-the-church approach,” said Mary Dean, 61 …”
“ ’It’s much more of a living 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week faith, and’ said Margy O’Brien, 78, a parishioner since St. Frances opened in 1960, ‘my generation of Catholics have paid, prayed and obeyed, but you get to a point where you’ve had it.’ ”
Lastly, until the day comes when all excess church property has been sold; opulent living quarters and liturgical frou frou of the episcopacy and, in way too many cases, the parish clergy have been sold; and investment portfolios have been decimated, do NOT come to the parishioners who have been innocent throughout all of this debacle and ask them to foot the bills! This is taxation without representation at its most egregious.
Jimmy, I think that’s an important insight — to some extent, the parishioners’ emotional reactions are the point, whether or not they’re totally logical or wise. I’m sorry that the experience has made Mary Dean more convinced that the traditional, clerical Church is not for her, and I think she may be going too far in drawing that conclusion. But I’d also like to see this sort of thing carried out in a way that won’t alienate people like her in the future. I know you can never please everyone, and at some point you have to stop trying. But acknowledging room for improvement is a good start.
(I’m enjoying working out my reactions to this complicated case, so thanks to all for your comments. But I should probably stop responding to every single one!)
This may be neither here nor there, unless you’re interested in comparative forms of ecclesicastical dissent, but a few years ago, an Episcopal priest (my former college roomate, in fact) pointed out to me that in the Episcopal Church, the principle of diocesan ownership of parish property was keeping many parishes from defecting to the dissident movement among Episcopalians (a movement with which he has no sympathy, by the way). A story in today’s NYT bears this out — the California Supreme Court has decided that church buildings and property belong to the diocese, and not to the parishioners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/06brfs-001.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
“Much of the St. Frances parishioners’ anger comes from the sense that their church was unfairly singled out. Unlike others, it was in good physical condition and financially solvent, said Jon Rogers, 49, a vigil organizer. He and others say they believe the church’s location doomed it. When it closed, the property had an assessed value of $4.4 million. “We have 30.3 acres of prime coastal realty here,” Mr. Rogers said. “It’s a land grab; they need the money.” ”
It’s been a few years since I’ve paid much attention to the Boston parish closings, but my recollection of the time it was first announced wsa that the archdiocese made an effort to “spread the pain” somewhat evenly around the archdiocese, and close parishes in areas that were rich, poor and middle class, including parishes that seemed to be thriving, both financially and in terms of growing population. Whether it has actually played out that way I can’t say – I haven’t followed it that closely. But I do think there is something to be said for not making the poor and minority neighborhoods bear the entire brunt of parish closings so that white suburban parishes can keep their churches, schools and priests.
“do NOT come to the parishioners who have been innocent throughout all of this debacle and ask them to foot the bills! ”
I’m assuming that by “debacle” you mean the sex-abuse scandals. Again, I can’t speak for Boston, but in other dioceses, the problem of insufficient funds to keep all the parishes and schools open pre-dates the scandals and awards settlements- even the round we went through in the early ’90′s. I don’t doubt that scandal payouts have exacerbated the problems, at least for some dioceses.
FWIW – I don’t want innocent parishioners to foot bills for sex-abuse payouts, either. I’m very critical of outsize settlements, paid by deep-pocket parties (i.e. dioceses) that were not parties to the crimes. I believe the perpetrators (certainly including diocesan officials who contributed via coverups and reassignments) should personally bear the liability.
A quick update from New Orleans today: “Church Officials and police” went to OLGC today and when they refused to leave, two folk were arrested and one issued a summons. The arestees were loudly applauded.
I guess that would please the JCD/ maangement approach types her eas well as Jim P..
But I’d like to suggest that the exercise of rights by Church leadership is not the right thing pastorally in handling these kinds of situations.
