Posted on 05/25/2004 11:13:01 AM PDT by tridentine
Today is not an easy day for the people of the Archdiocese of Boston. This morning all of our pastors and parishes were notified of the results of the reconfiguration process. Many parishes received the news that they would be remaining open and welcoming people from other parishes in the months ahead. As a result of this process there will be 65 less parishes, but this translates into the closing of 60 churches since five of the former parish churches will continue as worship sites. Although this reconfig-uration responds to the very special needs of the present, a radical reconfiguration of the archdiocese has been discussed for many years. Changes in population, the movement of people from the cities to the suburbs, the decrease in the number of active Catholics have all contributed to the present predicament. At this time, over one third of our parishes are operating in the red, the deterioration of our parish buildings and churches (that in the city of Boston alone would cost over 100 million dollars to repair), and the aging clergy (130 pastors are over 70 years of age) have forced us to make the hard decisions that we have announced today.
The alternative to going through this exercise would be that we would experience a continual decline in some areas of our archdiocese, closing parish after parish, school after school, out-reach program after out-reach program, all because the archdiocese would be unable to subsidize these entities. Furthermore, the archdiocese would be faced with the serious reality of not being able to meet its pension and medical fund obligations for its employees.
This we cannot allow to happen.
In addition, I want to assure the people of the archdiocese that the decision to close parishes is in no way connected with the need to finance the legal settlement with the victims of clergy sexual abuse. The sale of the Brighton property of the former archbishop's residences and surrounding land has raised the $90 million dollars needed to do so. No money from the future sale of parish assets will be used to pay for the settlement. What these funds will do is allow us to financially support as needed the parishes and schools that do remain in the archdiocese as well as to recapitalize our pension and medical funds. This process of reconfiguration is directed not towards the past, but towards the future mission of the Church.
Concerning this, last December I met with all of the priests of the archdiocese in order to explain both the reasons and the process for reconfiguration. The first step took place in February when staff and laity from each parish met in their various local clusters. Over the course of the cluster meetings, thousands of lay men and women, religious, deacons, and priests came together to consult, listen, and dialogue about the future of the parishes in their local area. The recommendations of the various clusters were then sent to the local vicar, a priest who coordinates a grouping of 12-13 local parishes, who then made his own recommendations to the regional bishop. The regional bishops then considered the cluster's ideas and then added his own. All of this was presented to a reconfiguration central committee of 24 people, most of whom were lay men and women. This committee gathered together for over 43 hours of meetings, pouring over all of the various recommendations that had been made over the course of each stage of the process. Their report was then presented to me for my consideration.
As required by church law, my initial determinations were presented to the presbyteral or priests council of the archdiocese so that I could hear their counsel, which I did in three days of meetings. From all of this, it is quite apparent that extensive consultation, work and effort was involved in this reconfiguration process. This consultation and input from so many people was extremely important in helping me make the difficult decisions I have made today. At every step of the process we took great care not to place the burden of reconfiguration on the backs of the poor. We have tried to distribute closings across all regions of the Archdiocese so that we shall be able to ensure the Church's presence in all areas of the Archdiocese in the future, especially in the inner city and in rural areas.
I am profoundly aware of the emotion the announcement of the closing of a parish evokes. It means the loss of a spiritual home, the place where so much time and resources have been invested, the house where so many important moments in people's lives, from birth to death, have taken place. I wish there was some way that all of these wonderful houses of life and prayer could remain open and alive and full. But there is not. Yet, I know from my own experience of being uprooted many times in life that the Church's faith can be as alive in one place as it is in another. As one church is closed, another church is waiting to welcome its people to a place which can become more alive, more spirit-filled, and more able to proclaim the good news of our faith because of the talents, treasure, and time its new members will bring. Doors may be closing and lights may be extinguished in one church, but other doors are open and arms are extended in welcome in another church in which the light of faith will burn all the brighter in renewal. Closing a parish does not mean an end to the book, just a chapter in the story of life and faith that is being written every day of our life as a Church.
This process will challenge all of us to move beyond a parochial mindset and realize that we are Catholic, which means universal. We may think of ourselves as liberal Catholics, as Latin Mass Catholics, Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, Lithuanian Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, French Catholics, Vietnamese Catholics, Haitian Catholics, Cape Verdean Catholics, the Voice of the Faithful or the Silent Majority. We need to put the accent on Catholic and come together as one people ready to make sacrifices for our Church. We are part of something bigger than ourselves. This is not a matter of winners and losers. If we all see ourselves as part of the Catholic family, we will realize that the entire Church is the winner if everybody is willing to work together for the common good and to promote the Church's mission as we move forward.
