Anecdote

A funny thing happened the other day. There's a well-known and well-liked lady in our town who has for ages run a restaurant. She recently changed locations (again) and I wanted to get a look at the new spot, so we stopped in for a bite.

Now this is the type of woman who has at least one prominently placed crucifix in her place and gushes over your "babies" (kids). She's the Catholic grandmotherly type, gregarious, enthusiastic, easy to talk to, a great cook. True to form, my younger son, who happens to be austistic and who also happens to have a great sense of direction, starts crying out, "St. Martin's!" which sounds similar to, "St. Mark's," neither of which were very far from us.

Hearing this, the woman says, "Yes, sweetie, St. Mark's. That's my church. It's right up the street." Confused and rarely one to keep my mouth shut when I'm curious, I say, "I thought you belonged to St. Martin's."

"Oh yes, I used to go there. But I sang at a wedding at St. Mark's and just fell in love with it. They're just like Catholic, you know, they even use our same books. They just don't believe in the pope." And on and on about how great a place it is, how wonderful the pastor and his minister wife are, and how she donates food for their dinners and things.

In case you haven't guessed, St. Mark's is an Episcopal church. To be honest, although I don't know her well, this is one of the last people I expected to suddenly leave the Church. But she doesn't see it that way. In fact, I would doubt she has refrained from considering herself to be Catholic, since by her own standards, her beliefs and manner of worship have not changed at all.

Where Everybody Knows Your Name

Listening to her talk about her new community, though, my husband and I realized that what was likely going on was not necessarily conversion to a different Christian denomination in the sense of a change in belief or theology, but conversion to a community. Having been to St. Martin's many times, I can honestly say that there just isn't much going on there. It's a fairly large, impersonal church. The priest turnover has been incredible, not to mention the ongoing uncertainty of the status of any of our town's (and diocese's) churches. Let's face it, when people go to church, that's the one thing they want to be sure ain't goin anywhere! The church is central to their religion, it's the House of God, and in the midst of life's day-to-day craziness, it's reassuring just to walk or drive by. Stability: it's Who God Is and what the Church is supposed to be.

Now if you were to see St. Mark's, you'd notice its small size. I'm unfamiliar with its typical attendance, but physically it's about the size of St. Mary's. And it's not so hard to feel at home and quite a bit easier to get to know people in a small church. Our assessment is that that's what she was looking for. Something clicked for her. She felt welcomed, noticed, valued, at home.

But is it all the Same?

In the midst of this transition, though, probably unbeknownst to her, she has in fact migrated to a group whose beliefs and history are, in fact, different from the Catholic Church. The Anglican/Episcopal church(es) were begun by King Henry VIII in the 16th century and spurred, along with Martin Luther on the European continent, the Protestant rebellion/reformation. Henry wanted to divorce (and murder) his wife/wives and did not want to be beholden to the pope, so he made himself head of his own church. Many Englishmen and women died for their Faith rather than leave the One, True Church. Over the course of time, belief and practice has diverged from Catholic belief, and today the Episcopaleans/Anglicans disagree with one another over many things, not the least of which are the role of women and homosexuals in the priesthood/bishopric. So we are seeing schism among those who orginally schismed from Rome. But that's a subject for a different day.

The Perfect Storm?

My point is this. Right now, in our diocese and elsewhere throughout the country, we have the perfect storm. Perhaps I'm being too dramatic, but I don't think so. Think of it as a simple equation. We have:


We're starting to see it already. Church attendance is down most places. But it will be masked significantly with church merger since when a church is closed, those who still elect to go to Mass will appear to be taking up valuable parking places and pew space in the "new" church. Those who leave won't be noticed, particularly in churches where there's already a sense of anonymity.

In Closing

I use one woman's story only as an example. I don't mean to imply that massive amounts of Catholics are going to turn Episcopalean or Lutheran or Calvary Chapel or anything else, for that matter. On the contrary, I think what we're more likely to see is large numbers of formerly practicing Catholics lose what faith they have and stop going to any church, anywhere. It's just a matter of whether or not we're willing to pay attention to what's going on. Can American Catholics hang on through all this or will we lose our religion, too?

The beautiful and historic St. Pete's in P-ville (my dad's hometown) is now being made into "senior housing." Guess if they see money in it, the diocese'll do it. And you thought at St. Mary's we were PARANOID??? Just look at the barren wasteland our diocese is becoming. Have you driven past churches like St. Gregory's in Magnolia or St. Ann's in Elmer with their purple funereal curtains masking their locked front doors? It is a site that will bring tears to your eyes. It is Death. The worst kind. Spiritual Death.

As you can read in the snippet below, the mission-style St. Pete's has "merged" with the new-fangled church-in-the-round that is St. Bernadette's in Northfield. While St. Bernadette's is by no means the ugliest church I've ever been to, it is definitely a "new" style church. (I used to go there for our high school retreats.) Do I think it's an accident that smaller, more traditional churches and those sitting on more desirable estate are going bye-bye? Well, no. But hey, we at SSM have been saying that for years now.

We might also mention that while it seems like rural churches are being targeted (and they are), it is also worth noting that Pleasantville, being a stone's throw from Atlantic City, is a large town (historically made up of multiple smaller towns) that is currently comprised of a predominantly African-American population.

Economically, the situation isn't great there, and so the negatives that often accompany poverty, like drugs and crime and desperation, are not uncommon. My grandmother just sold her house and moved in with my uncle's family a few years ago, but up until then had been held up at knife point on her own street more than once. On some level, the atmosphere can be rightly called "urban" in feel, the school system "challenging," and most of the populace relatively poor.

Northfield, one of the next towns over, is very different. While according to Google Maps it takes only 3-6 minutes by car from St. Pete's in P-ville to St. Bernadette's in Northfield, it has been my experience over the years that because of the traffic in this area this is not always realistic. But more importantly, how do we know that everyone in P-ville has access to a car? Our guess is that many use the bus to get around (and walk), which means dependence on the bus schedule, a walk to a bus stop that may not be especially close to home, and all of that, making the trip from somewhere in Pleasantville to St. Bernadette's a lot closer to a half-hour or more.

The question remains; Does the current diocesan administration really want the poor and economically disadvantaged in our churches? Does it want the farmers who have to work Sundays before and after Mass? What about those who have to work crazy hours at the casinos? Does the Galante administration really want to make life easier for the senior citizens who need to be close to their churches? What about kids like me who used to actually walk to church sometimes? Does the diocese really want the single moms or families with bunches of kids, for whom taking a bus to church in the next town would be very difficult? Doesn't look that way to us. Who ever would've guessed that Catholicism was going to turn into the religion of the privileged? Let those who can't get to a Catholic church go somewhere else. After all, they have no money to give, anyway, and that's what it all seems to boil down to. For shame.

Snip:
(To read the entire article, click here: http://www.gsi-consulting.org/retirement-housing-news/st-peters-site-begins-transition-from-house-of-worship-to-senior-housing-in-pleasantville/)

St. Peter's site begins transition from house of worship to senior housing in Pleasantville

Posted on pressofatlanticcity.com:  August 12, 2010

By Christopher Ramirez, Staff Writer

The life of Anna Tosti is deeply intertwined with St. Peter Catholic Church.

It's where her parents married and where she was baptized, it and stands across from her childhood home along the Black Horse Pike near Main Street.

Tosti is now watching a rebirth of the land where a church parish was active for more a century until an official merger was completed in May with nearby St. Bernadette's in Northfield.

Construction is already a few weeks under way in the massive makeover to the property that will result in the Village at St. Peter's, a senior housing complex spearheaded by the Diocese of Camden for those ages 62 and older.

The approximately $17 million project is utilizing about 14,000 square feet along the road for a six-story building that will include 73 one-bedroom units and a two-bedroom unit for an onsite manager. The foundation of the new building is beginning to emerge on the site of the former convent, besides a bell tower and small grass courtyard that leads to the church and school that will remain standing.

That old, worn out cudgel that has been used against St. Mary's before has once again reared its ugly head. You know the one. The fallacious argument that if we don't go along with the plan to destroy our own parish and community, we are causing disunity.

• All unity is good. No disunity is good. Therefore all promoters of disunity must be doing something bad.

