"Even if
there was no shortage of priests, the diocese would still
move forward with the configuration." -Andrew Walton, spokesman for the Diocese of Camden
Boy, the henchmen of the diocese just can't get their story straight, can they?
First it was about a lack of priests going into the future, but now it's not about that. In the Gloucester County Times this morning, Andrew Walton, spokesperson for the diocese, belittled the concerns expressed by the laypeople whose churches are proposed to be closed. He said these types of displays [the rally] are "to be expected." How condescending. I suppose it is also to be expected that the "speak out sessions" were a complete farce. The people could "speak out" but the bishop sure wasn't listening.
Walton patted us laypeople on the head again:
"The display is an indication of these
parishioners' love for their parish. It's an
affirmation really of the importance they place on their
faith," Walton said. "But over time, there will
be an increased appreciation, I believe, even among those
who are disappointed with the decisions."
HA! Now what does that sentiment remind you of? Remember when Mommy or Daddy said to you when you were a kid, "I'm doing this for your own good." Or, my own Mom's special favorite, "I know you don't understand now, but when you're older... (fill in the blank)" My little dearies, you will understand in time the wisdom of our decision when we sold off the church of your ancestors, didn't tell you why, and had it demolished and replaced with a strip mall/SuperWawa/etc. Is it any wonder that the bishop referred to our small, historic churches as Wawas with crosses? Perhaps they were taking up space he saw as more appropriate for Wawas. Churches are so non-lucrative, after all, they ought not be taking up prime frontage. Right now I'm thinking specifically of St. James in Ventnor, just a stone's throw from the casinos. Yeah, sure, that historic church will survive.
I don't know what universe Walton's on, but I seriously doubt people are going to appreciate their churches being taken away from them just so that they can go to the local McChurch.
Even though they expect a decrease in priests (founded or not), Walton said that,
"even if
there was no shortage of priests, the diocese would still
move forward with the configuration." "It's not being
driven primarily by the number of priests available.
It's being driven by the desire to create stronger
parishes. The bishop has indicated his primary motivation is
to revitalize parish life."
Oh yeah? What if the church doesn't need "revitalization?" What if the local church is as "vitalized" as possible? I suppose what we really need to do is translate. Perhaps what the bishop means by "revitalize" is "enlarge" (as in, create megachurches) or "make less distinctively Catholic." If the little, old historic churches are what he's targeting for closure (the ones already bought and paid for, by the way, and more easily disposed of), he may also be getting rid of the churches that retain the most traditional architectural elements: altar rails, large statues,
real stained glass, and non-stadium seating. Well you know what? The churches don't belong to the bishop. Apparently others agree with me on this point.
I love what Anthony Mecca of Queen of Peace Parish, Pitman, said:
"The people in Pitman bought that ground and built
that church and it belongs to them," Mecca said.
"You can't just take it away."
And Patty Gioffre of dear little St. Anthony's, Waterford, was right on the mark:
"You knew from the beginning he was going to do what
he wanted to do," Gioffre said, referring to the hoax that was the "speak out" sessions. "He's
tearing the hearts out of all these little communities. As
long as we can remain fiscally soluble and keep our outreach
to the community, we should be able to stay open." AMEN and AMEN!!!