Before I turn the podium over to Bishop Lennon, I wish to thank the people of the Archdiocese of Boston for their strength and fidelity over the past few years. Many of the wounds of the abuse crisis are still there and the healing we need as an archdiocese has only just begun. I am fully aware that all that has happened has shaken the trust that many had in the archdiocese as an institution. Trust cannot be regained in a moment but over time by doing the right things for the right reasons, one challenge or opportunity at a time. Know that what we are doing today as an archdiocese is for the right end and for the right reasons. It is clear that our recent journey as an archdiocese has been along a difficult path. My hope is that the major step we are taking together today will set us on firm ground so that we can focus our attention once more on our primary mission to preach the truth of our Catholic faith in both word and in deed.
I need also offer sincere thanks to Bishop Richard Lennon for his extraordinary efforts in directing this reconfiguration process. He has put in untold hours over the past few months to make this reconfiguration possible. That the reconfiguration process worked so well is largely due to him and we are all very grateful. To the thousands of priests, deacons, and lay men and women who gathered on the cluster levels, to the vicars, the regional bishops, the lay men and women and clergy on the central committee, to the members of the presbyteral council, I say thank you as well. This process has clearly shown that consultation among all the peoples of our archdiocese, laity and clergy, is something we all value and something that can obviously produce good results. The thoughtful advice and pastoral sensitivity that characterized the discussions in the central committee and the priest's council were truly edifying. In twenty years as a bishop I never felt more connected with my priests' council than I did as we agonized together over parish closings.
Please do not interpret reconfiguration as a defeat. It is rather a necessary reorganization for us to be positioned for the challenges of the future, so that the Church can be present in every area of the Archdiocese with the human and material resources we need to carry on the mission that Christ has entrusted to us.
I appeal to every Catholic in the Archdiocese to accept these changes in the spirit of faith. I am calling on everyone to make the sacrifices necessary for the good of our Church. A crisis tends to bring out the best and worst in people. I hope that this time of crisis will help us to focus on what is essential, our fidelity to Christ and our connectedness to each other in His Church.
The Church of Boston has a great history forged in persecution and sacrifice. We will have a great future if we do not flee from the cross. Reach out to one another in prayerful support. Let our love for our faith help us overcome our pain and help us focus on our mission.
As bishop in the West Indies, our islands were devastated by Hurricane Hugo. We were six months without electricity and phones. I gathered with our priests and people amid ruble and said``our buildings are strewn on the ground but we are on our feet.'' We looked around us and saw a barren landscape, not a leaf or a bush left on the island. It looked as if there had been a forest fire, but the rains came and sun appeared in the sky and lush tropical foliage returned more stunning than ever. We should never underestimate Gods power to make all things new.
I am asking the Catholics of the Archdiocese to lay aside their anger and disappointment, to cast off their sadness and join hands with brothers and sisters across the Archdiocese. We need to be united, we need to help and support one another. It is not a time to foment divisions but a time to strengthen relationships and build a strong Church. The Lord is counting on us. We cannot let Him down. We are His people.
Really, then read the news accounts.
I am not asking him to agree with my views, only that he agrees with Christ's views.
Your argument is a cop out in both cases. He has the authority, and some say duty, to not allow any public sinner to receive communion in his diocese.
Before you are so willing to give him time......ask around what happened in Fall River when he closed parishes there. Find out what happened at St. Stanislaus church. Find out what he did when he found out about a couple of priests accused of molesting some girls.... you may change your mind about this "seemingly" wonderful person.
Why don't you explain what you are talking about instead of being so cryptic?
I'd be interested in what happened in Fall River---St. Stanislaus,the closing of parishes and the priests and the girls. Even if it's only your take on things,please tell us and then we can determine for ourselves whether your hints of his deficiencies merit more research. Thanks.
Hi there sara! Your velvet glove is so much easier than my sledgehammer!
First.....the priest disappeared to his family summer home in the burbs.......no action taken......... punished those who spoke out about abuse...........priest still on the roles...
St Stanislaus church was slated as one of the churches to close.....HOWEVER......when the members of the congregation made threats (MANY are doctors, lawyers,etc) he suddenly changed his mind and let them be......AMAZING!
I am very interested in the present complement of newer B/bishops and really can't get a feel for archbishop O'Malley but when vague allegations are made,I tend to give the Bishops more credit than they may deserve based on what I see happening in my own diocese.
well......unfortunately....I HAVE to be vague for a reason... that's why I initially said to investigate... I have first hand knowledge what retribution from this man means (archbishop that is)... so I just made these comments so that anyone who is truly interested could check it out....
Many, Many people in the Fall River diocese knows this mans true colors..... they also know what he is capable of... so if retribution seems harsh...... sorry....hate to burst anyone's bubble...
I only gave one example of the priests.... if I gave more my identity could be revealed....and I can't take that chance...... sorry......
Uh, huh. Sure.
You're new, so you need to know that you have to back up what you say here with facts.
Otherwise, your assertions are just baseless opinions and hearsay.
I almost forgot to mention the sex ed fiasco and O'Malley.