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest."

As tends to be the trend lately, even on holy days of obligation, the sermon has turned to subjects generally unrelated to the readings. Today the sermon was used as a platform to reiterate to St. Mary's parishioners the importance of the sacred office of the priesthood. Unfortunately, having respect for the office of the priesthood, like having respect for the office of the bishop, has nothing whatsoever to do with expecting priests to do what they are supposed to do. (Namely, so far as we can tell, priests should protect the faithful, defend the Church, bring the Sacraments, lead holy lives, teach the Faith, and evangelize those who do not know Christ.)

Sadly, the "you have no respect for the priesthood" cudgel has been used too many times to speak of in order to try to shut up the lay faithful when they see wrongs being done in the name of Holy Mother Church. In our particular case, ever since we began the campaign to save St. Mary's, we have been called "disrespectful" when we disagreed with things expressed by the bishop and his priest supporters who have sought to close our church. Somehow, we are not "loving" if we disagree with a priest or the bishop. (Strangely, the reverse rationale has not applied to the laity. Apparently, no one is obligated to be "loving" and "respectful" towards us.)

We must never lose sight of the fact that priests and bishops, like the lay faithful, do not always do what is right or Christlike, even though they are "in persona Christi." In the wake of an "evangelization" meeting sponsored by the Diocese of Camden in which they seriously intend to "market Jesus," there are those of us who beg to differ with the crass commercialism and un-Catholic sentiments being expressed in these dark times.

Yes, we beg to differ. Bigger isn't necessarily better, a lie does not become true just because we keep saying it, and we cannot and should not "market Jesus." Yes, we seek to save our church and shield those in the pews (or potentially in the pews) from these offenses to Christ and His Church. If that makes us offensive to those who wield political power over us, so be it. It is not our job to please our pastor, but to defend our church and in so doing, defend The Church.

We have a good friend who grew up in another country. This country is predominantly Catholic and our friend is very devout. The interesting thing is that we agree on just about everything pertaining to the mess our Church is turning into. But our reactions are different. While I have been surprised in so many ways by the behavior of those supposedly representing the Church, my friend has not. Why? Because, she said, back in her country the vast majority of the priests were (fairly openly) corrupt. The pastor of her parish was even widely known to have fathered a child, and many priests, she said, drove expensive cars when most people could barely afford crappy ones. But she said there were some holy priests and they were easy to spot. They rode bikes.

The funniest thing she said, which I thought was at the same time very sad, was that "Americans have such high standards." After discussing what she meant by this, I learned that she meant that we Americans expect our priests to live out, well, what they're supposed to do. While we don't expect them to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination, we don't expect them to be corrupt. We Americans, she said, generally expect our priests to stand up for what is right and when they fall so far short, we are surprised.

I think that what were living through at this moment in time--between the child abuse scandals and the subsequent mass closure of Catholic churches throughout the country, as well as so many other things that have come to light--is a major American Catholic shift in attitude. Too many American Catholics, while respecting the office of the priesthood, no longer believe it possible to live a holy life as a priest. They no longer trust priests generally. As a result, there is a trickle-down effect. They no longer believe it possible to live a truly holy Catholic life as a lay person either.

We cannot let this happen. We must hold our priests and ourselves as lay Catholics to the same high standards. It is possible to live a good and holy Catholic life! We are called to obey God in all things and must not feed ourselves rationalizations of actions we know to be wrong. Things like eliminating masses, screaming at parishioners, stealing church funds, "merging" and closing churches, bearing false witness (lying) are all wrong for both priests and laity alike.

The long and short of it is this: Want to be respected as a priest in persona Christi, as a pastor who will lay down his life for his sheep? Act like one.

They lament that they cannot coax Hollywood off its addiction to organized-crime stereotypes, or draw more than a ribbon of spectators to the Columbus Day Parade in New York. And now, despite support from the New York Landmarks Conservancy and even an inquiry from the Vatican, they have not rescued Our Lady of Loreto.

The Diocese of Brooklyn has moved to raze the church, on Sackman Street, so that 88 units of much-needed housing for low-income residents can be built in the neighborhood, which is now home to Latinos and African-Americans.

Underscoring the paradox, the man who ordered the demolition, Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio, is an Italian-American.

To give you some example of just how un-Catholic and repulsive the whole ordeal is:

Last week, Bishop DiMarzio extended an olive branch, offering to insert some of the church's outdoor statues into the facade of one of the new apartment buildings.

And this is supposed to be a CATHOLIC Bishop? Not only is that idea insulting, it is entirely irreverent, and if he does not realize that, something is certainly rotten in the state of...NY. After all, if a protestant had proposed this--wanting to destroy a Catholic church and integrate its statues into the "decor" of a new building, as if they were merely nostalgic decorations--Catholic groups would be up in arms.

Bishop Galante & Co. must really not like Salem County. The closure rate there is simply unbelievable. When all is said and done there will be almost nothing left of the Catholic Church in the entire county. In this article, we read that Bishop Guilfoyle School in Carneys Point will close in June. Parents who want to send their kids to Catholic school will have to travel to Gloucester County, Cumberland County, or go over the bridge to Delaware, but as we all know, school and church closures are occurring all around us at an unprecedented rate, so enrolling a child in a Catholic school anywhere holds no guarantees. Parents who choose to enroll their child in a nearby regional Catholic school will have a lot of hard thinking to do as to how much "change" they are willing to put their children through. Let's face it, most of these kids are likely to end up in public school, not another Catholic school.

Lingering questions about Catholic school closures & Catholic education:

• What has the Diocese done to ensure proper financial management of these schools?
• What has the Diocese done to help support and assign good administrators to these schools? 
• What has the Diocese done to help provide quality, uncompromising, Catholic education and challenging curricula?
• What has the Diocese done to encourage the influx of teaching religious orders to the Diocese? Why has the Diocese turned away orders that have offered to come here?
• What has the Diocese done to help re-think making Catholic education truly affordable to parents? (Even in the past sixteen years or so, the tuition at my Catholic high school has roughly tripled.)
  
• How has the Diocese provided support to the new generation of Catholic home educators, those who have been either priced out of Catholic education and dissatisfied with the quality of some Catholic schools?
• Has the Diocese actually spoken to families and teachers at these schools or has it just decided to abandon them, sight unseen?
  

Read article by clicking HERE.

Snip:

By Phil Dunn, pdunn@sjnewsco.com

CARNEYS POINT TWP. -- Bishop Guilfoyle Regional Catholic School here will close its doors at the end of this school year, bringing an end to Catholic school education in Salem County.

The imminent closure was announced to parents of students via an e-mail from the Georgetown Road school's principal.

The school, operated by the Diocese of Camden, joins a growing list of Catholic schools in South Jersey to be shuttered.

"Declining enrollment in our schools, rising deficits and heavy burdens on the sponsoring parishes," have been cited as reasons Bishop Guilfoyle will close, according to the letter parents received.

The letter says the population of the area the school serves has declined 30 percent over the past 50 years, a situation that "has contributed to a marked decline in enrollment from our peak of 373 students in 2001-2002 to just 111 this year."

The school teaches students from pre-kindergarden through eighth grade.

Diane Sparks, a resident of Pennsville, has two girls enrolled at Bishop Guilfoyle. She has also been a marketing volunteer for the past five years at the school.

"We've talked to several families that came to the open house and they were interested in Bishop Guilfoyle," said Sparks. "Other families that had left last year were also considering coming back to enroll their children."

Catholic schools have long been favored by Catholic families and non-Catholics who believed the education their children would receive would be superior to public schools. But with the closing of the schools parents are now forced to return their children to the public school system or travel a longer distances for Catholic schooling.

"That is the most upsetting thing," said Sparks on Wednesday. "I don't want to bus my child 50 minutes away to a Catholic school in Gloucester County. It's just not reasonable."

This severe under-enrollment has resulted in a reduction of tuition income, thereby placing upward pressure on tuition rates, which, in turn, has made it difficult to increase enrollment, especially during difficult economic times.

This has resulted in rising deficits, which will be nearly $400,000 this year, the Diocese says.

