I'm entirely in agreement regarding the ultimate usefullness of speculating about what "might have happened" if choices were made differently in the past.
All I'm really saying is that the church sell-offs (so far) are NOT the result of any court direction. The archdiocese sold-off sufficient seminary and chancery property to pay for the ENTIRE settlement by itself; why, then, the insatiable itch to raise hundreds of millions more? To pay for future settlements? Doubtless. But why should we lay Catholics have to pay and pay and pay and pay for a scandal WE had nothing to do with? There are 1800 church-owned properties (that can be traced) in the archdiocese, only 357 are parishes, and perhaps 200 parish centers, 100 schools and a few hospitals and the like thrown-in. That leaves more than ONE THOUSAND properties that are NOT directly related to the church's primary mission - why are THESE properties not sold *first*???? As a mere token of true atonement, the Cardinal and his minions should be taking the financial burden off the backs of lay Catholics and selling off these properties in lieu of even ONE church closure as a cash-raising move. How does killing-off parishes raise cash in the long-term, when such moves kill off remaining good will in the pews and thereby permanently diminishes contributions?
The Church is NOT about making money! I am not so naive to suppose that the Church doesn't need to raise money, but it should never be absorbed by it. It should do everything possible, when faced with legal settlements such as these, to get the money in ANY other way possible first, before so much as one pew is unbolted from a church floor in advance of the wrecking ball. If the Archdiocese of Boston merely wishes to supervise the spiritual torpor that has been in place for decades, and then wishes to exacerbate ill-will by closing churches, then it might as well close ALL of them, for it, as an institution, will prove itself utterly worthless. It will have no reason for existence, and might as well be honest about it by posting an "Out of Business" sign at the Lake Street offices and be done with it.
Dear magisterium,
I was unaware that the Archdiocese of Boston had that much spare real estate.
I wonder, then, whether the scandals are being used by the archdiocese as a way of pushing through parish consolidation, rather than consolidating parishes to meet a real financial crisis.
I read that attendance at Mass is only around 200,000 persons per week. That's about how many folks go to Mass in the Archdiocese of Washington every week, but in only 140 parishes, rather than in 300+.
Of course, I might be very well comparing apples to oranges. Many of our parishes are newer, and a substantial number of them have well over a thousand families.
Oh well, Jesus told us not to expect too much from our bishops. He warned us to obey their teachings but not follow their examples.
I guess it's hard to be disappointed when you have low expectations in the first place.
Even still, the last few years have been very disappointing anyway.
sitetest