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?

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.

No, this is not a joke. Some of you may already be familiar with a dramatic 32-year-old man dressed as and introducing himself as a "bishop," wearing a bright red (almost hot pink) cap and swishy, black cape. He has come to St. Mary's several times now, the most alarming of which was today.

Uninvited, he showed up seemingly out of nowhere and interrupted the CCD children praying the rosary and began speaking. Then he handed out flyers which say at the top, "Joseph Galante is an abortionist." (It's just a sensational headline espousing the following logic: if our Mother is the Church and the parishes are Her children, then that makes Galante an abortionist. Yeah, we get the metaphor.)

We are posting this because we have heard that he has been "making the rounds" elsewhere in the diocese, including St. Gregory's in Magnolia, where he hopes to have a rosary rally. Notably, he plans to have this outside the church in their little prayer garden.

We want it known that we at St. Mary's have nothing to do with this man. Moreover, we do not appreciate his intrusion into our church, interruption of our rosary, and assumption that it was acceptable to speak to our children without our permission.

But just who is this person? He introduces himself as "Bishop Tomas-Martin Bell, OPD" and has listed his address as 19 Willis Street in Penns Grove. (His original name, however, is George Bell.) You may find information about his Dominican order here. Although on his Blogger profile he claims allegiance to our current Holy Father, we must be ever vigilant of associating with sedevacantists (those who deny the legitimacy of the pope) and orders that espouse potentially schismatic views. To the best of our knowledge, George Bell is not a true bishop according to Rome and is not formally associated with any diocese. The #1 page you get when googling him is one which announces him as a speaker at the American Paranormal History Society. This is his myspace page.

Keep Wildwood Catholic HS Alive

For those of you left out there who think everybody's cool with the church and school closure fiasco, look again. The whole Wildwood Catholic thing has caused these feelings of disgust to erupt. Beware, the emotions are raw and the feelings strong. Here's just one example:

That article in the Star Herald made me sick! I wish the Star Herald had a Spout Off. So I just wrote one in the Cape May County Herald how I feel. It Read like this. I hope that Bishop Galante,Father Field And Wallace feel the pain of their hearts being ripped out before they die. Like the way they ripped the hearts out of so many children in Cape May County

Yes, people are angry. They are sickened with the corruption in high places, the lack of priestly support, and perhaps most of all that kids are being caught in the crossfire. I know as a parent, I have felt the same way at the prospect of not just my church, but theirs, a place they dearly love, is being threatened. As adults, taking something away from us that is due us is one thing, but taking it away from our kids is worse.

There is a family in our church with four foster children. In the words of their mother, "They have had everything taken away from them." They are such a nice family and the kids love to help out around the church cleaning, sorting, and organizing. To have yet one other thing, a beautiful and good thing that is their patrimony, taken from them in their young lives would be nothing less than a crime. All of the kids at St. Mary's love their church. They feel comfortable and cared for there. The fact that it is a small, tight community is no doubt part of that. It sounds like a lot of the kids at Wildwood Catholic feel similarly about their school. That is not always the case at schools, so the teachers there must be doing a pretty good job.

For the record, we get emails and verbal reports daily from people around the Diocese whose churches have merged and closed. It is simply not possible to post everything and every story we hear. Needless to say, they are not happy campers. Worst of all, many people's views of the priesthood have, sadly, deteriorated. They wonder why the priests they had come to love and respect have not spoken up about this travesty. They feel abandoned and confused, without leadership. Many wonder why their priests were taken from them and shipped abroad with the military or to Rome or to God only knows where. (We had another "missing priest" inquiry just yesterday. Sadly, we cannot help, we just shrug our shoulders and say a prayer.) They wonder why what they were taught about the Church growing up stands in such stark contrast to what they now see. Quote:

When I was a kid, we were told stories about martyrs who would die for their Faith. But now we have leaders--priests and lay people--who wouldn't even give their pension. On the one hand I don't blame them, but on the other, what's most important here? I always thought the priests would lead us along the right path. I don't know what to think anymore. I'm confused, disappointed.

Those who are content seem to be few and far between. It seems that mostly these people fall into one of three categories. There are those who are jockeying for paid "ministry" positions in the new merged "entities," there are the people whose churches are "stand alone" (so the most they see is overcrowding, which we also hear plenty of complaints about, which of course is all the more reason to demolish those churches and build megachurches), and there are the vast majority of people who are, sadly, nominal or "Sunday" Catholics.

That people cling to the Faith through all this will be nothing short of a miracle. Welcome to Galante's "Church of South Jersey." Will it still be the Bark of Peter when the audio visual equipment is installed, the tabernacle nowhere to be found, and all the dust settles?