“Jimmy, I think that’s an important insight — to some extent, the parishioners’ emotional reactions are the point, whether or not they’re totally logical or wise. ”
Hi, Mollie, I do think that church leaders should be sensitive to those feelings, but not infinitely so. Because a person is emotional and stubborn doesn’t mean that s/he must be indulged indefinitely.
Based on what is presented in the article, my guess is that whatever point(s) the protesters hoped to make has been made, and the usefulness of the exercise is probably long past its expiration date. Also, as members of the Body of Christ, they have a responsibility to the welfare of the Body. They are consuming archdiocesan financial resources that probably are needed elsewhere. And they are imposing an opportunity cost on the archdiocese because it isn’t able to turn the buildings and land into cash.
People will read these articles and see what they want to see. Unfortunately the parishioners are at a disadvantage in terms of bringing their case before the court of public opinion. They are lay people, parishioners and present a socio-economic, educational and political mixed bag. Reporters ask them questions and they usually speak frankly, glad to have someone listen and give their views the potential for a public airing. The archdiocese on the other hand is stocked with experts in theology and canon law. Also at their fingertips are financial, legal and public relations resources. In the case of the church closures the language has been carefully crafted and frequently recycled, appearing over and over; from the original press releases to excerpts in all media and in written replies to concerned individuals. There is little evidence of pointed questions being asked, let alone answered. We are given the truth, but not the whole truth and certainly not an unvarnished truth. Facts are carefully chosen and juxtaposed so that a trusting public will infer the desired causality. My heart is with the parishioners. They are amateurs taking a stand for their beliefs. I think that they need to be acknowledged by the Church, not dismissed.
Mollie,
my point was that the parishioners seem unaware that the priest is there for more than consecrating the host. It may be the reporter’s bias, but there is little sense of working together with the priest (and Christ) to offer the Eucharist. The end product, no matter how it is gotten, is all anyone seems to care about, whether that end product is the consecrated Eucharist or the closing of the parish.
There needs to be a greater sense that the parish is a joint project, not ‘run by the diocese’ but accomplished by the parish. That sense appears to have been absent before the closing, and continues after. The surest way to that greater sense imo is by sharing in the Eucharistic work, joining with Christ (and the priest) in His great work. The Eucharist makes the church, and the church makes the Eucharist.
Instead they seem to think the priest is up there consecrating while they watch and wait for the moments when they can participate — at communion, weddings, etc. They no doubt get that sense from an overly clericalized clergy who thought themselves as THE agents of Christ. Everyone decries that clericalism and alienation in the case of the decision on closure; I am just pointing out that it can be seen in their liturgical behavior as well.
Maybe this does not make much sense. It is not easy to express the importance of joining together in prayer, as opposed to just sharing communion as if it were a little piece of God.
I don’t know, Jim McK — I just don’t see how laypeople doing a communion service using pre-consecrated hosts demonstrates a distorted view of the role of the clergy. Certainly their prayer would be more complete if they had a priest to celebrate with them — and as the article said, some, maybe even most, of them do go to active parishes for Mass. But I don’t think we have enough evidence to say they underestimate the role of the priest.
Jim P. — Of course, there’s a limit to how much any person or group should be indulged. But ideally that indulging/outreach would be done upfront… It wasn’t, in this case, and I don’t know what the options are now, or what the people in the parishes can really hope to achieve. But I’m impressed that they’ve held out this long, and intrigued by what they’ve discovered about themselves and their church in the process. And I’m impressed that the archdiocese has let them go. Maybe “impressed” isn’t exactly the right word… It makes an impression on me, but I don’t know whether it’s a positive one so much as a not-negative one!
This statement by Eric: “parishoners are really that concerned about holding onto their home parish property, they should put their money where their mouths are and offer to pay the settlements on behalf of the Church in exchange for some co-ownership of the property. ” …..
….. led to this statement of mine: “Lastly, until the day comes when all excess church property has been sold; opulent living quarters and liturgical frou frou of the episcopacy and, in way too many cases, the parish clergy have been sold; and investment portfolios have been decimated, do NOT come to the parishioners who have been innocent throughout all of this debacle and ask them to foot the bills!”