Right now at Bishop Guilfoyle parents are paying tuition rates of $3,600 for the first child enrolled and $2,800 for the second child, said Sparks.

If parents choose to transfer their children to another Catholic school, the Diocese of Camden will be offering $1,000 vouchers to help reduce tuition costs at a new school.

"We are exploring the possibility of having the tuition reimbursement honored at area Catholic schools outside of the Camden Diocese as well," said Andrew Walton, spokesman for the Diocese.

Jennifer Jones, whose daughter is enrolled at Bishop Guilfoyle feels the Diocese did not look deep enough for a solution to declining enrollment.

"I'm devastated and I'm not sure they did everything they could to keep Catholic education in Salem County," said Jones who serves as executive director of the Salem County Chamber of Commerce. "It seems to me there are a number of smaller buildings in the county that could of been optioned to keep the school open."

Walton directed those parents who wish to voice their concern about the closing to the school administration.

"I think that if parents have a particular concern they should certainly surface those concerns to the leadership of the school," said Walton. "If the school administration and sponsoring parishes believe the bishop doesn't have the information he needs, they will forward it to the Diocese for review."

As for the school's staff, the letter parents received said the Diocese would help place as many teachers from Bishop Guilfoyle as possible in other Catholic schools and for those it can't, it would offer "an assistance package" during their transition to other employment.

The fate of the building itself is unclear.

Some parent were taken aback by the sudden decision to close the doors of the last Catholic school in Salem County.

"Most of the talk going on at board meetings was the consolidation of Bishop Guilfoyle and Guardian Angels (Catholic school) in Paulsboro," said Bishop Guilfoyle PTA President Tom Hassler. "So it caught me off guard."

Hassler said they were looking to consolidate the school under a new name and use the Bishop Guilfoyle location.

Those not wanted to travel to Gloucester or Cumberland County have been looking to schools in the Wilmington Diocese in neighboring Delaware.

"From what I heard, schools in New Castle and Wilmington will apparently welcome us with open arms," said Hassler. "They are willing to work with us to provide some type of transportation, too."

Hassler also believes the Wilmington Diocese has a more educational sound system in place.

"The Wilmington Diocese is pro education," said Hassler. "Wilmington gets the school up and running before they add a church."

Bishop Guilfoyle's closing is the second major blow to Catholic education in the county in the past decade. It's been about 10 years since the Diocese closed St. James High School (which was located in the building now used by Bishop Guilfoyle) and St. Mary Regional School in Salem and St. James Elementary School in Penns Grove.

 The students from the two elementary schools, along with another Catholic elementary school in Gloucester County, were transferred to Bishop Guilfoyle.

The news of the school's closing comes at the same time the Diocese of Camden is consolidating neighborhood parishes in Salem County. That action has left many Catholics unhappy.

The Diocese of Camden, Hassler said, has written off Salem County.

"They are going to lose a whole new generation of Catholics," said Hassler. "It's spiraling down more than it already was."

From the Editor:
We received this email back around Thanksgiving time and, though we had it ready to post, had neglected to post it! Quatholic Megachurches are coming to Peoria, IL against the will of Catholics there. The devil is hard at work. Evil is the only word for what is going on here, and the Diocese of Camden is not alone in its persecution. It is happening ACROSS THE COUNTRY. What will become of "Catholicism" in the United States?

Read this article about Diocese of Peoria

Dear Committee to Save St. Mary's Malaga,

I've read the very distressing story about the Archdiocese's destruction of your parish in New Jersey.  I sent this e-mail to you because of my fear that my home parish of St. Anthony of Padua [see photos below right, -ed.] in Streator, IL is about to be destroyed in an extremely misguided attempt at consolidation.  There are three functioning Catholic parishe in Streator: St. Mary, St. Anthony and St. Stephen.  All three were founded by European immigrant ethnic groups, and all three still had grade schools as late as 1999.  Today St. Anthony is the only church that has a grade school.

As early as 2005 I had heard rumors about a proposed consolidation of the three Catholic churches in Streator.  In September 2007 the parishioners of all three Catholic churches received a letter from the Diocese of Peoria in which the bishop told of his desire to close all three churches and build a new church.  In October 2007 the two head Streator priests, Msgrs. Ham and Prendergast,* conducted information sessions regarding the consolidation of the parishes.  (Since then it has been widely seen that Msgr. Prendergast is the main figure pushing for consolidation.)  After those information sessions, committees were formed to "study" the pros and cons of consolidation.  Whatever point those committees had is beyond me.

At the time of those sessions there were rumors that the planned church would be built on farmland east of Streator.  Shortly thereafter the local newspaper published a story about St. Patrick's Church in Ransom, a parish in a small town about 12 miles east of Streator.  The members of St. Patrick's were enraged to find out that their church was to be included in the proposed consolidation, considering that the church recently had completed a thorough renovation with the full knowledge of the bishop.  The fact that St. Pat's owns 40 acres of farmland quickly led the parishioners of that church to conclude that their church was being closed so that the Diocese could sell their farmland to buy land for the new consolidated church.  The next year saw the parishioners of St. Pat's fight a nasty battle to get out of the proposed consolidation.  During that time the parishioners of St. Pat's were told their church would reopen.  Two months after reopening (and after they had made up their Diocesan appeal money), Msgr. Prendergast informed the parishioners of St. Pat's that their church would close after all.  St. Pat's eventually was able to get completely out of the consolidation plan, but it is very unlikely the church ever will hold services again.

In mid-2008 the parishioners of the Streator churches learned that Msgr. Prendergast had purchased 40 acres of land east of Streator for what seemed to be the very inflated amount of $12,500 per acre.  Since that time rumors have abounded that the land Msgr. Prendergast purchased is above abandoned mine shafts and is unsuitable for the building of a new church.  Of course, Msgr. Prendergast has denied these rumors.    

In the year following the purchase of the land no more statements were made by the Diocese or Streator priests regarding the building of a new church.  That a new church ever will be built seems unlikely, as Streator is a fairly low-income town and the land the Diocese purchased for the church is regarded as unsuitable.  As time has gone by, there have been rumors that St. Stephen's Church will get an addition and become the consolidated church in town.

In June 2009 Msgr. Ham, the longtime popular priest of St. Anthony, retired.  Msgr. Prendergast took his role as pastor of St. Anthony's and, what he calls us now, the "Streator Catholic Community."  Since Msgr. Prendergast took control at St. Anthony, the parish has begun to fall apart.  Msgr. Prendergast seems almost to delight in being cruel to many parishioners.  The number of altar servers is declining.  Even adult servers report that he is a very difficult person with whom to work.  He so upset the retired choir director that the performance of Handel's Messiah (a St. Anthony tradition since 1998 or so) will be conducted at the Methodist church instead.  I've heard that he shows a particular animosity toward the choir in general.  Two weeks ago parishioners of St. Anthony learned that their popular 4:30 PM Mass on Saturday would be canceled, as would all confessions.  Msgr. Prendergast ordered these cancellations following the departure of a retired Slovak priest who helped at Masses as needed.  Since the departure of the Slovak priest to a parish about 35 miles from Streator, it widely has been alleged that he left Streator because of Msgr. Prendergast's treatment of him.

Meanwhile, St. Anthony's School is in free fall.  Although the Diocese claims to want to support Catholic education in Streator, St. Anthony's Church still covers about 90 percent of the expenses of the school.  Supporting the school is seriously draining the cash reserves of the parish.  I heard today that enrollment is declining even more next year.  It is difficult to see how school ever could survive without the support of the church.

Many parishioners believe Msgr. Prendergast is deliberately destroying St. Anthony's Parish so that attendance at both the church and school fall, giving the Diocese an excuse to close the parish for good.  Many believe Msgr. Prendergast has great personal animosity toward St. Anthony's Parish (Prendergast is actually a native of Streator).  Msgr. Prendergast also confirmed in a private meeting that the nearby hospital is interested in the land on which the school lies (and, I would imagine, the land where the church is, too).  I personally feel that Prendergast (and the Diocese, for that matter) are deliberately running St. Anthony's Parish to the ground so that the buildings can be demolished and the land sold to the local hospital.