This was sent from an anonymous reader. We get lots of email since we are so prominent in the struggle to save our church.

Do not be misled: These mergers (closures) are not going well and people are not happy about them. Even at Diocesan sponsored events, we have heard widespread discontent, and this is among those who are sticking with "the program"...for now.

People are leaving their churches in droves, and in some case they are so disgusted they are leaving The Church. Why? They are appalled. They are disillusioned. Their Faith as been shaken, and who can blame them? If your answer is, "who cares?" let us enlighten you. You should care if for no other reason than that they are taking their wallets with them.

But money or no money, downsizing the Church does not strengthen the Church. Among Christ's words were not, "Go, therefore, and consolidate." No, he said this: Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19

We ought to care of souls are being led astray! As this reader and so many others have expressed, what is happening is evil. If we are children of God by our Baptism and soldiers of Christ by our Confirmation, we cannot support that which is evil. We are called to resist it.

Email follows:

As of today, 1/13/10, St. John Vianney has ceased to exist as a Catholic parish. It feels as if there's been a death, it's heart rending and gut wrenching. I can hardly believe any of this has happened, the destruction of the Catholic Church in the Camden Diocese.

The wonderful ex-pastor of St. John Vianney will now be doing non-pastoral work, along with many other good priests from the diocese. If there's a priest shortage, why on earth have there been so many assignments to work other than pastoral work?

I cannot understand how people do not see this is evil work being done? Is this diocese blind? Is Rome blind? It seems there is a systematic destruction of the Catholic churches schools, orchestrated by the current leadership--the thing is, I cannot figure out why? It has to be more than power. It has to be more than believing their left-of-center ways are "best"? It is nothing but pure, unadulterated evil.
.....
...this bishop has no mercy and no compassion, and I think he'll do anything he can
to close every single remotely-traditional parish in this diocese.

St. Mary's current pastor has decided to axe our annual Christmas midnight mass for no apparent reason. The only thing we can come up with is that he wants us to get used to not getting what we want. Apparently, we're like spoiled children, wanting mass all the time. The nerve of us!

To us, using mass as a cudgel is never a good idea. As is the case in so many other churches, this is one of our most highly attended masses of the entire year, and one of our prime opportunities for evangelism.

So why would a pastor choose to end a many decades long tradition of midnight mass?  Fr. Namiotka says it's because no priests are available - he has reserved himself for midnight mass at the parish he repeatedly refers to as "my" parish, Queen of the Angels in Landisville/Minotola.  (By contrast, he only refers to us as "St. Mary's in Malaga"...as if we don't know what town we're in.) 

In fact, when asked about the lack of midnight mass, Namiotka specifically responded that "no priests are available." However, we inquired with one particular priest who regularly assists with masses and Namiotka had never even asked him if he wanted to say midnight mass.  And another priest, who has said many masses at St. Mary's in the past, actually requested to say midnight mass and was told "NO" by Namiotka. 

To add insult to injury, a longtime, elderly parishioner of St. Mary's was told by Namiotka that, "The pope is saying midnight mass. You can watch it on tv."* There's a shepherd of souls for us! Ya want mass? Go watch it on tv.

*Extended footnote/follow-up below:

Supposedly, according to Fr. Namiotka in a letter received February 4th, over a month and a half after the incident, he "actually said, 'Not even the Pope is having Midnight Mass this year (in Rome). The Mass is at 10 PM. You can watch the TV to see that this is true.'" He follows up by saying "I did, in fact, celebrate Midnight Mass as I annually do--just not at St. Mary's Malaga." This is precisely our point, and he made it for us. It's a shame that we don't a priest who truly wants to be at St. Mary's.

Further, the EWTN Christmas Mass to which he refers was, in fact, repeatedly billed by EWTN as "Midnight Mass." CLICK HERE here for just one example of this "to see that this is true" and the Vatican's rationale for "moving up" the time. Besides, it was a rude comment to make to an elderly, long-time parishioner.

In our view, either version of what was said is pretty terrible and demonstrates how little he cares for us since allowing another priest to say mass at St. Mary's would have required no effort on his part and would not have cost us anything. If anything, it would have brought the church money and perhaps a few souls would have returned to the Church for Christmas.

Once again, Jim Walsh ought to be ashamed of this poor excuse for balanced journalism. Link here.

"We are grateful that the Congregation, after a thorough examination of this matter, has affirmed Bishop Galante's intention in both process and substance to strengthen parish life in this area of the diocese," the Rev. David Klein, the diocesan chancellor, said in a statement.