Also, who, pray tell, keeps this distinction alive even today: “misguided distinction between laity and Church?” As I said elsewhere, we, the laity may indeed by The People of God, but we need to stop deluding ourselves that we are seen as The Church by those on the ordained side of the ecclesiastical Berlin Wall.
“Jim P. — Of course, there’s a limit to how much any person or group should be indulged. But ideally that indulging/outreach would be done upfront… It wasn’t, in this case, and I don’t know what the options are now, or what the people in the parishes can really hope to achieve. But I’m impressed that they’ve held out this long, and intrigued by what they’ve discovered about themselves and their church in the process. And I’m impressed that the archdiocese has let them go. Maybe “impressed” isn’t exactly the right word… It makes an impression on me, but I don’t know whether it’s a positive one so much as a not-negative one!”
I agree with you, Mollie. I’d like to see this have a happy ending – which to my mind, is that everyone (St. Frances holdouts, archdiocesan officials, rest of faithful) comes away united, if not 100% satisfied with the way things shook out. Istm that an unhappy ending could still be written, though.
“There needs to be a greater sense that the parish is a joint project, not ‘run by the diocese’ but accomplished by the parish. That sense appears to have been absent before the closing, and continues after. The surest way to that greater sense imo is by sharing in the Eucharistic work, joining with Christ (and the priest) in His great work. The Eucharist makes the church, and the church makes the Eucharist.”
Jim McK., I’ve been tuned into your intuitions throughout this discussion. I think we need to take this one another step. The Eucharist is a sign of unity, not just between me and the parish and Christ, but to the entire church which is the Body of Christ – of which the particular church/diocese is a very important manifestation. I think this is what bugs me about this situation – that these parishioners are separating themselves. Is this what the Eucharist is supposed to mean?
Having said that – it is up to the shepherd, not the sheep, to seek the lost ones. Have Archbishop O’Malley and the other church officials sought for them? I guess we don’t know for certain, but the article seems to suggest that they are acting with patience and love.
Surely the Eucharist is a sign of unity, but
With all the divides in the Church today, for many, it’s a sign of hanging on to the entire community -warts and all(including the hierarchy on down) – despite the fractures that seem to grow not decrease. There’s even divides on who should approach the table (say on the divorced/remarried Catholic question) and folks often decide for themselves.
As to poor laity reacting, from New Orleans Times Picayune today. look at Politics With a Punch and see the reaction there of one “concerned Catholic.”
I also think Jim McK., as usual has a good insight to offer.
Even in days of yore, with more priests and many Eucharistic celebrations, some parishes were consideed “dead!” The project of the community locally involves all just as the total Church project involves the many membered Body of Christ.
What’s behind some of the discussion here is how juridic a view one brings to the question. That’s especially problematic because we have so many JCD’s making decisions
Jimmy Mac – I’m not so sure that I see the proposed divide between clergy and laity as quite so militarized and oppressive as your reference to the Berlin Wall suggests. Furthermore, I’m not sure that such a confrontational picture is either accurate to the reality of the situation or helpful in engendering an attitude aimed at constructive reform. However, I do agree with you that if clergy are enjoying opulance and excess at the expense of the laity, then the closing of parishes is indeed unjust. I’m just not sure that this is what is going on. But, of course, the lack of financial transparency in many diocese is probably why I’m not sure. And here, I think we would agree again that a lack of such transparency risks further injustice. I just don’t think that an “us versus them” attitude is the way to build more constructive relationships between clergy and laity. I prefer to remain cautiously trusting than bitterly suspicious.
Eric: cautiously trusting is a luxury of the young. I am not young and have grown “bitterly suspicious” over the years because of too much reality that supports that suspicion. Good luck with your optimism, cautious though it may be.