At the same time, Msgr. Prendergast is moving all office operations for the Streator churches to the old convent at St. Stephen's.  The secretary of St. Anthony's recently learned that her job will be cut in June of next year, the same month, it is rumored, that St. Anthony's rectory will be demolished.  At the moment, Msgr. Prendergast has construction experts reviewing all the church buildings in Streator.  Although the reports will be finished by the end of this month, he has stated that he won't reveal them to the parishioners until after Christmas, because they could be "very upsetting" to many parishioners.  It seems nearly everyone at St. Anthony's (and the other churches too) believes that the reports will show St. Anthony's to be in the worst condition of all the churches.  Just this week I heard another rumor [Editor: this is not a rumor, by the way] that the Diocese plans on tearing down three church structures in Streator next year.  Considering that Msgr. Prendergast already has demolished most of the old buildings at the other churches, I fear that he plans on tearing down the rectory, church and convent at St. Anthony's.  A small group has met with Msgr. Prendergast, urging him to address the rumors in front of the congregation, but nothing has happened yet.      

This planned consolidation seems to be nothing more than a suppression of St. Anthony's Church.  During the information sessions in 2007 Msgr. Prendergast brought up the typical crap about ethnic parishes and declining numbers of priests and parishioners.  St. Anthony's, at least until Prendergast became pastor, had a good number of young people and high attendance at Masses.  What would you recommend that parishioners at St. Anthony do before the very likely event that the Diocese closes our church next year?

Sincerely,
(We have withheld his name.)

*Prendergrast is our McGrath or Odien. It's amazing just how people can become instruments of evil.

Fresh from the desk of our "pastor," Fr. Edward Namiotka, comes this "bright idea. Here is another example of why we continue to fight to save St. Mary's. Over the past two years and, arguably, since the 1970s, more and more strange ideas in the name of "Catholicism" have been made, and so many have been suggested in the past two years by the Diocese of Camden. But never you fear! Rest confidently that this particular innovation is the brain power of a Sacred Heart High School administrator. Is it just a way of getting you to part with your cash, or is it a new-fangled spiritual practice? You be the judge. However, we wouldn't recommend you try this at home. Let us give you some background, first.

Father says in his Jan. 3 bulletin that since the light bulbs in St. Michael's Minotola need to be replaced, members of this parish ought to sponsor a light bulb ($25 a bulb). Apparently the labor cost of changing light bulbs is into the thousands. He calls this the "Guiding Light" project. In the interest of spirituality, he says that light bulbs are just like votive candles. Ya know, candles give light and so do light bulbs. Yeah, we see the similarity. We quote:

It is not that far removed from the practice that we have of lighting candles in a church in memory of someone. And these light bulbs should radiate in the church for a significantly longer amount of time than a candle--potentially a couple of years or more. [emphasis his]

However, from our point of view, as Fr. Namiotka has previously pointed out that nothing is permanent, including our churches, and that they are nothing more than just buildings, we're not sure we understand the point in making that sort of an investment. A light bulb that lasts two years? Gee wizz. All things are changing, right? As he pointed out a few bulletins back, our churches could get bombed out tomorrow just like the ones in Europe during World War II (or, alternatively, stolen by a bishop and his conspirators). Therefore we're not sure that kind of investment is warranted. A more practical approach might be for each of us to just bring our own flashlights to mass. Heck, that might be fun, like a camp out, but we digress. Father goes on, imploring us to think:

Think about it. Every time you enter the church you can look up and think of someone who shone like a light for you. Hopefully it will help you to remember them and to pray for them. [again, emphasis his]

Ummm, I could remember my loved one or I could go blind from staring into a lightbulb. Uh-huh!

Then he goes on to say, and we could not possibly make this up, that there are "three mouths to feed in our rectory household while the weekly collection has not increased proportionately." Ain't that cute? They're like hungry little kittens who've come scratching at our back doors or something. Remember to put out a bowl of chow!

Some of us have lost our jobs, are struggling during this recession, have families to feed, and don't own Rolex watches, nor do we have our auto insurance, rent or mortgage, gas, utilities, and other life expenses paid for us by our employers. No one shops for us, cooks our meals, or cleans our houses, either. To top it all off, they're threatening to steal our churches away from us, but that's not enough. They want more, more, more. Their mouths need feeding.

The pastor's hungry? Well cry me a river. We've made you pierogies, taken you out to eat, and had you over for dinner. Not enough? We'll set an extra place for you any night of the week at our dining room table. Come on over. Open invitation. Again, we've digressed from the light bulbs. Sorry.

We're supposed to mark our envelopes "Guiding Light" and bring our contributions, along with the names of our dear departed loved ones, to the rectory. In the spirit of the "Guiding Light" project, we have furthered the innovation. A natural extension of the prayer rock, we now have the prayer light bulb, intended to remind us to pray for our loved one.

Step 1: Select a bulb.

St. John Vianney parishioners, our prayers are with you. It is time to again stand up and voice your opposition to this evil act. Do what is necessary to make your position clear.

Here is the [poor] Courier Post article in which they mislead the reader by making it appear that St. John Vianney* is much younger than it is. Also, notice how idiotic and deceptive the reasoning is. The CP only speaks to core team members, not to those unhappy with the loss of their parish. Anyone who thinks that people in the diocese, much less SJV parisihoners, are "accepting" and in favor of this merger plan is deluding themselves.

In case you haven't already guessed, St. John Vianney is a beautiful little country parish. It is small, old, and traditional. No wonder the bishop wants it gone.

It is sad that its pastor, a priest we happen to like very much, has not supported his parishioners and the rights of the parish to its existance as stipulated by canon law and Church history. This has been the case throughout the diocese. Some care too much for the stability of their status and their standing with the bishop and not enough for the tending of their flock and standing in opposition to that which is overtly wrong.

They hope to "get people back" by closing their parish??? What kind of reasoning is that? The only people who buy this line of reasoning are some on the core teams. By doing this, they are effectively slamming the door in the face to those who ever thought of returning to the Church, but that's just as well to Galante, who has a "new church" in mind that bears little resemblance to the Church we know. Scroll down to the comments.

Snip:

The parishes -- St. Margaret in Woodbury Heights and St. John Vianney in Deptford -- are to merge Jan. 13, Galante said. The new parish will be called Infant Jesus....

The merged parish, with its seat in Woodbury Heights, will serve 3,300 families. It will be led by the Rev. Joseph T. Szolack, the current pastor of St. Margaret's.

St. John Vianney Church will serve as a worship site "as needed by the new parish," the diocese said in a statement.

St. Margaret's Parish was founded in 1961 during a period of suburban growth in Woodbury Heights. St. John Vianney became a parish in 1971.

Merger preparations began in November 2008 when a "core team," with members from each parish, held an initial meeting with Szolack. Parish members since that time have worshipped together and shared social activities, such as a carnival and pancake breakfasts, the diocese said.

"Initially there was some uncertainty as to how this would all work," said Mark Cipolone, a core team member from St. Margaret's. "Now, parishioners are accepting and looking to moving forward."

Cipolone acknowledged a desire to see the survival of St. Margaret's, which was founded in 1961, and St. John Vianney, a parish since 1971.

"Given the realities, we have to do it," he said. "We have to get people to come back."

Galante's announcement came two days after the merger of three parishes in Camden County. Those parishes -- St. Luke in Stratford, St. Lawrence in Lindenwold and Our Lady of Grace in Somerdale -- are now Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish.

The next merger is to take effect Dec. 23, when two Cherry Hill parishes -- St. Pius X and Holy Rosary -- are to become Holy Eucharist Parish.

So far, 17 parishes have merged since late July, reducing the diocesan total by nine.

Comments:

Replying to armageddon:

Bishop Galante is in the wrong pew....
He should be our next Governor......

Yes, he should merge public school districts but leave our churches and parishes alone.
12/12/2009 8:12:25 AM

Maybe the parishioners at St. Margaret are coming to "accept" it but I can assure you those at St. John Vianney, which incidentally has been there long before 1971 (as St. Agnes), are not "accepting" it. And before anyone says anything, St. John Vianney is a full parish on Sundays and in the black.
12/12/2009 12:39:37 PM

Replying to watertoo:

Maybe the parishioners at St. Margaret are coming to "accept" it but I can assure you those at St. John Vianney, which incidentally has been there long before 1971 (as St. Agnes), are not "accepting" it. And before anyone says anything, St. John Vianney is a full parish on Sundays and in the black.