Cute. This Fr. Klein sounds like a regular charmer.

We seriously doubt that it is even Bishop Galante's intention is to "strengthen parish life." How could it be? He is destroying long-established communities of faith. To the Catholics we know, the clear opinion is that he and his small group of supporters on the inside are intentionally killing "parish life" in the service of their own warped agenda.

It seems to us that any Catholics who disagree with the bishop's unholy agenda he'd be just as happy to see leave the Church altogether, because that's precisely what's already beginning to happen. For shame! Churches and parishes are not disposable, and Rome ought to be defending the lay faithful from continued abuses from corrupt American bishops on high. In the cases of many dioceses, (and our own diocese remains to be proven since we do not have access to the evidence), first the bishops allow the stealing of the innocence of our youth and now they perpetrate the stealing of our churches to pay for their evil acts. No matter the reason given for this horrendous injustice, it still reeks.

We can't link to the article for you since the Diocese of Camden, oops I meant the "Catholic Star Herald," took the article down. One wonders, why? Do they have something to hide? Why is it they do not want people to know the truth of the matter? When you're in the Truth, you have nothing to hide. But then, I guess we all know by now that our current diocesan administration is very far from the Truth.

We will share the article with you when we get it, but for now, the gist of it is this: the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy has notified St. Vincent Pallotti that their request for recourse regarding the merger was not upheld. The Congregation wrote that "decisions as to the location of the offices of the merged parish, and the appointment of the pastor for that parish, fall within the direct competence only of the local bishop, and therefore outside the scope of a canonical recourse."

You may read the entire article here, but we will be quoting from sections of this interesting essay, The American Church, Is it Here?, in anticipation of our look at Pope Saint Pius X's 1906 encyclical against the modernists entitled, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. The aforementioned article (and perhaps the encyclical, too!) may be perceived by some as radical, but the author's points are well made and ring startlingly familiar. It looks as if the original article was written in 1983.

Within his essay, author Michael Davies summarizes a 1981 article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. This article was written by an anonymous priest and discusses "the plight of the papist priest;" that is, the priest who is obedient to the pope and the magisterium (holy teaching authority) of the Church. Sadly, twenty-eight years later, you may find yourself recognizing many of these conditions as unfortunately present here in the American Catholic church. (However, it should be noted that under Pope Benedict XVI there is greater hope.)

1) Many American dioceses are ruled by bishops who are either Modernists or who submit to Modernist control of their diocese;

2) Modernists have a "lock-tight" control of the diocesan bureaucracy;

3) Priests who are loyal to the Pope have been reduced to a minority of one-eighth of the diocesan clergy;

4) These priests are isolated, ridiculed and have no hope of advancement;

5) Most seminaries are totally Modernist, and the students who are ordained from them are totally-programmed Modernists;

6) Modernist influence is particularly dominant in the fields of liturgy, catechetics, and the diocesan press;

7) The situation is certain to worsen;

8) Many American dioceses are already totally alienated from the Holy See;

9) Given the present process of consultation prior to episcopal appointments, there is no prospect of orthodox priests being promoted to the episcopate.

Further, the author Davies quotes states the following:

About half the clergy comprise the swing area: a vast mushy no-man's land where the priests will flip-flop wherever and whenever convenience dictates. At present this means conforming to the radical Modernist leadership. For some of these men, a nostalgia for Rome surfaces now and then, but is quickly submerged. Theirs is the tired refrain: "But this is what the bishop wants, and we took a vow of obedience to our bishop."

Therefore what we really have is disobedience to tradition, disobedience to clear Catholic Church teaching, and in its place a false obedience to sadly misled bishops who in turn mislead the faithful with the cooperation of their priests.

In our particular case, we have the lowering in status of our churches to "just buildings," as easily dispensable as old candy wrappers. In their stead, we face the prospect of what we already see in existence throughout our own and other dioceses: new, modern[ist] structures that are antiseptic, cold, round or semi-circular so as to promote the elevation of "community" above all things.* Said structures are typically lacking in ornamentation worthy of God, but replete with CatholicChurchSupply.com type furnishings. Such generic "auditorium"-like sanctuaries are often without statues and side altars, absent truly beautiful teaching art, yet manage to find space for the addition of un-catholic devices such as audio visual equipment and plenty of room beside the altar for rock bands and grand pianos. Worst of all is the removal Our Lord and Savior in the tabernacle to a side altar, separate chapel, or God knows where.

We know from historical precedent that the first thing "reformers" do is to destroy church architecture and furnishings. They destroy art and statuary, they desecrate holy things, they even torch buildings. All this and more has been done, and always in the name of progress, of Reformation. They know, perhaps intuitively, that the easiest way to change people's religion and how they worship is to change where they worship.

