(Link below.)
Again, the thing the Diocese just doesn't seem to get is that they are not giving any local demographic statistics to justify the trends they say exist. Just because a general trend is occurring nationally doesn't mean that that same trend can be applied to every specific region. This is a basic principle of sociology, of course. But apparently the bishop and Mr. Walton think that if they throw a bunch of numbers out to the population at large they'll be dumb enough to buy it. Many don't trust the bishops after they mishandled the sex abuse scandal or think fighting a bishop is useless since they'll run roughshod over the laity anyway. What difference will these misleading numbers make to them?
As I've said before, here in South Jersey, there are only two urban centers, by definition: Camden and Atlantic City. Even if there is a Catholic exodus from these areas, church closure is not necessarily the answer. At St. Bart's in Camden, for example, which is a parish that was established in particular for the Black Catholic population, parishioners drive from various locations to attend this church. In other words, just because the Catholic population in an area may shift, this does not always mean that the church is underutilized.* People are attached to their churches for many reasons, and it has been shown in recent years that the local (or most geographically expedient) church is not always the one people choose to attend. I myself drive past countless Catholic churches to attend the two churches to which I belong. My neighbors on one side attend one Catholic church, across the street another, and next door to me on the other side yet another. We all live in the same town on the same block and between the four houses we attend five different churches in a total of three different towns. At one church I attend, I don't think I know any parishioner who actually lives in that particular town.
About the most they give us in this article is the following: "Local shifts in population also have occurred." ??? They continue to fail to give any specific information about particular parishes which are situated in areas with significantly decreased Catholic populations. While I'm sure there are a few such parishes, I hardly believe the far-reaching changes the bishop proposes in any way meet the actual statistical data. I am so confident that they are wrong in their conclusions, in fact, that if I had all the time in the world I'd pour over the census data myself. (Unfortunately I have a job and two young children, so I don't anticipate this happening.)
There are at least two things the Diocese, intent on only sociological planning (and poor planning at that) rather than Godly action, have missed altogether:
1. These days, particularly due to the fact that there are churches that do not unapologetically embrace the fullness of the Church's teachings, people will drive to get to a Catholic church they want to and in conscience can attend. St. Mary's and St. Bart's are only two such churches in the diocese. There are definitely others: St. Peter's in Merchantville, the Cathedral in Camden, Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, St. Catherine's in Clayton, St. Lawrence in Lindenwold, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in Absecon, etc.
2. We are to evangelize! We are Christians! The bishop's answer to decreasing numbers of practicing Catholics is to close the churches they were baptized and received the sacraments in? Take away the only church that fallen-away Catholics have any attachment to and you take away their last remaining connection to the faith. Besides this, if population changes are truly occurring to the point where drastic action is needed, that drastic action is evangelization, not church closure!!! Maybe instead of investing all this time and money on how to close down churches and turn a profit from property sales, he should be thinking instead about how to win hearts and minds for Christ and his One, True Church. Fill up those pews again, then, don't take away people's houses of God! (Boy I bet they're glad they didn't pack it in in Europe when church attendance fell away. The tourist trade at all those old churches is quite lucrative.)
In any case, without exerting ourselves, we can use their own information to disprove their argument. In the past, the bishop has talked about major population increases in the Pitman area, for example. In fact, Bishop Galante has on several occasions sung the praises of the evanglelical protestant Gloucester County Community Church. Well GCCC is two blocks from the Pitman line, and yet he wants to close down Our Lady Queen of Peace in Pitman? That makes no sense. In just about every instance I can think of, Galante and McGrath are seeking to close churches in areas where there is significant population growth.
Again, take the Malaga and Waterford areas. Both these areas are experiencing development, population influx not decrease, and yet Galante and McGrath want to close both these churches (St. Mary's and St. Anthony's). The rationale given (among many depending on the day of the week) is that people don't live in these areas anymore and demographics are shifting. Huh? Just goes to show they haven't done their homework and actually explored these geographic areas. Have exploratory/preliminary studies been done? Doesn't seem like it. All you have to do is look around and see houses going up and know people are moving in, not out.
So far as I can tell, the real reason for the destruction of the Diocese is that Galante, McGrath, and Volmer simply do not like traditional Catholic churches, particularly not small ones. It's an issue of preference. They embrace a different model of church altogether and wish to radically change the face of Catholicism in South Jersey. Just look at the churches the bishop seems to like: Gloucester County Community Church and St. John the Evangelist in Naples, FL. One is protestant and the other a liberal McMegachurch. But if they gave their true reasons, who would be behind them? Hardly anyone is now, can you imagine if they were administered a truth serum and were forced to lay bare their real motivations? We must pray for their conversion, it's our best hope and their best hope. Bishop Galante is the bishop of our Diocese, we must pray for his soul and those who will be affected by these actions!