It is not fair that they are closing a fully self-sufficient church like St. John Vianney. I wish that the Courier Post would interview other church goers besides core team members.
12/12/2009 1:28:02 PM

Geographically, how do they justify elderly parish members that live in Deptford traveling to Woodbury Heights? It is not around the corner!! This is one of many reasons I have left my catholic background. There is no thought to the people just to the politics!!
12/12/2009 6:16:53 PM

The obese bishop must be removed. He is uneducated and stupid. Anyone who puts money in the plate is a fool. Remember the house of charity is the bishp's home.
12/12/2009 8:06:04 PM

* The SJV website has been significantly downsized from what it once was. It was once one of the best church websites in the diocese. Guess they were told to downsize it to only the absolutely essential information. Are the parishioners being told it's time to roll over and die?

"Be vigilant at all times

and pray that you have the strength

to stand before the Son of Man." *

And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost. And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death. And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved. -Mark 24:11-13

* from 11/15/09 novus ordo mass, 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

I work in a place where children are given athletic instruction. Parents talk amongst themselves while their children are in classes. My husband brought our children to classes tonight while I was working. While waiting only inches away from the other parents of children in the classes, he could not help but overhear a discussion about church mergers. Let's just say these parents aren't happy campers. (And yes, they would all be youngish people in their late twenties to early forties.)

Not only do they dislike the merger of their churches, they also feel that their CCD programs are being hijacked. According to these parents, the people who had led their CCD programs for the past ten or more years are now being replaced in the new merged entities. More than that, they report that teachers are also being replaced. They state that their "new" parishes complain they do not have enough teachers, but let's face it, morale is very low. When you effectively kill somebody's community, and their sense of connection to it wanes, it's no great surprise if they don't feel they have a place anymore.

Although that's just conjecture, the tone of the conversation was more about long-time church members being pushed aside to make way for the bigger and better. Surprised? No. We think it's not unreasonable to expect hostile takeovers and slick new marketing of what we once new as "the Faith." God only knows what they hope to make it, but it probably ain't Catholicism as we know it.

More to the Diocese's point, if they think these unhappy Catholic families are going to be lining the collection baskets the way they might have before--after all, they first mess with people's parishes and then their children's religious education programs--we think Galante and Co. are in for a surprise.

But hey, maybe if we all hold hands and sing a chorus or two of Kumbaya (or its Catholic version, Peace Is Flowing Like a River) we would all feel better. Thanks a lot, Diocese of Camden Administration, for ruining our parishes. Ashame it isn't just the "church building" affected, as you would like us to believe. No, these are real people's lives you're tinkering with and let us assure you, the children are watching what you're doing. They don't miss a trick.

Continued from Part I...

As you know, this is no exaggeration as the stripping of our churches of their Catholicity has already happened. You can step into churches like this any day of the week (that is, if they are unlocked).

Here is an imaginary dialogue that the author recreated. Sadly, it's not far off. A church I attended for some time had any number of statues of saints (very large ones, too), all of which had been quite literally trash picked. Yes, all in the name of "reform." I have also been to many churches where it was difficult to find the tabernacle or where the tabernacle was removed from the altar. One of these churches was a cathedral in a largely conservative diocese. Finally, I have seen heretical religious education texts and even met one such textbook writer/publisher in a graduate level class on Catholicism. He was a guest speaker, portrayed by the professor as a poor, persecuted reformer.

"Get your tabernacle off the altar, and put it out of the way in a corner."

"But why, Your Excellency?"

"Because I tell you to!"

"I hear and I obey."

"Now smash the altar up."

"Mine not to reason why."

"Burn the altar rails."

"Why stop now?"

"Throw out the statues."

"If you say so."

"Get rid of the Baltimore Catechism. Use this textbook."

"Has Your Excellency noticed that it's full of heresy?"

"Full of heresy, full of heresy--can't you tell the difference between heresy and contemporary insights? Have it in your school tomorrow."

"I'll get it there today."

It goes on. Now we need to go on to wonder, naturally, who is being obeyed here? Such dilemmas beg the question: at what point must we draw the line at supposed "obedience?" If we know that we are being told to do something in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Church, what are we and what are our priests to do? This is certainly a tough one.

The author gives many examples of divergence from orthodoxy in the case of one particular contemporary bishop and remarks that, in such cases, it is crucial that the flock be protected from error: "The manifest duty of a Catholic priest submitting himself to the supreme law of charity, showing true Catholic obedience, is to protect his people from such a bishop." He cites a well known description of the life of a layman, Eusebius, in 428:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals.

The implications of all this, as told by Davies, are quite alarming. One doesn't want to believe them, yet they ring horrifyingly true. In any case, the author claims that the only real choice for priests charged with true spiritual care of the faithful is to uphold orthodoxy--the Truth--at all costs.

To be continued.

Re: "Cares deeply" (letters, Sept. 2).

Andrew Walton, spokesman for the Camden Diocese, implies (erroneously) that St. Gregory's in Magnolia is a struggling parish. This could not be further from the truth, unless he is referring to the morale of our parishioners since the announcement that our church would be closing.

Financially, St. Gregory's is not struggling. We are probably on better financial footing than Mary Mother of The Church in Bellmawr, the parish we will merge with under the reconfiguration plan.

Our mortgage was paid off many years ago. And our weekly collections and stipends bring in enough money to cover our parish expenses and then some -- including contributions monthly to diocesan debt and other special collections.

I believe the proceeds from the sale of St. Gregory's assets are earmarked to pay off or reduce the debt of Mary Mother of The Church, which is the true struggling parish. Yet, Bishop Joseph Galante wants St. Gregory's to merge with this parish. And therein lies the hurt we feel.

It makes no sense. Mary Mother of the Church should merge with St. Gregory's, not the other way around. Or it seems to make more sense if it were merged with the other parish in its own community.

In addition, our dissatisfaction with the bishop's decision is not entirely about the assets our parishioners worked hard to pay for and that we are about to lose. Our struggle is more about our loving parish community and the fond memories that are about to be snuffed out. God bless us all.

WALTER ZUBRZYCKI

Magnolia

Read the CP letter to the editor here

Here is a transcription of an interview with Fr. Daniel Mary, MCarm, Superior of the new and traditional Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mt. Carmel in Wyoming. I transcribed this from a portion of the EWTN show, "Life on the Rock."

Watch video on this excellent website: Traditional Vocations Blog. Just the other night they were on "EWTN Live" with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. Listen or download that interview here.

***

Email Question: There has been a worldwide shortage of priests. Is there an even greater shortage of contemplatives and religious? Have you seen an increase in vocations in recent time? -John in NC.

Fr. Daniel Mary, Answer: Well I would say we're not experiencing a shortage in vocations. We actually have to be very selective who we take. Um, so I think it's, we get the vocations we deserve. You know if a community is not living its charism, then, yeah we wonder why communities or dioceses don't get the vocations. And I would say it's because young people aren't going to be inspired by a mediocre, worldly way of life. They want what's authentic. And I think when we give the youth something that's authentic, then you can't stop them. They're going to knock the door down.

Response from host, Fr. Mark Mary: You've had 600 applications, right?

Fr. Daniel Mary and Brother Simon Mary: Yeah, well not applications, 600 inquiries. I'd say we get about 5 phone calls a week and letters.

Fr. Mark Mary Response: The monastery you hope to build will hold like 30 monks, right?

Fr. Daniel Mary: Yes.

***

Article on the monks

The monks' website

Here's what we have planned for the Feast of the Assumption, which begins tomorrow! Come join us, and for goodness sakes, remember to wear your special feast clothes (right).

