Bishop Richard Glenn Lennon Appointed to Cleveland

There was talk that Bishop Vasa would be going to Cleveland. I am hoping and praying this means Vasa will get a very high-profile diocese but I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1155

He's a total political apparatchik who, in dealing with (and spearheading) the massive church closure move here, has demonstrated the pastoral solicitude of a hunk of granite.

Nothing personal, but I generally discount "he's not personable/responsive enough" stories. You're always going to rub somebody the wrong way and always going to take flak when churches are closed.

I had forgotten about the VOTF thing.

Ruthless is a good word, maybe that will serve the people of Cleveland well. Maybe he will only be ruthless in the right way in his new post.

When they elevate Kieley (I would be shocked if they didn't) the Archdiocese will benefit greatly from a man who is both Theologically orthodox and very pastoral.

Very good! And very true...

I wish them well but...poor Cleveland!

"company" man, I guess that's a safe assumption. Not to scare you but I think he's cut a little from the Cardinal Law school, which means public perceptions must be protected. He will always try to maintain a public appearance of doing "the right thing" whether it always will be.........

Just don't expect fast changes, he kept all of Laws Lts in place when he was administrator, even the ones with the dirtiest fingers.

The man proposed to close one quarter (!) of all the churches in the archdiocese! He's succeeding in closing one fifth. This was done as, effectively, a *first* step in solving the massive financial problems engendered by the sexual abuse scandal here. The Mass-attending population dropped to 450,000 out of 2.15 million Catholics after the scandal broke, his jackbooted solution to the financial aspect of the issue served to drive away another 100,000 people. How pastoral is that?

Put yourself in Boston for a minute. By definition, if you are under 55 around here, you probably have next to no proper catechesis behind you (it's been a long time since that was well served here, largely by design), and you merely warm a pew even when times are good. You have no idea why you're Catholic, and few people in the local hierarchy seem disposed to enlighten you on the subject, since the generations-long politicization of priestly life here makes those in authority (obviously, with *some* exceptions!) look on the priesthood as a sinecure. The nuns have all long since defected or become Gaia worshipers, too, so what was left of Catholic education disappeared sometime back.

Within the framework of this mindset, vigorous Catholicism has all but disappeared here, eroding away ever since the times of Cardinal Cushing (the ultimate political insider). What once was arguably the flagship archdiocese of the US has been reduced to a shell of its former self. When Catholics around here found out that, all this while, priests have been buggering kids right and left, and that the seminary itself (which Lennon headed for a while) appeared to be a clearinghouse for the mindset, morale and mere attendance plummetted.

Lennon's solution? Start selling churches and raiding their coffers to pay for the MASSIVE settlement bill. Nevermind that it's counterproductive in its alienation of nearly everyone still hanging-on by a thread, just do it! Nevermind that there is a lot of ecclesial politics in the process, where more orthodox parishes are disproportionately singled out. Nevermind that even the Vatican said that you cannot dissolve one juridic person (the parish) for the purely financial motive of bailing-out another juridic person (the archdiocese). Give people even LESS reason to stay with the Church than they've already had presented to them over the years! Sure! Why not?

As an orthodox Catholic, all I can say is that this *might* be a way to solve the short-term financial issue, but, long-term, it will only exacerbate it while setting records for pastoral boorishness. One could say that some of the city parishes "need" to close for lack of attendance anyway. Perhaps. But whose fault is that? The Church has let the people slip away through its own misfeasance and malfeasance, it's up to the Church to *first* see if it's posible to get these people back.

Had Archbishop O'Malley sat on Boston Catholic Television heaping ashes on himself shouting his mea culpa's, begging (literally) forgiveness for the past three decades (much of which he isn't actually, personally responsible for, it is true), and concretely outlining steps to show that such things will NEVER happen again, he might have won-over some of his erstwhile base of support. Had he initially undertaken a Stalin-like purge of all the malefactors, at all levels, instead of first playing the same games his predecessor played, he would have won-over still more people. Had he done this in conjunction with a general overhaul of the education of Catholics in the archdiocese, chidren and adults, to *finally* give them clear reasons *why* they are Catholic to begin with, he could have tied the whole package together, and created sufficient goodwill to raise the necessary funding.

