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.
A
reader has suggested that it is sinful to speak ill of a priest or a
bishop and that rather than speak out against corruption within the
clergy, Catholics should pray and remain silent.