Quote:
Shocking! The churches the bishop and Roger McGrath wish to close are sitting on properties worth a whole lot of money?! Who would've thought?! It's pretty hard not to notice. A thoroughly researched article by Juliet Fletcher of the AC Press, who does well to expose the obvious. Do give it a read.
Click here to read article.
For your entertainment, we present the comedic Andy Walton (spokesman for the Diocese) statement of the day:
The bottom line is, money (ie, financial security) and "vibrancy" ("pulsating with life, vigor, or activity") are unrelated. "More financially secure" might at least have been a more sensible or consistent term to use, but it still does not follow that life can be found where money is. It is unreasonable to assume that a parish community is not "vibrant" because it lacks money. This is called a post hoc (or false cause) fallacy. Of course, many, many of the churches slated for closure--including St. Mary's--are not in debt anyway, and many--such as St. Mary's--have assets, so the premise is false also.
In a way, it's also the fallacy of false dilemma. In the case of church closures, "mergers," etc., many other reasonable options presented by the laity both during and after the "process" have been dismissed out-of-hand and without explanation. In this case, Mr. Walton and the bishop seem to be making the claim that the only reasonable option before us as a diocese, when there is supposedly a problem with finances, is to merge financially unhealthy parishes with financially sound ones, transferring the assets of the one to the other. That, of course, is never the only option, and it certainly is far from being the only good one. And when supposedly lacking priests, they argue, we should reduce parishes and send existing priests out of the diocese. Well why not try what Archbishop Burke did in St. Louis when faced with a similar problem?
But who has time to chronicle all the odd reasoning that comes out of the chancery office? After all, what's going on here has little to do with logic, the guidance of the Holy Ghost, a desire to foster vocations to the priesthood, or a hunger to save souls and bring them closer to Christ and His Church. Sadly, one wonders if anybody listens to or believe Andy Walton anymore? Besides not residing in the diocese or even the state of NJ (he's just a hired PR man, not a concerned member of the diocese), his inconsistent and illogical rhetoric has become comedic at this point. It is sad when the faithful do not feel that they can trust what comes out of the diocese because core church leaders and officials have lost their credibility. Do we even need to comment on the following statement? Do we really need to remind the diocese of the use of false analogies (not to mention ridiculous ones) and fallacious reasoning generally?
(By the way, thanks to all of you who sent us the link to this article and for your input. It goes without saying that we must, must, MUST continue to pray for the conversion of the bishop and for God's will to be done above all!)
*Interestingly, there's also the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Victories, who we venerate, but how often to you hear her name being invoked by those in the chancery office?
An analysis of tax rolls across the diocese's territory reveals churches worth a total of about $59 million. Add other parish holdings - from rectories to gardens to vacant lots, as well as affected missions that are expected to merge with parishes - and the land is worth more than $89 million.
These lots cover hundreds of acres across six counties and occupy sites next to highways and bayside towns.
They include a $27 million church site at St. Vincent Pallotti, in Haddon Township, Camden County, whose property includes a school that will not be closed - and St. Anthony's Mission in Commercial Township, Cumberland County, assessed at $129,200.
Shocking! The churches the bishop and Roger McGrath wish to close are sitting on properties worth a whole lot of money?! Who would've thought?! It's pretty hard not to notice. A thoroughly researched article by Juliet Fletcher of the AC Press, who does well to expose the obvious. Do give it a read.
Click here to read article.
For your entertainment, we present the comedic Andy Walton (spokesman for the Diocese) statement of the day:
"All parishes have assets. And some have debts," he said. "And sometimes, by merging a financially struggling parish with another one, you create a single, more vibrant one."Voi la! Just like that, we have magic! Amazing. Only in real life, Mr. Walton, it's the parishes that are on financially shaky ground that would be closed, not the ones most financially secure. Kind of like saying -600,000 + 300,000 = vibrant. Huh? Vibrant isn't an answer. It seems like when Mr. Walton and Bishop Galante cannot produce a logical explanation for a decision, they simply insert a "V"-word, like "vibrant" or "vital." Yet there are so many other good "V" words, why limit oneself to only two? Why not try "vigorous," "vociferous," "virtuous," "victorious," or even "vile"?*
The bottom line is, money (ie, financial security) and "vibrancy" ("pulsating with life, vigor, or activity") are unrelated. "More financially secure" might at least have been a more sensible or consistent term to use, but it still does not follow that life can be found where money is. It is unreasonable to assume that a parish community is not "vibrant" because it lacks money. This is called a post hoc (or false cause) fallacy. Of course, many, many of the churches slated for closure--including St. Mary's--are not in debt anyway, and many--such as St. Mary's--have assets, so the premise is false also.
In a way, it's also the fallacy of false dilemma. In the case of church closures, "mergers," etc., many other reasonable options presented by the laity both during and after the "process" have been dismissed out-of-hand and without explanation. In this case, Mr. Walton and the bishop seem to be making the claim that the only reasonable option before us as a diocese, when there is supposedly a problem with finances, is to merge financially unhealthy parishes with financially sound ones, transferring the assets of the one to the other. That, of course, is never the only option, and it certainly is far from being the only good one. And when supposedly lacking priests, they argue, we should reduce parishes and send existing priests out of the diocese. Well why not try what Archbishop Burke did in St. Louis when faced with a similar problem?
But who has time to chronicle all the odd reasoning that comes out of the chancery office? After all, what's going on here has little to do with logic, the guidance of the Holy Ghost, a desire to foster vocations to the priesthood, or a hunger to save souls and bring them closer to Christ and His Church. Sadly, one wonders if anybody listens to or believe Andy Walton anymore? Besides not residing in the diocese or even the state of NJ (he's just a hired PR man, not a concerned member of the diocese), his inconsistent and illogical rhetoric has become comedic at this point. It is sad when the faithful do not feel that they can trust what comes out of the diocese because core church leaders and officials have lost their credibility. Do we even need to comment on the following statement? Do we really need to remind the diocese of the use of false analogies (not to mention ridiculous ones) and fallacious reasoning generally?
"Attachment to the building itself is a reality. They say, when you move ... it's one of those life events that's on a par with a death in the family," he said. "But at the same time, how many of us still live in the house we lived in as children?"HUH?
(By the way, thanks to all of you who sent us the link to this article and for your input. It goes without saying that we must, must, MUST continue to pray for the conversion of the bishop and for God's will to be done above all!)
*Interestingly, there's also the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Victories, who we venerate, but how often to you hear her name being invoked by those in the chancery office?