But, no! He listened to the advice of Bishop Lennon (some would say he allowed himself to be led by the nose by Lennon) and, as his FIRST, step, decided to shut down and sell 82 of 357 parishes! He has relented in a few cases, and has forestalled things in a few others, but he IS closing 65 parishes and has made it no secret that there will be a second-round of closures. He has also done nothing to fix the priest pension system destroyed by Cardinal Law to the tune of 70+ million dollars, a process which Bishop Lennon had some knowledge about.

IF the archbishop had FIRST tried to win the people back, and THEN found that they weren't a-coming, THEN, maybe, he could have considered the downsizing we're now experiencing. But he and Bishop Lennon did NOTHING like that. Less than one person in six in this archdiocese even condescends to attend Sunday Mass now as a result. And the ones who do are ill-served. The Church does not exist, here or elsewhere, to provide sinecures to the priestly class, nor does it exist to merely provide social services to the poor (which the archdiocese did a better job at for a while). It's here to provide a foundation for the salvation of souls through the efficacious application of sacramental grace and thorough, orthodox catechesis. The local church here is failing in that primary mission. If it ever DOES get its act together, it may have no infrastructure left to serve the needs of its people. Ya can't brings 'em in if they ain't gots no place to go!

Our Lady's Warriors>Dissent>Organizations>follow additional links

If he banned VOTF then he was doing the RIGHT thing! Or am I mistaken here?

Voice of the Faithful (VOTF)

From their mission statement, they are attempting to "3. Shape structural change within Church." This is intended to make a "democratic" Church which clearly violates the hierarchical structure which has always existed and is reemphasized in Vatican II Lumen Gentium. The chairman James Muller states in a National Catholic Reporter article on April 26, 2002, ìWe have donation without representation, and we have to change that.î Also on a CNN interview dated April 29, 2002, the chairman desires cafeteria Catholicism: "... our goal is to provide a democracy for the laity, so that the laity can decide what they want and then counterbalance the absolute power, which we have now of the hierarchy." See more details below.

Documents Revealing the Truth about Voice of the Faithful

Description	Author	Comments
When Wolves Dress Like Sheep: Close Look at Voice of the Faithful	Deal Hudson	But notice the bait-and-switch tactic used [by VOTF] in listing its three goals. Everyone can rally behind the cry of supporting faithful priests and the abused, but "change within the church" could encompass a variety of "changes" that are well outside the Church's teaching. (off-site)
An Inside Look at Voice of the Faithful	Danny DeBruin	As the subject says. (off-site)
Dissidents Advance Usual Agenda	Paul Likoudis	VOTF is a clone of Call to Action. (off-site)
A Pastoral Letter From Your Priests [regarding VOTF]	Rev. Thomas A. Frechette	Pastoral letter in response to parishioner queries regarding VOTF. (off-site)

" . . . he kept all of Laws Lts in place when he was administrator, even the ones with the dirtiest fingers."

Of course he did.

He was one of "Laws Lts"!

Extensive coverage on this appointment has sprung up on various blogs. Here are some of the commentaries.

American Papist Blog

Update:

Michael Paulson makes his report.

Michael Paulson previously has written an extensive biography and report on Lennon here (which also includes a large photo gallery, timeline, and links to other articles.)

Some quotes from that article:

"In Boston, he [Lennon] once hitched a ride on a plow so he could celebrate Mass for nuns snowbound in a hilltop cloister. In Scituate, he helped fight blazes when firefighters got injured, and he aided in the rescue of families trapped by coastal floodwaters during the Blizzard of '78.'"

...
"I was hopeful," he said, "but Vatican II was a very complex event in the life of the church and much of what was being written ... was very enthusiastic, but not really balanced in the sense of looking at the entirety of the teaching."
...
"He is notorious for his unmelodious singing voice, but enthusiastic about song; he started the children's choir in Scituate, and was such a reliable presence at recording sessions of the Daughters of St. Paul choir that they started referring to themselves as the Lennon Sisters."
...
"He delivers his homilies without notes -- he says he has never written one down -- in direct sentences with clear logical flow. At Matignon, his major extracurricular activity was the math club, and at Boston College, he planned to major in mathematics. But at the seminary, and ever since, his favorite subject was canon law -- a dusty abstraction to some, but a joy to him."
"Lennon, unlike most experts in the arcane rules that govern the church, did not train in Rome or at the Catholic University of America, but is a self-taught canonist, drawing on a personal library that now numbers 300 volumes on the subject."
...
"On a personal level, this [the abuse scandal] has made me more focused and committed to who I am and what I'm supposed to be," he said. "Things like this were not holy, and that's a real blemish on the church that Christ gave us. It's a terrible blemish, and the church has to be called back to holiness."
[read the rest.]