Yes, these structures are more recognizably non-denominational protestant in character than Catholic. And when we change church architecture so dramatically, we change the focus of the mass and the focus of our prayer, not to mention Catholic tradition and identity generally. When we change the focus of the mass, we succeed in changing the mass and, consequently, our very Faith.

Somehow we must've missed these. We receive a lot of email from very upset Catholics. They are from back in the summertime. We have withheld the names of the senders.

Notice the continued lies. Notice the clear financial motives. We've said it before and we'll say it again: Bishop Galante, you cannot serve both God and mammon (Luke 16:13). Furthermore, transparency means truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32). How sad it is that anyone who believes their bishop and his cronies nowadays is a sucker. What a crime, what a travesty! Oh how many souls are leaving the Faith now over this alone! Bishop Galante, we want to believe you and to have faith in the leadership of our church, so for God's sake, tell the truth! Do what is right!

(1) We are all so taken back with what Galante is doing to our churches.  We have heard that a group from the Camden Diocese is going to Rome to stop this nut from destroying our churches.  Is this true?  If so, when will it happen?  Everyday we hear of priest leaving our churches.  Now we hear that Fr. Patsy of Sacred Heart Parish has received permission from Bishop DiMarzio to serve in the Brooklyn Diocese.  When are we going to be able to stop this mass exit of priest.  This is exactly what Galante wants.  Is there any hope for us and what can the Vatican do?

(2) I am guessing you have probably heard about the closure of our school by Bishop Galante.  We plan on fighting it to the fullest extent and would love to join your efforts in sharing any information we come across.  One of our fellow parents, [name withheld], just started yesterday in building a web site.  The web address is http://www.savestaroftheseaschoolcapemay.org/   Our school is slated to be "merged" with St. Ann's in Wildwood, just 2 yrs after the "merger" of St. Raymond's and Our Lady Star of the Sea School.  I don't know if your dealings have involved Nick Regina but he ranks right along with Bishop Galante in his cold/callous behavior.  We hope to attend mass at St. Mary's next weekend and get to meet some of you who are involved in this fight against the Bishop.  Your website is incredible- very informative!!!  Thanks so much, good luck to you all and God bless!

(3) I am a parent at Our Lady Star of the Sea School in Cape May.  Three weeks ago we were told that our school is to merge with St. Ann's school in Wildwood.  We were given no notice of this and all of the us parents did not even know this was in the works.  At a terrible meeting with Nick Regina, only 48 hours after we were all sent letters regarding the merger, he told us that this was being discussed since Oct. 08.  Our Monsignor got up and told us that he and the Principal felt it was better not to involve the parents in this decision.  What made this even worst was that only 2 years ago Bishop Galante merged the school that my children were at called St. Raymonds in the Villas with Star of the Sea in Cape May.  My husband and I believed the Monsignor and the Bishop when they advised us to attend the new school.  But now after 2 years we thought the merger had been successful.  The PTA...[had successful fundarisers].  We also not only met our assessment to the church, but exceeded by $6,000 this year.  We all were told that the Bishop would not look at this area for another 5 years.  But now we are being told that we are merging with St. Anns even though our enrollment numbers are higher and we have not drop as much in enrollment of the last 7 years as St. Anns has. We gave our all information to Nick Regina from the Diocese when he met with us and he just replied that he was not aware of those numbers.  We told him that the enrollment numbers were taken from the Star Herald Newspaper that the Bishop puts out.  He just replied, "Next Question."  After that meeting we have been reaching out to anyone that would listen.  We have been writing letters, we have had a Senator and two Assemblymen write to the Bishop for us.  Cape May City Council along with 2 other adjoining towns have passed a Resolution to stop the closing of our school and asking for the Bishop to meet with the town council.  We have been on Channel 40 news, have had stories written for us in the Atlantic City Press, and 3 local papers in town and have signed petitions.  We need your help.  Please give us any advice who we can turn to next.  Our school is right in the middle of town and land in Cape May worth millions.  The Diocese stated that they are not even sure if the building will be used for CCD classes as it is now.  Please, Please help us.  Our children and parents are devastated.  I feel like I cannot even sit through mass.  All I keep thinking about is how the men of my faith have hurt children over and over again.  Today the Monsignor was talking about his 50th class reunion from Catholic School and how wonderful it was and all I kept thinking about was that my children will never be able to celebrate that with St. Raymond's school and now Star of the Sea School thanks to this Bishop.

Thank you for your time.