Saturday Aug. 15th

• Mass 5:00
• The Snake Brothers (folk, country, do-wop, acoustic, awesome band), approximately 2:00-4:30pm (two sessions with a break in between)
• In High Gear ("country rock" band), approximately 6:00-10:00pm
• Shrimp & Clam Bar, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus
• Food, food, and more food: Sausage, hot dogs, roast beef sandwiches, pizza (made by a parishioner!), meatballs, and more!
• Beer Garden
• Wine by the glass from Plagido's, an award winning winery
  
• Inflatables and games
• Pony Rides
• Chinese Auction
• Farmers Market (local farmers, including parishioners)
• 50/50 Raffle
• Balloons for sale
  

Sunday Aug. 16th

• Mass 8:30 & 11:30, procession at 12:30
• Talent Show 1-2:30
• Mr. Tujays (band), 2:30-4:30
• Jukebox Rebiew (band), 5-8:00
• DJ Bill Mazza, throughout the day
• Chicken BBQ
• Shrimp & Clam Bar, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus
• Tons of food to choose from: Sausage, hot dogs, roast beef sandwiches, pizza (made by a parishioner!), meatballs, and more!
• Beer Garden
• Wine tasting and wine by the glass from Sharrott & Plagido's. Both are award winning wineries.
• Inflatables and games
• Pony Rides
• Chinese Auction
• Bake Sale
• Farmers Market (local farmers, including parishioners)
• 50/50 Raffle
• Balloons for sale
  

Tonight I went to a farmer's market with my kids, my sister, and nieces. I just happened to be wearing my St. Mary's Malaga t-shirt (as seen on left). While checking out some of the great things one of the women at the market was selling, she asked me,

"Is your church one of the ones slated to close?"

I was taken by surprise because I forgot that I was wearing my St. Mary's t-shirt.

I replied, "Yeah, but not if we can help it."

She said, "Good for you!" and continued to express her general disapproval of everything that was going on in the Diocese. She said, "I'm just lucky that my church is not one of the ones he wants to close. They built a new one. It's ultra-modern on the inside and I'm not sure I like it."

I said, "That's why we love our church. People really sacrificed to build it. It's old and traditional, dating from 1922, it's got beautiful stained glass windows, and it's just gorgeous."

She said, "I hope they don't close your church."

I said, "We're fighting, and we'll take it all the way to Rome if we have to."

She nodded enthusiastically in agreement and said, "Yes! That's what you should do. It's not right."

We talked a little more before browsing more around the market. The woman was very nice, but she seemed a little depressed about the way things were headed in the Diocese, and what they'd done with her parish. My impression is that, for a lot of Catholics in the Diocese, churches like St. Mary's mean a lot to them, even if they aren't members there. They represent Catholicism as they know it. (Which is probably part of why we are being persecuted in favor of a "new catholicism.") Even to visit a church like St. Mary's helps them feel closer to God. I guess some of the larger, more sterile, "theater-in-the-round" churches (see below) just don't do the trick, so to speak, but it's what they've got.

As I said, I've had conversations almost identical to this any number of times. Not once have I heard someone say, "Well the bishop's probably got good reasons," or "Your church is too small anyway," or "There's a priest shortage you know," or anything like that.

A couple weeks ago a man who helps run a local pool where I took my son to swimming lessons found out I went to St. Mary's. He told me how much he loves that church, even though he's not a member there, and that I could return to the pool anytime I wanted, even though I'm not a member, just because he holds the church in such high regard.

A little over a year ago I visited a South Jersey historian who happened to be a Methodist. She said, "Well I'm not a Catholic, but there's just something special about St. Mary's. You can feel it when you walk in the door."

Without exception we have experienced popular support and, frankly, disgust over the bishop's intention to close our church and other churches. Most frequently, people disapprove of what they see as a discrepancy between church closures and diocesan real estate holdings, scandals, and, well, as one man put it to me the other week, "corruption and hypocrisy in the Church." Take the pulse of the people of the Diocese of Camden and the people on the street, and I think you'll find they are jaded to say the least. Evidently what people respond to are not grand "restructuring" schemes in which their churches are stolen from them, but bishops who obviously live the Gospel and love Jesus, who show that they really care about those entrusted to them, who are honest, and who are not politically involved. People are not stupid. They see right through all these things.

The point is, if these are the sentiments we are hearing expressed from people whose churches are not expected to close, and in many cases the sentiments expressed by non-Catholics or nominal Catholics, can you imagine what people think of the plan whose churches are in a limbo state (a la "secondary worship site," a status which supposedly no longer exists) or whose churches are supposed to get the ax? Maybe it's time for some more "listening sessions," huh?

We put up this article last Oct. 27th--we did not write it ourselves. It deserves a reprinting. Take a look and see if it doesn't sound familiar. Even if you don't read the whole article, be sure to scroll down to the "Suppressing (Closing) Parishes" section, which we put in italics for you. You will see that the scandals and the agenda demonstrated by our current bishop are not new in the history of the American Catholic Church, only the latest attack on Holy Mother Church. Apparently, the power hungry nature of the American bishopric is notorious and long standing. We put in bold the most relevant information so you can easily skim. However we highly recommend you read it carefully. This article is so eerily familiar and gives important background to our current situation, despite its being written about 14 years ago. It may also be read here.

ZAP! YOUR CHURCH IS RENOVATED!
SLAM! YOUR PARISH IS CLOSED! Duane Galles

---

[The following article is drawn from legal opinions and pleadings in the files of the St. Joseph Foundation. The primary contributor is Duane Galles. The editing and a small portion of the text is Charles M. Wilson's and he accepts full responsibility for any flaws.]

We know that Christ's Church is not a democracy and we acknowledge that those who exercise the ministry of governance are not accountable to those they govern. We understand also that the faithful are obliged to follow whatever legitimate authorities determine as leaders of the Church, but the above two citations--and lots of others which could be used--tell us quite a lot about the way in which ecclesiastical authority should be exercised. Unfortunately, there have been times during the 2,000 year history of our Church when these principles have been honored more in the breach than the observance. Perhaps the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had this in mind when they said:

"By the power of the Holy Spirit the Church is the faithful spouse of the Lord and will never fail to be a sign of salvation in the world; but it is by no means unaware that down through the centuries there have been among its members, both clerical and lay, some who were disloyal to the Spirit of God. Today, as well, the Church is not blind to the discrepancy between the message it proclaims and the human weakness of those to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. Whatever is history's judgment on these shortcomings, we cannot ignore them and we must combat them earnestly, lest they hinder the spread of the Gospel" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, <Gaudium et Spes>, No. 43).

When we think about this, most of us will recall those sad moments in history when priests, bishops and even some popes were guilty of grossly scandalous conduct and showed themselves to be unworthy of their offices.

But we might also consider those times when Church leaders exhibited other less spectacular weaknesses such as capriciousness, arrogance, cruelty, duplicity, intransigence and authoritarianism. When linked to conditions which have frequently permitted the exercise of power with unrestrained discretion on the part of ecclesiastical authorities, we can rightly wonder if these flaws have not over time caused more harm to the Church and the loss of more souls than the excesses of the likes of John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI. It is this exercise of discretionary authority by bishops or their bureaucrats which has resulted in recent heated controversies over many issues, prominent among them being--especially in the United States and Canada--the renovation of parish church buildings and the closure of parishes.

Before proceeding to the consideration of these particular issues, it would be worthwhile to take just a glance at how episcopal discretion has been exercised in the United States and those parts of Canada where English is the predominant language. Going back to the end of the eighteenth century, we see that both had very few Catholics and that, coupled with the difficulties in communication, resulted in Rome taking a more or less "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. In sum, the day-to-day governance of the dioceses was, for better or worse, left almost entirely in the hands of the bishops.

Anyone who holds a position of authority, subject only to a distant and not overly concerned higher authority, is tempted to exercise power not in a spirit of service but often arbitrarily and sometimes abusively. We see an example of this in the nineteenth century when the American bishops, at the First Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1829, attempted by decree to overstate the obligation of obedience of diocesan priests to their bishops and, in effect, reduce them to the condition of religious priests with respect to their superiors. Although, thankfully, the Holy See did intervene to suppress that decree, the bishops resourcefully employed other means to achieve the same end.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the American bishops refused to erect canonical parishes and thereby prevented diocesan priests from acquiring the rights and security of tenure conferred on pastors by the universal law of the Church. Unlike priests in the Catholic countries of Europe, their American counterparts were canonically merely rectors of missions with delegated instead of ordinary powers which could be withdrawn at the pleasure of the bishops.

