Posted on 02/14/2007 8:30:18 AM PST by Diago
A friend forwarded a column written by Regina Brett of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I include the text:
How far can church downsize?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Regina Brett
Plain Dealer Columnist
Regionalism has hit the Catholic Church.
You've heard of cities sharing fire trucks, water and taxes?
How do you share Midnight Mass, choirs and church bulletins?
Alternate years for Midnight Mass? Borrow the choir every other Sunday?
Print one side of the bulletin for St. Malachi and the flip side for St. Patrick's?
Like it or not, full-service parishes will soon perish.
All 231 parishes in the Cleveland Diocese will soon change. The diocese will organize all parishes into groups that will share resources and priests.
I can see the bishop flipping through a thesaurus to find the right word to describe what he will do with the churches to combat the dwindling priesthood.
Hmm. Let's see . . . Reorganize. Reconfigure. Reconstitute. Merge. Consolidate. Collaborate. Cluster.
That's it.
Cluster sounds much better than Share A Priest, which is what clustering amounts to. It also sounds better than closing churches, which is bound to happen next.
We should've seen it coming. The trend has swept the nation as fewer men join the priesthood and more priests die and retire.
I still remember the letter from the bishop more than a decade ago addressing the shortage of priests. Our pastor read the letter and said we were to have meetings and talk about how to get along with fewer priests.
When he told us we were not allowed, however, to discuss the issue of married priests or women priests, you could feel a breeze as heads shook collectively in disgust.
We all knew there was a solution. Actually two of them:
Women priests.
Married priests.
End of shortage.
Unfortunately, every pope is deaf in one ear and can't hear out of the other when it comes to ordaining women and married clergy.
Protestant churches use the same Bible, yet they ordain married priests and many of them ordain women.
Fewer priests mean fewer services. We all know that.
It means the folks who paid for the pews and sat in the same one every day for 7 a.m. Mass won't receive communion from the priest once they end up in the nursing home.
It means the engaged woman who was baptized, who celebrated her first communion and confirmation in one church might not get married there because the church is down to one matrimony a week.
It means the troubled soul who lost God can no longer knock on a rectory door and confide in a priest before doing something desperate to find God.
But who knows, it could be part of the master plan.
Maybe in time, we'll end up where we started: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)
Maybe we never were supposed to depend upon a hierarchy of celibate men.
After all, Jesus promised a comforter, the Holy Spirit, to guide us. He didn't mention popes and bishops and priests.
He kept it simple. As simple as it gets: Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Love one another as I have loved you.
The original church wasn't a building. It wasn't a hierarchy. Just people. Two or three, breaking bread.
I guess you could call that a cluster.
As some of you know, blogging Jesuits are to avoid hot-button issues. I feel no need to rehearse the various arguments, pro and con, concerning the male-only priesthood. What I do feel inclined toward is just offering a few thoughts concerning her sentiments:
1. Her argument seems to presuppose that the shortage of priests is the exclusive reason for the clustering. She fails to mention that there are many parishes that are unable to sustain the parish based on its numbers. On Fulton Road, in Regina's own Cleveland, there were two enormous churches built decades ago to accommodate the then-booming Irish and Italian immigrant populations. As these immigrants aged and moved away, the size of the parishes shrunk and these churches were unable to sustain services/programs, leading to church closings.
2. I'm all for nostalgia and tradition. Yet, her appeal to emotion is just glaring: the church building as marriage locale isn't a great reason to keep churches open. Even if we had an excess of priests right now, unless we had the congregations to sustain and support them, it would be utterly foolish to keep some waning parishes running.
3. Her column is a public temper tantrum: complete with a Burger King mentality of "my way, right away." It does not become her. It is true that fewer priests will probably mean that Father won't be able to visit every parishioner in every nursing every week. Or month. But her allusion to a church of "just people. Two or three, breaking bread" seems to suggest that she'd like to see greater participation of the laity in the life of the church. But, if that's the case, why is it so necessary that the it be the priest who brings communion? If "WE" are the church, then shouldn't we step forward as church and minister to one another?