Though touted as a stalwart anti-abortion bishop and conservative (ie "orthodox"), Bishop Joseph Martino is much disliked inside his own diocese due to his massive church closure program, abrasive personality, and disrespect toward laity and teachers within the Diocese of Scranton. His reasons for leaving simply do not add up, particularly since he was called to Rome not terribly long ago.

We will include several links for you. First, news of his resignation:

Whispers in the Loggia

The Deacon's Bench

Bishop Martino's shameful church closure program:

Click here for articles on Scranton church closings

His controversial tenure (generally thought favorably of outside the diocese, disliked at home):

Whispers in the Loggia

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?

ATTENTION TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS LOVERS!

In addition to the regularly scheduled masses this weekend (5pm Saturday as well as 8:30 & 11:30 Sunday), Sunday July 26th at 6:00 pm will be the traditional Latin low mass, Fr. Jerome Romanowski presiding.

By the way, please do not worry if you are not familiar with the traditional mass. We have missal booklets available for you with the Latin on one side and the English on the other. We would be happy to help you follow along.

Hope to see you there!

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.

Good news from Rome. It seems there will be an investigation into the lives of nuns and sisters in the US. Here the NY Times reports that

The Vatican is quietly conducting two sweeping investigations of American nuns, a development that has startled and dismayed nuns who fear they are the targets of a doctrinal inquisition....While some nuns say they are grateful that the Vatican is finally paying attention to their dwindling communities, many fear that the real motivation is to reel in American nuns who have reinterpreted their calling for the modern world.

All we can say is yippee. Now since there's already investigating going on...

Many of you may have noticed that those in your acquaintance are very upset by the parish closures Bishop Galante and his Administration (those doing the work "on the ground") plan on imposing. The question remains, where will these people go if their church is closed?

We don't know what will happen ultimately. But we do know what is already happening and what people have said they will do should their church be closed. We don't notice many in leadership positions losing any sleep over it, but this is what we have noticed:

• Some have already left the Church. No, not just their parish, but they have left the Church altogether. Disgusted and disillusioned by what is happening, they washed their hands of it and left. And more will leave as their churches are stolen out from under them.
  

• Some are planning on going (or have already gone) to Byzantine Catholic churches. Yes, the Byzantine (and  many other rites) are in union with Rome and should not be confused with Eastern Orthodox churches, which are not.

• Some plan on leaving the Diocese altogether to go to Pennsylvania, Delaware, or North Jersey. I quote, "If this bishop closes my church, I will put not another dime into a collection basket in this Diocese. I will leave the Diocese."

• Some, in the midst of this confusion, will not attend any church at all.

• Some will hop from one church to the next, like migrants, never at home any place in the diocese ever again. They may not even apply for membership in any one place, but only attend mass in various locations. They will not set down roots, but will fulfill their obligations as Catholics and live out their faith more or less privately. Most of these will not contribute financially in any way.

• Some of the more traditional-minded Catholics will simply go to the SSPX or some other Catholic group.
  

Rest assured, we are making none of this up. This information comes from real people in various parishes across the Diocese of Camden. The question remains, do those in leadership positions in the Diocese of Camden actually care about people leaving the Diocese or even the Church? Doesn't seem like it, does it? Worse, does it serve their agenda? Possibly.

They plan on robbing us blind just to give us this (the latter link is their words, not ours, and if that ain't evangelical protestant McChurch, I don't know what is. See also this article and this one. But hey, if you like Gloucester County Community Church as much as Bishop Galante does, you may be in for a treat!).

ATTENTION TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS LOVERS!

In addition to the regularly scheduled masses this weekend (5pm Saturday as well as 8:30 & 11:30 Sunday), tomorrow night Sunday at 6:00 pm is the traditional Latin low mass, Fr. Jerome Romanowski presiding. On every last Sunday of the month we have the traditional mass.

By the way, please do not worry if you are not familiar with the traditional mass. We have booklets available for you with the Latin on one side and the English on the other. We would be happy to help you follow along.

Hope to see you there!

Happy Pentecost Sunday!

In addition to the regularly scheduled masses this weekend, tonight at 6:00 pm is the traditional Latin low mass, Fr. Jerome Romanowski presiding.

From Acts of the Apostles:
And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. Acts 2: 1-4, 16-18, 38-40

Find more videos like this on Council of Parishes NJ
You'll notice that Andy Walton, diocesan spinmaster, claims it would take millions of dollars to buy or retrofit an appropriate convent. The question remains, why all of a sudden so generous to the sisters? And why is it that any religious sister who has taken a vow of poverty would need a million or multi-million dollar home? And in this case, there are only five! Who do they think they are kidding?