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!
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
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!"
Sounds like they should close a lot of the churches and consolidate parishes that are no longer justified by churchgoing Catholics.
I'm sorry and I'm sure there are more ideal ways to go about things, but the fact is that in Massachusetts, Detroit, and other places, the Catholics have moved away or gone apostate, and the number of churches and parishes should shrink dramatically. It will hopefully turn around some day, but it is likely a long term project. I'm sure there are good people who can be wooed back to the Church with clear leadership and teaching, but there are also lots of folks sticking around who have not been really Catholic in a long time and who are likely to leave in the next 5-10 years.
I know I am really late to this thread (I was off for lent), but your post about the new Bishop of Cleveland, scares the poop out of me.
I really want to move back home....