4. Unrealistic. The "priest shortage" is a symptom of a much larger problem, what that far outstrips her facile solution of ordaining "women priests and married priests." Again, I'm not arguing for or against this, but really, Regina, look around. The schism in the Episcopal church concerning the ordination of women/gays should certainly be a reason to tread most carefully. A recent article in the New York Times indicates that even Protestant denominations are having a hard time staffing their churches - their seminarians can find work in other venues (non-ordained ministry, business, education, etc.).
Parish mergers are not, as far as I can tell, a major problem. Yes, there is the pain and grief associated with the loss of someone/something important to you. But I often get the feeling that the "church" as parish has supplanted the Church; there is certainly a temptation to idolatry. Pooling resources and priests eases the burden on already-stretched pastors, perhaps freeing them TO PASTOR rather than administer a parish. Instead of worrying about making mortgage payments, the priests in these 'clustered' parishes might have time to spend with one another and with their parishioners doing what they signed on for in the first place: pastoring the flock.
I think Regina Brett has a benighted vision of reality. Even if she were writing on behalf of *every* American Catholic, she would still represent but 6% of the Roman Catholic Church. The tone of her conclusion about the simplicity of Jesus' message reduces Christianity to little more than collection of do-gooders: so why am I a Christian when I could be in the Elk's Club or a Shriner?
It's because that in Jesus I have met God most fully. In my confession of Jesus as the Christ of God, I am called to live out this confession in the world. This draws me into communion with others, women and men who pray with and for me, who also confess with me that Jesus is Lord. We don't gather together, do good things, and then break bread and *WHAMO* there's Jesus. We are part of a much larger and still-unfolding story of a pilgrim people nourished by Christ's own body and blood, who derive strength and sustenance from it, and continue in their labors to help bring about God's Kingdom. The Eucharist is the source and the end-point of our labors. Nourished on his own body and in response to the love I have known, I go out into the world where I struggle to "feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Love one another as I have loved you." And I fail. And I return again to the table of the Lord. And I try again. And again.
No, Jesus did not mention priests and bishops. But as a human institution intending to pass down the gospel, to re-create and re-member the Christ in history, they are necessary as teachers and promoters and safeguards.
My fear is that Regina would have the entire church conform to her will. This might well be her image of perfection. A church built around Regina Brett, and not the Christ who continues to invite people to "come and see," is, however, anything but my image of heaven.
All those liberal Catholics should just formally break away, since they don't believe in the Pope's authority, anyway. Then they will be free to run a church exactly the way they want it, and we'll see which church is better off in a few years.
It is kind of ironic, and certainly tragic, that Regina Brett spoke at a Jesuit Retreat House fundraiser a cople of years ago:
Legal Abortion Advocate to Speak at Jesuit Retreat House Fundraiser
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/829431/posts
http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/ignatius/letter34.htm
From the Selected Letters of St. Ignatius:
Seeing the progress that the heretics have made in so short a time, spreading the poison of their evil teaching throughout so many countries and peoples, and making use of the verse of the Apostle to describe their progress, and their speech will eat its way like gangrene [2 Tim. 2:17], it would seem that our Society, having been accepted by Divine Providence among the efficacious means to repair such great damage, should not only be solicitous in preparing the proper remedies but should be ready to apply them, exerting itself to the utmost of its powers to preserve what is still sound and to restore what has fallen sick of the plague of heresy, especially in the northern countries.
The heretics have made their false theology popular and presented it in a way that is within the capacity of the common people. They preach it to the people and teach it in the schools, and scatter pamphlets that can be bought and understood by many; they influence people by their writings when they cannot reach them by preaching. Their success is largely due to the negligence of those who should have shown some interest, and the bad example and the ignorance of Catholics, especially the clergy, have made such ravages in the vineyard of the Lord. Hence it would seem that our Society should use the following means to end and cure the evils which the Church has suffered through these heretics.
MEA CULPA! I misread the article. I thought it was a Jesuit arguing for more liberalism in the Church. Sorry!
Women priests.
Married priests.
End of shortage.
*************
"End of shortage"? No. End of Church, Regina.
"It is not okay to say that someone is IGNORANT of facts?" -Suzy Quzy
I may be ignorant of the final outcoume of the discussion, but I believe it is acceptable to heap abuse on Catholics just as long is it isn't against an individual Catholic (although each Catholic is a part of the Body of Christ, and an attack on the Body is an attack on each of us). Disclaimer - the word "ignorant" isn't abusive, IMHO.