Indeed, then, the power of the American bishop over his clergy was awesome. He could appoint, remove, transfer and discipline them at will. He controlled their compensation and regulated their lifestyle to an extent and in a manner that no European bishop would have dared. The situation was such that even Pope Pius IX could joke about it. When asked one day by a supplicant for a favor, the pontiff reportedly replied: "What you ask is not in my power to grant, but there is an American bishop in town. Go ask him!"

Another contributing element was the fact that not only were the American bishops subject to little restraint by the Holy See, they were not subject to the type of influence which certain civil authorities could employ in Europe. Centuries of intricate relations between state and Church on that continent resulted in many constraints upon ecclesiastical authority that were never implemented in North America. One example was the right of presentation, or the right of civil governments to propose candidates for Church offices. Even the election of popes could be influenced, as happened in this very century when the Emperor of Austria exercised his right of veto and blocked the election of Cardinal Rampolla as pope in 1903.

An important and beneficial change took place with the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which instantly transformed the "missions" in North America into canonical parishes and thereby transformed their "rectors" into pastors, with all the protections of the law. An even more sweeping change flowed from the ecclesiology of Vatican II, which reemphasized the notion of authority as a ministry of service rather than one of power.

We see this reformed ecclesiology made present in the law in several ways. In 1967 Pope Paul VI in his apostolic constitution, <Regimini Ecclesiae Universae,> created the Second Section of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura to enforce the rights of Christ's faithful even against public ecclesiastical authorities. Sixteen years later, the revised Code of Canon Law, in contrast to its predecessor, codified the rights and duties of the faithful. Perhaps the most important of the 1752 canons in the new Code is number 128, which states that "Anyone who unlawfully inflicts damage upon someone by a juridic act, or indeed by any other act placed with malice or culpability, is obliged to compensate for the damage inflicted." This means that the arbitrary and capricious use of discretionary power is no longer acceptable under the 1983 Code.

The Effects Of The Reforms

While the reforms of Vatican II and the 1983 Code look good on paper, the sad fact is that one can see few positive changes on the parish and diocesan level. Aside from the historical reality that change sometimes takes place very slowly in the Church, our conclusion is that there are three reasons for this: (1) Since Vatican II, the concept of "collegiality" has become something of an obsession and the Holy See has been extremely reluctant to interfere-even when there are good reasons to do so-in diocesan affairs. (2) Too many bishops in the United States and Canada have allowed their authority to be undermined by "experts" on their staffs. (3) The canon 221, 3 of the 1983 Code stated that the "Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they enjoy in the Church before a competent ecclesiastical court in accord with the norm of law," but the Code says very little as to how this theoretical right can be put into practice.

There are others who have come to similar conclusions, not all of whom may share our theological views. One, for example, was Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, Associate Professor of Religion and Religious Education at the Catholic University of America, who said;

"More than a few lay people have noted that their rights to participation in the Church have not always been better respected by the addition to the traditional clerical hierarchy of a new and larger body of "professionals" and "experts". It is an occupational hazard of bureaucrats to believe that they know better than the people in the field how things should be done. And if they turn to management theories elaborated for business and government for ideas on how to plan for the Church's future, it is not surprising to hear complaints that the Church appears much more like a giant and impersonal organization than like a living community of brothers and sisters-a complaint, by the way, that by no means is aimed only at episcopal or papal targets" (<Origins>, April 2, 1987, p. 378).

A prominent American canonist has added a legal dimension to Fr. Komonchak's observation and applied it to parishes, which are often the victims of those "professionals" and "experts."

"Parishes and other local congregations are not branch offices or local outlets of a central corporation, like banks or auto agencies or service stations. They are unique communities of Christian people. They are authentic Churches, just like those described in the New Testament (in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Ephesus), and they must be respected as such. The Church is "built up from below" by these local communities of God's people...

Sometimes the impression is given that the parishes exist for the sake of the diocese, when just the opposite is true. The organization and governance of the Church is most often stated and interpreted by those in diocesan offices. They subtly begin to believe that their functions are primary, and that they represent the first and most important level of the Church's life' since they are more immediately related to the bishop's authority. They gradually come to consider parish communities as derivative and secondary, almost as managerial units. They speak of planning for "clusters of parishes" or "pastoral zones of the diocese" (meaning that they are preparing to suppress or merge parishes) and of reorganizing local communities for reasons of more efficient use of personnel and financial resources. [In a footnote, the author adds, Economy and efficiency are praiseworthy, but the dignity and quality of local communities is even more important. Ed.] They relate to the local churches in the same ways that corporate executives of Safeway and McDonalds relate to their local stores.

No one is baptized in a chancery office. People enter the Church, grow in faith, give praise to God, and lend loving assistance to their neighbors in parishes and other local communities. These local congregations of the faithful have a proper and authentic autonomy which must be respected> ("The Vindication of Parish Rights," by James A. Coriden, <The Jurist> 54 (1994), pp. 23-24).

Much more along these same lines could be said, but we believe Frs. Komonchak and Coriden have adequately and fairly summarized, for the purposes of this discussion, the atmosphere that prevails in the majority of dioceses in North America.

Renovation Of Church Buildings

We must admit that church buildings are places of worship, not museums, and that hardly any, including St. Peter's Basilica, never undergo some changes. Even so, the many "horror stories" in our case files and those we have seen elsewhere confirm that most "renovations" go far beyond--and in some cases are even contrary to--the legal norms. And this is not a problem that has arisen recently. Almost twenty five years ago, the Holy See issued the following sound advice: "<Mindful of the legislation of Vatican Council II and of the directives in the documents of the Holy See, bishops are to exercise unfailing vigilance to ensure that the remodeling of places of worship is carried out with the utmost caution>" (Congregation for Clergy, Circular Letter <Opera artis>, April 11, 1971).

Virtually all renovation projects are grounded in what the parishioners are told are the needs of the reformed Vatican II liturgy. In fact, they are often motivated by erroneous interpretations of liturgical law arising from the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy, <Sacrosanctum concilium> (SC). Three key concepts of SC, it seems, are commonly misinterpreted and misapplied. This, in turn, has motivated the iconoclasm and destruction of so much cultural church property in the United States and Canada.

The first key concept which has been misinterpreted and misapplied is <participatio actuosa> of SC. It has been mistranslated as "active participation" which, in English, can imply that for participation to be genuine it must involve physical activity. For a proper understanding of the phrase, one can paraphrase the original Latin of the 1958 instruction, <De musica sacra>, to say that participation ought to be internal and, certainly, exercised with a spirit of piety and heartfelt affection. Given this understanding of the concept, "actual participation" might be a more accurate translation. In any event, the liturgical "establishment's" understanding has had pernicious consequences, such as the attentive assistance at Mass and participation in the changes in posture or responses being dismissed by some liturgists as inadequate. Thus, communion rails are destroyed, altars thrust forward like theaters-in-the-round, statues are removed and the Blessed Sacrament banished, since their presence would inhibit a maximum of activity, which inevitably deteriorates into mere busyness.

The second concept misinterpreted is that of <nobilis pulchritudo> (noble beauty) of Article 124 of SC, which has often been translated as "noble simplicity." In the name of "simplicity," altars have been smashed, statues trashed, paintings whitewashed, organs silenced and the ignoble--burlap vestments and crude ceramic vessels, for example--introduced into the temple to serve as its ornaments.

The third concept misunderstood is that of the common priesthood of the laity. In advancing this notion beyond its proper scope, some liturgists demand the abolition of any distinctions whatever between the sacred minister and the laity. Thus, any physical barriers between them are taboo. Communion rails are especially hated and any physical reminder of a "holy of holies" must go, so hordes of lay functionaries can swarm in and out of the "sanctuary."

In addition to the physical renovations themselves, the methods by which they are inflicted are of equal or even greater concern. The "process" leading up to the actual arrival of the bulldozers begins with the appearance of the ubiquitous "experts" and "professionals" who tell the people only what they are supposed to hear. Glossy, one-sided hand-outs are distributed at "listening sessions" while the people are assured that "no final decisions have been made." Usually, a renovation committee consisting of carefully selected parishioners emerges' to announce the final plans, while any alternative suggestions or proposals are stifled by whatever methods-gentle or not so gentle-that circumstances require. There are no credible estimates that we know of as to how much money has been wasted over the last thirty years on needless renovations of North American church buildings, but it must be in the hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars.