Richard Lennon was the Apostolic administrator for Boston prior to Archbishop O'Malley's election.

More info:

Rocco relates some nasty talk-radio reaction & Amy covers the story

Bishop-elect Lennon's Catholic Hierarchy stats page

Original report:

Following up on yesterday's report... Richard Lennon is Cleveland-bound:

Whispers in the Loggia: Lennon bound for Cleveland -- Boston free at last

Shouts in the Piazza: Cleveland Gets a Bostonian
...looks like my diocese will just have to wait a little longer.

[photo source: AP Photo/Michael Dwyer]

Dear magisterium,

"Nevermind that even the Vatican said that you cannot dissolve one juridic person (the parish) for the purely financial motive of bailing-out another juridic person (the archdiocese)."

Regrettably, American courts seem to view the question otherwise. As we've seen out west, at least some courts view parish property as assets that may be taken to meet diocesan obligations.

I don't really know enough about Cardinal O'Malley to say, but perhaps his view is that sooner or later, large amounts of archdiocesan property, including parishes, are going to be liquidated to satisfy the financial obligations arising from the scandals. Perhaps his view is that it would be better if the liquidation were in the hands of the archdiocese rather than of secular authorities.

sitetest

No. He did the right thing here, but sort of by default. Keep in mind that VOTF got its *start* here in Boston in response to the sexual abuse scandal. His motives are inherently self-serving in banning VOTF under the circumstances, as he and the Archbishop wanted to keep the flak to a minimum about the debacle. That VOTF quickly morphed into a sludge of heterodoxy and leftism is almost besides the point. It was out to dis *him* among others in the upper cadre, and he didn't like it. At the very least, he is open to criticism for his handling of things during his tenure as rector of the seminary, the Pink Palace/Club Med that turned-out so many of the buggerers into our parishes over the years. He may have opposed VOTF, but his reasons for doing so are far from pure.

I hate to say it, but, in this country at least, nothing is *really* going to improve until the last of his whole generation of bishops is removed from our midst through death and retirement. That's 15-20 years away. So dig-in. It's gonna be a bit of a wait, unless Benedict truly does some drastic things in the process of making the Church "smaller, but more vibrant and true to its charism."

Thanks for the background information.

We can all pray (and should be praying!!!!!!)

You are right about the courts. But, if the American Church weren't so enamored with the "corporation sole" model of ownership to begin with, the courts might have seen things differently. Spokane tried to weedle out of its legal ownership under corporation sole, but it was far too late, and the courts upheld the law.

In any case, I still stnad by my assertion of parish rights under canon law. The archdiocese is raiding parishes as a first line of fundraising on its own, and *not* as a result of ongoing court action. This is wrong, especially when they evidently think so little of us as to not even attempt to secure funding through some of the ways I already described and others. In the next wave of court cases to erupt in our near-future, it may come to pass that the courts *will* mandate church sell-offs as part of that settlement, and the hundred-year folly of corporation sole will have exacted yet another set of victims. But such is not the case here in Boston now. And that's a scandal in its own right.

Dear magisterium,

I'm not entirely sure that individual incorporation of parishes would have necessarily prevented this problem. It seems that the courts are interpreting that if the bishop has the final say-so regarding the life of a parish (and he does and always will), then from the perspective of American law, he may dispose of the assets of the parish as he sees fit. I seem to remember that the court specifically said that it didn't really care about the nuances of Catholic Canon Law.

Thus, even though control of parishes is somewhat attenuated through the establishment of individual parish corporations with separate governing boards of directors, because the bishop can ultimately control the board, the courts might still decide that they can force the bishop to tap those golden eggs.

"This is wrong, especially when they evidently think so little of us as to not even attempt to secure funding through some of the ways I already described and others."

I admit that I'm reading these posts rather quickly in between work tasks, but I missed your suggestions for alternative means of funding. If I remember correctly, I believe that Cardinal O'Malley did actually sell of some non-parish property to help defray these costs.

sitetest

He has relented in a few cases, and has forestalled things in a few others, but he IS closing 65 parishes and has made it no secret that there will be a second-round of closures.