Wow, I hope I don't get reprimanded for using the term "ignorant" in reference to myself, because that is making it personal.
As a chaplain in the military, it was clear to us from our personnel data that "baptistic" types of Christians were the largest denomination in the country.
For that reason, they had by the largest numbers of chaplains representing their faith groups. The Catholics would have had the 2d largest number of chaplains, but they have serious issues providing chaplains to the military due to the unwillingness of Catholic Americans to become priests....the priest shortage. When I retired, the number of priests in the Army had dropped below 100.
That is not enough Catholics to have one per installation, much less one per brigade-level organization. Protestants of various stripes have more than enough to have one chaplain per battalion and a few per installation. A battalion is about a 10th of a brigade.
You are almost correct - it is completely acceptable to heap abuse on Catholics, just as long is it isn't against an individual/group of FReepers (Catholic or no).
Conversely, it is not acceptable to heap abuse on Catholics, personal or no, within any "Caucus"- or "Devotional"labeled thread, regardless of which group posts the thread. You would be completely within your rights to call out such abuse on a "Caucus"- or "Devotional"labeled thread, and I believe you would find the Mods sympathetic to your pleas if you did.
That said, you need to understand that those same rules apply for all groups/individuals within the Religion Forum. Catholics can (and some do) heap abuse deep and wide upon Protestantism, Judaism, Mormonism, Orthodoxy, etc etc etc all they want. Anyone going after an individual FReeper is a no-no, regardless of the religious persuasion of the attacking or receiving parties.
...each Catholic is a part of the Body of Christ, and an attack on the Body is an attack on each of us...
While I understand the argument, you won't find the Mods in agreement. The rules are against "making it personal", but there is no protection if you are "taking it personal". Just because your particular religious persuasion is called out, does not equate the comments to an attack upon you personally, nor should you take it as such.
FWIW, I don't find the epithet "ignorant" offensive myself. Others do (including the Religion Moderator), and you should therefore avoid attaching the label to individual FReepers.
You are almost correct - you should therefore avoid attaching the label to an individual/group of FReepers (Catholic or no).
While I understand the argument, you won't find the Mods in agreement. The rules are against "making it personal", but there is no protection if you are "taking it personal". Just because your particular religious persuasion is called out, does not equate the comments to an attack upon you personally
I added the "Body of Christ" comment as a personal aside to help illuminate why Catholics are offended when the Communion of Saints is attacked and/or denigrated. Yes, the rules are the rules, even though they may be slanted not to not account for the Body of Christ.
nor should you take it as such.
Well, that is not for you to say. If the Body of Christ is insulted, I will take it personally, as will most Catholics because of our understanding of the Communion of Saints.
As will many other Christians, for similar reasons. But one can take it personally without reacting in a unGodly way. "Be angry, and yet do not sin" (Ephesians 4:26). Likewise, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” (Romans 12:20). There are different ways to react; some are acceptable to the Mods, some are not.
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
- John Calvin
Yes, unfortunately (for the moderators and for us) the moderators are god here, and decide what is an "unGodly way" and what is not.
A poster who takes things personally can and should stay on the closed (devotional, prayer and caucus) threads where he will not be offended. By wandering onto the Open threads with a chip on his shoulder, he is baiting a flame war.
Also, the poster of a Relifion Forum article - even a news item - can assure reverence by including the caucus label in the header.
I have no sympathy for Religion Forum posters who throw temper tantrums or wallow in self-pity when they have been informed of this protection and do not use it.
I have my doubts that it is "many", as I have seen here on FR. Maybe a few, but not many. Rarely have I seen anyone other than Catholics (and that term includes the Orthodox) come to the defense when something vile has been posted here about the BVM or any other saint.
Thanks for posting that the many times you have. We are just having a discussion, here. No need to get worked up.
That's because the veneration of the BVM is exceptionally unique - if not outright defining - of Catholicism. Are Catholics known to come to the defense when something vile has been posted here about Joseph Smith or Alexander Campbell?
Why would we?? I'm ignorant of who Campbell even IS?
Regina is a TWIT!
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.