“He’s no more baptized than we are” – but he is more ordained than you are
It is always sad when a Catholic parish closes. Whatever the reasons, it shows that a community can no longer support a vibrant Catholic church in its midst. However, there is no question that changing demographics demands that sometimes a bishop must close parishes. And note who I said must close the parish: a bishop, the only person in Catholic ecclesiology who has the power to do so.
Yet too often we hear of protests against such actions by those who still belong to the closing parish:
Parishioners from churches ordered closed will protest outside Bishop Richard Lennon’s office
Parishioners from at least 10 Catholic churches ordered closed by Bishop Richard Lennon have scheduled a protest march today outside the bishop’s office in downtown Cleveland.
The group, known as “Endangered Catholics,” plans to hand out copies of a statement claiming Lennon’s closing of 50 parishes in the eight-county diocese was an “injustice” to all Catholics.
“It is our bedrock belief that no parish should be closed, suppressed or merged without consent of the parishioners,” the statement reads in part…
“If the bishop can do something this big regardless of what the faithful say, then he can do anything,” said Bob Kloos, a parishioner at St. Peter in downtown Cleveland, one of the churches to be closed.
“We need to challenge this whole thing,” Kloos said. “He’s no more baptized than we are.”
I understand the emotional attachments that one can have for his local parish, but these protesters do not show the slightest understanding of Catholic theology or ecclesiology (and remember, their parish is where they should have learned it). The Church is not a democracy and a bishop has complete authority in his diocese. He does not need consent from anyone – including parishioners – to close a parish or school under his control. This is something a Catholic should know from their earliest catechism.
I cannot also help but note that the reason parishes close is due to declining attendance, declining vocations, and declining contributions: all things that are directly under the responsibility of the laity. If the laity were evangelizing the neighborhood, encouraging religious vocations within each home, and tithing at a responsible rate, I would think that the bishop would be more concerned with opening new parishes rather than closing them. We must first look to ourselves when we see such problems and ask what we can do to resolve them – instead of blaming the bishop for making official what was already evident for years: these neighborhoods cannot support Catholic parishes anymore.
It is possible that Bishop Lennon handled these closings poorly, but no excuse can be given for challenging a bishop’s authority in his diocese. We need to pray for these protestors and the bishop in Cleveland that they might be reconciled and work to build faithful parishes in the future.
“It is possible that Bishop Lennon handled these closings poorly, but no excuse can be given for challenging a bishop’s authority in his diocese.” You are correct on one count here. It is not only possible that the bishop handled these closings poorly, it is the consensus among nearly all the clergy I have canvassed that +Richard G. Lennon botched this reconfiguration just like he did in Boston.
The turmoil in this diocese can be attributed for the most part to the manner with which our new ordinary has handled many pastoral concerns in the three and one-half years he has been in Cleveland. The closings are just one of the many disturbing aspects of his very business-like approach to things. I wrote a letter to every priest and deacon in the diocese suggesting that I believe the bishop thinks that what he has done is “good medicine” for our shifted demographics and declining number of clergy, but it is neither disrespectful nor lacking charity to challenge those in authority when it can be demonstrated that other dioceses facing similar challenges have employed a more sensitive and equitable reconfiguration model. Check out Newark.
I am not challenging his authority. I know full well all the canons are in his corner. All he as to do is consult the Diocesan Presbyteral Council and he can suppress a parish. That’s the law. I don’t like that, but if I claim to be in communion with the Church, I have to take the whole package. My problem is not the authority, my problem is with his judgment.
You are obviously not aware of the circumstances in any of these parishes that are being merged or suppressed contrary to the recommendations that emerged from the cluster meetings after 17 months of “discernment.”