Jimmy Mac – Thank you. I respect the experiences that have formed your perspective and pray that we all might find reasons to be optimistic despite the frailty of such a flawed institution. Peace to you. – Eric
Mollie, I have no problem with the communion services being held in the (ex)church. I am more troubled that people seem not to know the difference between the Eucharist and a communion service, as evidenced by their past indifference, the characterization of the priest as for communion, etc.
Try it this way. As a young girl you help your mother prepare a grand Thanksgiving dinner for all your aunts and uncles, grandparents and other relatives. You know your mother got up early to put the turkey in the oven, she has been baking pies for days and frequenting the markets. She has made a special stuffing from scratch, thrown together a salad, set the table with good china and made sure there are chairs enough for all the people, and a grand feast is held. Then the next week, someone brings in a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, and someone says it is just like Thanksgiving, except your mother did not have to cook.
Saying they have everything except a priest to consecrate is something like that. It misses the work that the priest has put into the community, and even more it misses the work that Christ put into the service. If their work is missing, the work of the laity that is offered with Christ is missing as well, and with it the community of shared worship. The shared meal, produced with a lifetime of shared experiences that led to some immediate efforts, cannot be replaced by fast food.
Having said that, I do not fault the people for this. The priests had probably been offering fast food for years, or the people would have been more involved. The laity would not be protesting if they did not have some sense of a community at that place, but they were probably estranged from the clergy long before even the rumors of closing started. This is perhaps the most insidious effect of clericalism.
So I am with Jim P. The pastor needs to find his sheep. Maybe the cardinal can come and say Mass in the church with the protesters, still adamant in his opposition but united with them in their desire to pray together. Altogether unlikely, and maybe even undesirable, but something needs to bridge the divides being described in this discussion.
Bob Nunz –
The New Orleans closings, I suspect, show what the most basic problem with the closings nationwide are. The two churches here that were closed are within easy walking-distance of each other, and within blocks of a third, very large church the parishes will merge with. The parishes were clearly redundant, and there aren’t enough priests or money to support them. I don’t think it is a racial matter. The Our Lady of Good Council parish includes some of the riches and poorest people, both black and white, and they seem very united. True, the Archbishop didn’t handle it well. It seems to me it was it undoubtedly necesssary to merge the parishes.
So what is going on? I think that the protests are really symbolic — unconsciously so — of the huge changes in people’s lives, changes that we have been unable to influence. Some of those changes have been utterly devastating physically,, Consider Katrina in New Orleans, not to mention 9/11 in New York which changed the feeling of safety New Yorkers *used to* have. Disappointment in the formerly respected hierarchy has been devastating. There have been changes in Church teachings, which many simply cannot adapt to. Now, even the physical symbols of a more pleasant sort of life are disappearing. The center does not hold, and those church buildings were the physical embodiment of the center for the protesters.
If you consider the protests as symbolic of anguish over the death of way of life, then the police action here doesn’t look so awful as the protesters claim it was. According to the Times-Picayune, one man was hand-cuffed and put in a police car. Then police then took him home and let him out. The protesters were allowed to say a prayer to the Blessed Mother before they left, and the attorney from the City Attorney’s office joined with them. No, this was more of a wake for a form of life. I suspect the same sort of thing is happening in other parts of the country.
The T-P article is here: http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1231309433208240.xml&coll=1
In these stories there are almost always “forgotten men or women” who never appear. They may be participants in successful parish reorganizations or merely those who by their support and contributions help the Church to adapt. If they get any mention at all they are usually derided by their moral superiors as “pay, pray and obey” Catholics.
‘ I am more troubled that people seem not to know the difference between the Eucharist and a communion service …’
As time goes on and more and more Catholics are subject to lay-led communion services rather than a priest-led Eucharistic celebration, the difference will disappear/become meaningless/be irrelevant. You cannot hanker for what your Church tells you is secondary to the preservation of mandatory celibacy.
I think there must be a place in hell for those who subordinate the necessary to the preservation of ossification.
