What's Going On?
Since what we're talking about is essentially political and not religious, and in this, an election year, it seems especially relevant to use the politically loaded word "waffle" to describe diocesan positions these days. In any case, there's good news, folks. Or bad, depending on how it goes and what the current "status" of your church is. Looks like, despite every indication to the contrary thus far, that the merger plans are not set in stone after all!
Priest Conveners Calling the Shots?
If you examine the words in the paragraphs below, you'll see that Msgr. Joyce indicates that the "priest conveners" (soon to be announced) will be ultimately recommending which churches will be closed or "merged." So those of you whose church is called a "primary" or "secondary" worship site," look out! Thought your parish was "safe"? Think again. There are already rumors circulating regarding particular priest conveners who intend to switch worship sites and close churches other than the ones previously planned. We'll have to wait and see if these rumors are true.Those of you whose churches are "secondary worship sites" or slated for closure as victims of a "merger," take heart! Soon you will know who your "priest convener" is. Since the decision will be left largely to him--but only "after consultation with the merging parishes"--looks like you can speak to him, write him, email him, call him, arrange meetings with him, and do whatever it is that is necessary in order to keep your parish open. Take action!
Remember, Msgr. Joyce indicates that the "consultation with the merging parishes" is part of the "process," so do take advantage of it. (At least until next time, when Joyce, McGrath, Vollmer, Galante and company decide to switch things up yet again. It's so hard to keep up. Who knows from one day to the next!?)
From Msgr. Joyce
Excerpt from Certification of Reverend Monsignor Peter M. Joyce, J.C.L., V.E. dated August 14, 2008 (emphases ours.)
Take St. Bart's, for Example
Here is an example of the waffling we're already seeing. Quoting from Bishop Galante's June 23, 2008 letter to the community at St. Bart's in Camden, a historic African-American parish:
The question remains, though, why exactly would you "merge" two parishes who will retain their own names, their own characters and "missions" (as the bishop calls it earlier in the letter), and their own structures? What is the purpose of this particular "merger," we wonder, if no merger is truly taking place? Why not just let the churches be as they are, both assets to the diocese as a whole and each with the right to exist under canon law. We will eventually find out the true reasons why all this is taking place, but for now we must use the information at our disposal.
At the time of the announcement, St. Bart's was to be merged with St. Joan's, with St. Joan's as the worship site. Now they are both to be worship sites? One can only conclude that, somehow, money is an issue and the "sharing" of funds from one church with the next. But "by no means should one church be singled out to be sacrificed to save another," say concerned parishioners at St. Bartholomew's. We completely agree.
Unpopular to Say the Least
Given the lack of support for the anti-evangelistic church closure program, it's no small wonder that those in the chancery offices are taking a second look at the practicality of accomplishing their destructive and highly controversial goals. We at the COP suppose it's got to be pretty hard to implement the biggest diocesan take-down in the history of the U.S. Catholic Church when--witnessing corruption, apparent ulterior motives, and inconsistent rhetoric--no one agrees with it.
(Thanks again to those of you who submitted the above information to us.)
Since what we're talking about is essentially political and not religious, and in this, an election year, it seems especially relevant to use the politically loaded word "waffle" to describe diocesan positions these days. In any case, there's good news, folks. Or bad, depending on how it goes and what the current "status" of your church is. Looks like, despite every indication to the contrary thus far, that the merger plans are not set in stone after all!
Priest Conveners Calling the Shots?
If you examine the words in the paragraphs below, you'll see that Msgr. Joyce indicates that the "priest conveners" (soon to be announced) will be ultimately recommending which churches will be closed or "merged." So those of you whose church is called a "primary" or "secondary" worship site," look out! Thought your parish was "safe"? Think again. There are already rumors circulating regarding particular priest conveners who intend to switch worship sites and close churches other than the ones previously planned. We'll have to wait and see if these rumors are true.Those of you whose churches are "secondary worship sites" or slated for closure as victims of a "merger," take heart! Soon you will know who your "priest convener" is. Since the decision will be left largely to him--but only "after consultation with the merging parishes"--looks like you can speak to him, write him, email him, call him, arrange meetings with him, and do whatever it is that is necessary in order to keep your parish open. Take action!
Remember, Msgr. Joyce indicates that the "consultation with the merging parishes" is part of the "process," so do take advantage of it. (At least until next time, when Joyce, McGrath, Vollmer, Galante and company decide to switch things up yet again. It's so hard to keep up. Who knows from one day to the next!?)
From Msgr. Joyce
Excerpt from Certification of Reverend Monsignor Peter M. Joyce, J.C.L., V.E. dated August 14, 2008 (emphases ours.)
Bishop Galante has announced his intention to join together several parishes in the Malaga/Newfield/Landisville area. This statement of intention is, in essence, a tentative plan of action and must await the appointment of - and recommendation from -a priest/convener who is charged to pastorally assemble the merging parishes. The priest/convener is appointed by the bishop to recommend to him - after consultation with the merging parishes - the location of potential worship sites, including the continuation of existing worship sites, the locations to be utilized for liturgical functions, and the request that the merging parishes be designated as a new canonical juridic person.
The final decision as to whether St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church of Malaga, N.J., will be joined with another parish or parishes to form a new parish, whether the church building at St. Mary's will remain open as a worship site where Sunday Masses would be celebrated, where sacraments such as Confirmation and Holy Matrimony would be administered, and where para-liturgical ceremonies would be conducted will await the consultation of the priest/convener with the respective parishes involved in the planned merger and the final decision of the Bishop of the Diocese. Indeed, even then, that decision is subject to appeal through the canonical courts.
Take St. Bart's, for Example
Here is an example of the waffling we're already seeing. Quoting from Bishop Galante's June 23, 2008 letter to the community at St. Bart's in Camden, a historic African-American parish:
Again, I am concerned that a misunderstanding has led you to believe that I suggested a closure of St. Bartholomew's. In fact, it is my intention that St. Bartholomew's and St. Joan of Arc would serve as worship sites for the Black Catholic community, and retain their own name and would be used as worship sites for this newly merged community.Well if the parishioners at St. Bart's misunderstood, surely all of us have. Perhaps all of us can retain our own names and be used as "worship sites."
The question remains, though, why exactly would you "merge" two parishes who will retain their own names, their own characters and "missions" (as the bishop calls it earlier in the letter), and their own structures? What is the purpose of this particular "merger," we wonder, if no merger is truly taking place? Why not just let the churches be as they are, both assets to the diocese as a whole and each with the right to exist under canon law. We will eventually find out the true reasons why all this is taking place, but for now we must use the information at our disposal.
At the time of the announcement, St. Bart's was to be merged with St. Joan's, with St. Joan's as the worship site. Now they are both to be worship sites? One can only conclude that, somehow, money is an issue and the "sharing" of funds from one church with the next. But "by no means should one church be singled out to be sacrificed to save another," say concerned parishioners at St. Bartholomew's. We completely agree.
Unpopular to Say the Least
Given the lack of support for the anti-evangelistic church closure program, it's no small wonder that those in the chancery offices are taking a second look at the practicality of accomplishing their destructive and highly controversial goals. We at the COP suppose it's got to be pretty hard to implement the biggest diocesan take-down in the history of the U.S. Catholic Church when--witnessing corruption, apparent ulterior motives, and inconsistent rhetoric--no one agrees with it.
(Thanks again to those of you who submitted the above information to us.)