Our cluster, for example, was told at the initial meeting that the task of the committee was to “discern” how to close two out of the three parishes: The Cathedral of Saint John the Evangelist, The Conversion of Saint Paul, and Historic Saint Peter. And oh, by the way, the Cathedral will not be closing. So, right out of the gate, our parish was suppressed before the Amen of the opening prayer. It’s hard to pretend to discern much after the conclusion is recording in the minutes of the opening meeting. When our bishop was asked why Saint Peter was being closed, Richard Lennon said: “No decisions have been made yet.” Forgive me, but that approach is neither pastoral nor palatable. Our parish has grown 44% in the past decade; we have a diverse outreach to those most in need in the neighborhood and beyond; we have the best education and speaker series in the region. All that, and the bishop won’t tell us why we have to shut it all down.
Another parish has a membership of 1500 households and worships in the largest church in its community. They are being closed. Another has $2.3 million in the bank and the buildings are immaculate. But it is being merged with a parish that is crumbling, has not outreach, and is in debt. Are you scratching your head yet?
I have written four letters to Bishop Lennon, trying to make a case for our parish. I wrote respectfully and relied on scripture and the witness of those who had sacrificed for the 150 our church building has been in use. I have not received word one from the bishop. I am supposed to be in communion with him, and yet he refuses to communicate with me. And others have been dismissed as well.
At least eight parishes have appealed and Rome has found the appeals worthy enough to ask for an extension so they can further review our rationale for reconsideration.
It is very possible that in his effort to tidy up the diocese, our bishop has overlooked the real need of his flock to assist him in the awful task of doing the work of the Gospel with diminishing resources. If we saw more encouragement and passion about collaboration and identifying gifts and ministries instead of how to purchase stained glass windows that have been removed from suppressed parishes, I dare say the Spirit here would be give us life.
Bishop Martino recently resigned from his Scranton diocese. The stated reason was fatigue. I don’t think many readers stopped there. I respectfully suggest that the man was not well suited for the pastoral responsibilities that awaited him. “By his fruit, you will know him.” Mt. 12,33. He will be serving the Church in some other capacity from now on. It is quite possible that Bishop Lennon is not a good match for the pastoral needs of Cleveland at this time.
This is not the first time that leadership in the Church has misfired. And I offer no apologies for requesting reconsideration for decisions that many esteemed and experienced pastoral leaders in Cleveland question.
So come on down and we’ll tell you the rest of the story. Go on line and see how other bishops are doing the same thing and the good people in those dioceses are just as puzzled and just as upset.
I have been part of this Church for 60 years and I still serve in a variety of capacities and ministries. It is my baptism that invited me to become part of it all, and I celebrate the mission I share with our bishop to live what we all preach. I speak the truth in love. I could go on, but I just wanted you to know that you do not know enough about the circumstances to write what posted.
All the best.
Bob,
As I make clear in my post, I do not dispute that your bishop may have handled the situation poorly – God knows how often bishops over the centuries have screwed things up. However, it appears from the article that people are questioning his authority, not just his poor judgement. For example, the article states,
“It is our bedrock belief that no parish should be closed, suppressed or merged without consent of the parishioners,” the statement reads in part.
That “bedrock belief” contradicts the authority given to bishops by Christ himself. If a bishop wishes, he can delegate authority, but it is not a Catholic belief to say that parishioners MUST be involved when a parish is closed.
Furthermore, you are quoted as saying,
“If the bishop can do something this big regardless of what the faithful say, then he can do anything”
That’s right – he can do something “this big” – and his ability to do something that big comes from Christ himself. This authority doesn’t come from his baptism, but from his episcopal ordination.
I emphasize in my post the authority of the bishop, but with this authority comes a great responsibility. Bishops can – and have – abused their authority greatly, but this does not remove their authority and pass it onto the laity. I have no problem if you believe your bishop should be removed from his position, but I do have a problem if people are claiming (as the article indicates) that he simply doesn’t have the authority Christ gave him.
The solution to a “bad” bishop is not to strip authority from bishops and give it to the laity (something we simply can’t do, for his authority is from Christ). Our response should be prayers and reparations for that bishop, and as an absolute final resort, appeal to Rome to have that bishop removed if necessary.
May be of interest.