More news today of parish closings: lots, 20% of the Albany Diocese.
It should be noted that Bishop Hubbard has tried to soften the blows in a number of wasy, including:
-talking about jobs that will be lost and how folks might be helped to be placed elsewhere;-where the money will go from parish property sold and priorities to whom it will be sold. Note, no money will go to the Diocese – the funds will go to the new configured parishes.
This kind of touch may be helpful and better than what we see in other places.
It still doesn’t resolve ecclesial issues around the parish we’ve talked about.
Some very good and thoughful responses here. Some other points and suggestions:
a) Ann – in terms of New Orleans, you have a unique Catholic and social culture. The two churches are in the Garden District; were not badly damaged by Katrina (unlike some of the parish churches closed – they were basically destroyed); there is a uniqueness to the neighborhood church along old ethnic lines – German Catholic, Italian Catholic, etc.; yes, St. Stephen’s is the larger church and has a school. But, this neighborhood does not tear down buildings; houses are passed on from generation to generation; stores, etc. may change their look but the building remains; the population is proud of this tradition and heritage. If anything, the archdiocese failed to anticipate and plan for the slow merger of ethnic parishes years ago. Also, some of these “die-hards” see these church buildings as a remnant that withstood Katrina and now the powers to be are taking them away. Not saying I agree but it gives an emotional flavor to the situation;
b) creativity – both of these churches could be used for other purposes; remain as chapels; the transition could have been based on something other than “closure”……some of the poor of New Orleans are in these neighborhoods and these church buildings could have been used to address on-going social, economic, and educational needs. Some of these could have been staffed by lay, deacons, etc. and folks could have been prepared for the transition of the sacraments to St. Stephen’s.
Few dioceses in the US plan for consolidation, mergers, etc. – at least not long range plans that are updated and changed annually. Too often it appears and feels like a knee jerk reaction and little creativity is used to address the emotional commitment of folks.
Just want to add I like everything Bill D. said here except the term “emotional” (commitment).
I think the commitment is more personal, that is, the whole person’s reaction of which human emotion is just part.
Here is a link to the recent arrests and also some early January offers of compromise that the almost retired bishop, Hughes, refused. This writer suggests a number of issues:
a) imminent retirement of Hughes – Hughes’ own history as auxiliary in Boston under Law and being painted with the same brush as law….resentment in this area;
b) as I commented above, these churches/parishes date back to the 19th century and were incorporated under the rules of that time – version of trusteeship – 5 person board made up of bishop, 2 priests/pastor, and 2 lay advisors. In both cases, when lay advisors died, there were no replacements named nor were these charters ever legally changed. In addition, one charter has a statement that the church is incorporated for 500 years.
Here is the link: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/NewOrleans/Archbishop_Locks_Uptown_Catholic_Churches_Out_of_Pride___8178.asp
Perhaps ironic isa the title of this thread, as the good Archbishop is quoted that he is “at peace” with his decsion to have folks arrested.
Strikes me there is a broad problem of insight into the whole issue of parish(closings.)
Bishops would be better off as the Archbishop of Dublin recently stated that they now face credibility gaps from folks.
The closing of Our Lady of Vilnius and Our Lady Queen of Angels have engendered strong feelings and ties of community among parishioners also. The women of Our Lady Queen of Angels had tried to conduct a vigil in their church, but were arrested. Perhaps the Our Lady of Vilnius community would have done the same if the church had not been locked before the Monday Mass on February 26, 2007. For the past 2 years these communities have been holding Sunday vigils outside of their buildings. Today’s New York Times City Room blog reports that the demolition of Our Lady of Vilnius, which the Archdiocese once denied as their goal, has been blocked by the appellate court: see Court Stays Church Razing by Sewell Chan
Thebeat goes on: Today’s boston Globe has an op=ed by Jason Berry on the new Orleans closures and Archbishop Hughes.
It’s not complimentary and Berry is a keen observer of the New orleans scene, as many here know.