To close this part of the discussion on a hopeful note, there is a rather remote but growing possibility that (if our prayers are answered) most of the renovations may eventually have to be undone. The first signs of a true "reform of the reform" may have appeared and are reported on page two of this issue. Should this come to pass, even more billions will be needed to set things right. But, we suspect, the people will not mind putting up the money.

Suppressing (Closing) Parishes

Just as we admitted that places of worship cannot remain unchanged forever, we must concede that not every parish has a right to perpetual existence. Acknowledging this general rule, though, does not mean that we have to agree with every suppression decreed by every chancery.

There is one very important difference between renovating church buildings and suppressing parishes. Buildings, of course, do not in themselves have rights and the renovation, or even destruction, of a parish church does not alter the legal status of the parish, which has what is called a juridic personality. In other words, a juridic person in canon law is roughly equivalent to a corporation in secular law. And like a corporation, a juridic person has rights and duties under the law. The primary and fundamental right of any person, natural or legal, is to existence. Father Coriden puts it this way:

"Once a stable community of faithful people has taken shape, it has the right to canonical recognition (e.g., first as a mission or quasi-parish, then as a parish; c. 516). Once established as a parish, the community possesses juridic personality and is, nature sue perpetual (cc. 515, #3; 120, #1). In other words, the parish should remain in existence until overwhelming reasons for its alteration or suppression are clearly demonstrated."

After hearing about or becoming directly involved in parish suppression cases throughout the country, we have yet to see a single example of "overwhelming" reasons. Indeed, virtually all suppressions--and absolutely all which are contested by the parishioners--are justified on the basis of a shortage of priests, more efficient use of facilities, even distribution of people, financial considerations or other factors which have little or nothing to do with the vitality of the community.

Sometimes the reasons given for suppression make no sense at all. For example, the city of Clinton, Iowa, in the Diocese of Davenport used to have five parishes. In 1990, all five were suppressed and one "mega parish" was created in their place. The bishop's letter announcing and attempting to support the action said this:

"And yet, I see that the needs of the past, e.g., for ethnic parishes, are not the needs of today. In fact, the need for unity and united action are the paramount needs of today. (*Almost the exact same thing was stated in this week's Star Herald -Julie)

In other words, five parishes competing for people, funds and personnel is not what the Catholic community needs."

In truth, none of the five parishes was "ethnic" and all were vibrant communities of faith. No one in Clinton has ever understood why their city could not have more than one parish when other cities in the diocese (Davenport, Iowa City, Muscatine, etc.) continue to have several. No one in the chancery has ever been able to explain why either.

Although renovations and suppressions are different kinds of actions, the "process" leading up to them is often remarkably similar. The ever-present "professionals" and "expert consultants" arrive to "soften-up" the parishioners with unctuous assurances that "no decisions will be made without everyone having their say." Then, as in the case of renovations, all those who have opinions contrary to the outcome desired by the chancery are marginalized or excluded from the discussions by whatever means necessary. We have even seen instances where elderly parishioners were threatened with denial of Christian burial if they continued to object.

Should the consultation process produce recommendations which the bishop does not like, such as recently happened in the diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he simply rides roughshod over the procedures he himself established and decrees whatever he wishes.

In short, the decisions to suppress are utterly lacking in reasonable motives and the "consultation processes" lack even a scintilla of justice. The ultimate injustice occurs when a parish suffers the "double whammy" of being forced to renovate its church and then, several years later, being suppressed.

In Conclusion

In spite of the discouraging trends, there are reasons for hope. One of these reasons is that many of the courageous faithful who try to save their churches from the renovators or their parishes from the axe simply refuse to give up. Even when they lose, as often happens, their efforts are not wasted. We know of cases where renovations were prevented and parishes slated for suppression were saved because the "professionals" did not want to face another struggle which might even involve an appeal to Rome.

And who knows? With enough prayer and hard work, we may even see in our lifetime a system of appeal which will see cases decided on the law and the facts instead of ecclesiastical politics and influence peddling.

What does that mean? "Modesty" (or immodesty), particularly from the point of view of appearance, is not a popular thing to talk about these days. It is a mark of just how far our society has fallen when all talk of modesty is a mark of old-fashionedness or prudishness! But it's so important for so many reasons, even just from a secular perspective. But since we're focusing on Catholic Christian modesty here, that's what we'll talk about.

A lengthy essay on all the lofty ideas regarding modesty is not what's intended here. So much more can be, and has been, said on the topic. This is only a reminder of why this is such an important subject for the Christian. Let's look at St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12:1-2:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.

That's pretty straightforward. Our bodies are temples of the Living God and as such should be presented to Him in a way that would please Him. And we should not be concerned with the passing things of the world, but with God, His will, and the things of eternity.

Now let's look at what the most recent Catechism has to say about modesty:

Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies. The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.(2523-2524)

What may we glean from this? (1) That fashions, whether immodest or modest, are not to be of concern to the Christian, since this world--along with all its vanities--is passing. (2) That God, who loves us, has endowed us with inherent dignity. (3) That we should teach modesty to our children in order for them to properly respect themselves and others.

How does this relate to a person's manner of attire? If we look at what the Church teaches us in the Catechism alone, without further looking to past popes or the saints and what they have said on the subject, then it seems fairly simple. We ought to dress according to what we are: sons and daughters of the Most High God. We dress not to impress people, but to respect God and ourselves. Since our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, we ought to remember this and keep ourselves properly covered as much as possible.

Further, if we are attending mass, it is of utmost importance that we remember in whose presence we are. We are before our Eucharistic Lord, all the angles, and the saints who worship with us. If we were going to an important meeting, to a wedding, to court, to a restaurant, we would dress appropriately. How much more important it is to dress appropriately before the Holy Trinity: Jesus in the Eucharist, God the Father who is our ultimate and just Judge, and with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

And of course, we should always remember Our Lady when we dress for holy mass. Remember Her message at Fatima, that "certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much....the Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same."

"Our Lord is always the same." What is Our Lady reminding us of here? This world is fleeting, but our lives with God are eternal. Heaven is our home. God desires our obedience because He loves us, and our manner of dress can be an example of this. In a seemingly small way, our modesty in dress in an immodest world can be a reminder to those around us of Him with whom our allegiance lies.

In a practical sense, does this mean we have to dress up all the time? Of course not. How impractical that would be. In fact, the beautiful St. Ambrose said so many centuries ago:

The body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with negligence rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel, but with ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty.

St. Ambrose makes it clear that it is possible to dress in a dignified way, without revealing too much of our bodies, without going to great expense or extravagance, simply and neatly, while still being able to function in our daily activities.* It's important that we refrain from promoting a lack of chastity and respect.

At mass we join all of Heaven in worshiping God, who grants us an unspeakable grace when He becomes present bodily for us. It is incumbent upon us that we remember this great gift--the salvation that was won by His suffering and death on the cross, and His continued Eucharistic love for us--and leave our tank tops and shorts at home.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

In the government of the exterior of a man modesty aims to make it conform to the demands of decency and decorousness (honestas).

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia places its discussion of modesty under the heading of "temperance," which is considered a cardinal virtue, because modesty has to do with moderation and self-control.**

Though the topic of dress is of concern to both men and women, the problem of modesty so often falls to women since what is depicted as "attractive" attire for women (and even girls) is so often sexually explicit and demeaning. Therefore it is so easy to lose perspective as to what is appropriate. So let's just try to remember what the great St. Francis de Sales said in his Introduction to the Devout Life, and we cannot go wrong:

...avoid all affectation, vanity, curiosity, or levity in your dress. Keep yourself always, as much as possible, on the side of plainness and modesty, which, without doubt, is the greatest ornament of beauty, and the best excuse for the want of it.

* The Angelic Doctor discusses St. Ambrose as well as St. Gregory the Great, Aristotle, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine here. Please see also Turtullian here: On the Apparel of Women.
**Although the Angelic Doctor distinguishes between temperance and modesty.