Here is a post from another freeper on another thread:
O'Malley may be the worst.
Lots of people had hopes that he would turn out good. He has since turned to prostitution advocates to write Cathlic-School 3rd-graders' lessons plans on the sex abuse crisis. No kidding! The organization he hired was originally created for the sole, express purpose of legalizing prostitution!
So I guess what you're saying is that we shouldn't have had an open mind to him when he was first apponted, because now that initial good will undermines my argument against him now?
48 posted on 05/26/2004 12:37:08 PM EDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
>>I also wonder about "possession",and whether there were many incidents where exorcism was used and was successful? <<
I believe baptized Christians cannot become possessed. There are seven levels of demonic influence, however, and possession is only the most severe. I think the proper term for a Christian under strong demonic influence would be "oppression."
If they're defrocked, the CHurch is not paying pensions.
If they're not defrocked, Canon Law requires it.
Not exactly. There is a third option: Laicization. Several of the priests involved in the headline-grabbing scandals were eventually laicized. A laicized priest does NOT get a pension, which is unfortunate, because I know of decent men who were laicized, at their own request, because they did not feel they could conduct their priestly duties. (i.e., a former Viet Nam chaplain affected by his wartime experiences, a man who felt his celibacy was psychologically unhealthy for him, etc.) They were left gravely impoverished. I suppose you can't give them full pension, but I feel like giving them nothing leaves them like a divorced house wife who gets nothing in the settlement. And now, on top of it, they have a stigma because people wonder what they did to get laicized. Who hires ex-priests with a degree in only divinity? They're like HS grads entering the work force at 50 years old and not retirement!
Fr. Geoghan (sp?) of Boston, for instance, was laicized.
I know you know this sinkspur, but for others: when a priest "resigns" from his priestly duties, he is "laicized," i.e., made into a lay person. If done canonically, it does not mean he has broken his vows. Very vaguely analogous to having a marriage annulled. Sex perps often request laicization, just as scandalized professionals usually resign before they are fired. Having a sexual compulsion is a grounds for laicization, although laicization does not relive anyone of responsibility for their behavior.
"Defrocked"= "laicization." They're the same thing.
Not every priest who leaves the priesthood gets laicized. If he leaves voluntarily, he has to petition Rome for it.
I think a priest who puts in a lot of years ought to get some kind of remuneration. However, pensions are a thing of the past in corporate America.
Well, if you're not making distinctions between laicization (voluntary defrocking) and degradation (involuntary defrocking), then I'd really have to wonder where on earth you get the estimate that only 10% of those expelled from priestly duties for sex abuse are defrocked.
I have read a couple of articles that indicate,very tangentially that some b/bishops may have had at least considered it.But the mention is very vague and probably not noticed by most people reading the articles.
Ok so you have vague innuendos? I've been involved periphally with the Diocese of FR for 10 years and I have never heard anything remotely like you intimate. In fact, the parishes there are in much better shape spiritually than are most of the parishes in the archdiocese of Boston. Archbishop O'Malley recommended Bishop Coleman for the spiritual head of the FR diocese and Bishop Coleman is a bishop who is faithful to Rome.
Unless you can point to verifiable facts, please don't excoriate Bishop O'Malley.
O'Malley didn't hire prostitution advocates to write "Talk about Touching", TaT is a byproduct of the "Committee for Children" mandated by the Charter which was written in Dallas. The head of the committee is Kathleen McChesney, as you know. She is trying to force through 'child protection programs' in all dioceses and since Boston is what it is, she started here first with the help of many, many chancery bureaucrats who have been employed there for years. Give O'Malley a little time please! "Talk about Touching" is not in use here and I doubt it will ever be in use.
It's hard to say what makes people do evil. I believe the distinction between oppression and possession is that the possessed person will speak in the person of a demon, and when he does so, will not identify with his own body, but with that of the demon. His own body he will refer to in the third person. (i.e., "Johnny doesn't live here any more.") Some psychologists dismiss possession as being related to split personality disorders, but others who have worked closely with exorcists have come to recognize the distinction. In fact, church policy is to not exorcise someone who has not yet been ruled out as having multiple personalities.
An oppressed person will believe that his actions are controlled by demons which he is helpless to fight, but still identifies himself as the agent of his actions.
I would argue that some of the ritualized sex abuse cases I've heard of would certainly indicate, if true, grave spiritual domination by demonic forces. (I think domination may actually be another level demonic influence... I forget.) And you better believe members have speculated on the possibility; the author of the book which became the exorcist (soory, I forget his name) was one such prominent church figure, until his recent death. He is spoken of much in these fora.
I do not know whether apostasy can allow a Christian to be possessed, but I would doubt it since apostasy would be an early symptom of demonic influence. Saying that a Christian can't be possessed unless they are in apostasy would be like saying someone can't die of a fever unless they get an elevated body temperature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.