And a third, fourth, etc. round? When which parish(es) to close in Southie was being discussed, I recall the letter read in all the churches: they apparently had the order of closing planned, right up to the last church (out of seven, if I remember them all) standing in Southie!

My first exasperated thought was, "Well, just close 'em all now and be done with it, since it's what you're apparently planning!"

The courts said they don't care about the nuances of canon law because the American Catholic Church was already semi-flouting it in the form of corporation sole ownership, which is an almost exclusively American phenomenon in the Church. So, yes, the courts weren't impressed by canon law very much. But, if American parishes were owned at the parish level to begin with, I believe that canon law *might* have come more into play in the court cases, and, in any event, the courts would have to find cause to assess financial "blame" to parishioners who have nothing to do with the sexual predation aided and abetted by the hierarchy per se.

If a Baptist, or a Methodist or an AoG minister is sued for buggering children and adolescents, I doubt the members of his congregation will be forced to pay for the settlement through the sale of their church (unless they were in active collusion, of course), for they would be only doubly penalized in the process. And if such pastors were sued in conjunction with the overseeing board of their respective denominations, such boards would not be allowed to liquidate churches, since they simply don't own them. Those responsible would have to come up with some other way to pay the settlement, too bad for them!

One long-term outflow of all this business is that the Catholic Church here will divest itself of corporation sole styles of ownership, in favor of awnerships at the parish level. This will focus financial responsibility on those individuals actually responsible for crimes, and get the American Church in line with the *strong* advice of the Vatican back in 1911 to move away from the corporation sole model. Too back they didn't insist on it back then, instead of merely urging it.

Can. 401 ß1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly.

ß2 A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.

Well, thanks for throwing water on our "Goodby, Bishop Pilla" party.
Actually, anyone would be an improvement over Bishop Pilla. I don't care if Bishop Lennon is "not responsive" enough to people's feelings, we've had 25 years of that with Pilla, whose biggest concern was his public image. Because Pilla didn't want to upset anyone (except orthodox Catholics), he allowed the heretical group, FutureChurch, to grow from a small, local organization, into a national group. He has filled the chancery with radical nuns and bureaucrats who want priestless parishes, women's ordination, and endless liturgical changes. He has imposed liturgical changes on the diocese that are not required by the Roman Missal, such as forcing everyone to stand throughout the Communion Rite. He has permitted the diocese's gay and lesbian ministry to promote the homosexualist agenda in parishes and schools. He has permitted CORPUS, which is a group of married ex-priests, to continue to agitate for married priests. He ignores ALL complaints of liturgical abuse, general absolution, or public dissent from Church teaching. During the last 25 years, the number of priests and seminarians declined. I could go on.

Welcome, Bishop Lennon.

Dear magisterium,

Well, it's difficult to know how things would have played out if they'd have been done differently.

However, I think that the reason why bishops ignored this issue for a long time is because the courts, in the past, did give some deference to Catholic Canon Law. In the state of Maryland, there's actually a law on the books that states that for hierarchically-based religious organizations, courts should give deference to the rules of the organization in settling disputes with and against the organizations. The law was originally passed to provide protection for the Anglican/Episcopal church in Maryland, but applies as well to the Catholic Church.

But recent times see courts less willing to give that deference, and more insistent on applying American principles of law.

I think that the comparison to Baptist/Methodist/other religions might not be apples to apples. For denominations with looser hierarchical, or non-existent hierarchical authority, there isn't much of an issue. When a congregation can hire and fire the pastor, it's clear that the pastor is simply an employee of the congregation.

However, under the principle of agency, if the pastor abuses children, or takes sexual advantage of adults, the church might still be liable, just as a corporation is liable for illegal acts of its employees when those acts occur during the performance of work-related activities. Thus, if one of my employees sexually harasses one of my other employees, or someone outside of my organization, but in the context of the work relationship, I may be held liable.

Anyway, the problem peculiar for the Catholic Church is that the bishop IS the ultimate arbiter of parish life, although not the immediate arbiter. Thus, the pastor may be dismissed by the bishop. Even under the parish incorporation model, the bishop may dismiss the governing board and appoint another. The bishop may suppress the parish. I think that from the perspective of American law, the power to snuff out of existence an entity encompasses the power to direct the entity's assets.

Perhaps we might have been on more solid ground if bishops had followed the Vatican's advice years ago. However, for most dioceses, that's water under the bridge, and not especially relevant to the discussion of what Cardinal O'Malley should or shouldn't have done.

sitetest