*Of course, while claiming to promote "unity within our diversity," according to the mission statement of the Diocese, Galante plans to close the only Catholic church in the diocese that was established for the Black population. What an insult. But that is another matter.
Read here if you want to waste your time with more propaganda.
Again, the thing the Diocese just doesn't seem to get is that they are not giving any local demographic statistics to justify the trends they say exist. Just because a general trend is occurring nationally doesn't mean that that same trend can be applied to every specific region. This is a basic principle of sociology, of course. But apparently the bishop and Mr. Walton think that if they throw a bunch of numbers out to the population at large they'll be dumb enough to buy it. Many don't trust the bishops after they mishandled the sex abuse scandal or think fighting a bishop is useless since they'll run roughshod over the laity anyway. What difference will these misleading numbers make to them?
As I've said before, here in South Jersey, there are only two urban centers, by definition: Camden and Atlantic City. Even if there is a Catholic exodus from these areas, church closure is not necessarily the answer. At St. Bart's in Camden, for example, which is a parish that was established in particular for the Black Catholic population, parishioners drive from various locations to attend this church. In other words, just because the Catholic population in an area may shift, this does not always mean that the church is underutilized.* People are attached to their churches for many reasons, and it has been shown in recent years that the local (or most geographically expedient) church is not always the one people choose to attend. I myself drive past countless Catholic churches to attend the two churches to which I belong. My neighbors on one side attend one Catholic church, across the street another, and next door to me on the other side yet another. We all live in the same town on the same block and between the four houses we attend five different churches in a total of three different towns. At one church I attend, I don't think I know any parishioner who actually lives in that particular town.
About the most they give us in this article is the following: "Local shifts in population also have occurred." ??? They continue to fail to give any specific information about particular parishes which are situated in areas with significantly decreased Catholic populations. While I'm sure there are a few such parishes, I hardly believe the far-reaching changes the bishop proposes in any way meet the actual statistical data. I am so confident that they are wrong in their conclusions, in fact, that if I had all the time in the world I'd pour over the census data myself. (Unfortunately I have a job and two young children, so I don't anticipate this happening.)
There are at least two things the Diocese, intent on only sociological planning (and poor planning at that) rather than Godly action, have missed altogether:
1. These days, particularly due to the fact that there are churches that do not unapologetically embrace the fullness of the Church's teachings, people will drive to get to a Catholic church they want to and in conscience can attend. St. Mary's and St. Bart's are only two such churches in the diocese. There are definitely others: St. Peter's in Merchantville, the Cathedral in Camden, Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, St. Catherine's in Clayton, St. Lawrence in Lindenwold, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in Absecon, etc.
2. We are to evangelize! We are Christians! The bishop's answer to decreasing numbers of practicing Catholics is to close the churches they were baptized and received the sacraments in? Take away the only church that fallen-away Catholics have any attachment to and you take away their last remaining connection to the faith. Besides this, if population changes are truly occurring to the point where drastic action is needed, that drastic action is evangelization, not church closure!!! Maybe instead of investing all this time and money on how to close down churches and turn a profit from property sales, he should be thinking instead about how to win hearts and minds for Christ and his One, True Church. Fill up those pews again, then, don't take away people's houses of God! (Boy I bet they're glad they didn't pack it in in Europe when church attendance fell away. The tourist trade at all those old churches is quite lucrative.)
In any case, without exerting ourselves, we can use their own information to disprove their argument. In the past, the bishop has talked about major population increases in the Pitman area, for example. In fact, Bishop Galante has on several occasions sung the praises of the evanglelical protestant Gloucester County Community Church. Well GCCC is two blocks from the Pitman line, and yet he wants to close down Our Lady Queen of Peace in Pitman? That makes no sense. In just about every instance I can think of, Galante and McGrath are seeking to close churches in areas where there is significant population growth.
Again, take the Malaga and Waterford areas. Both these areas are experiencing development, population influx not decrease, and yet Galante and McGrath want to close both these churches (St. Mary's and St. Anthony's). The rationale given (among many depending on the day of the week) is that people don't live in these areas anymore and demographics are shifting. Huh? Just goes to show they haven't done their homework and actually explored these geographic areas. Have exploratory/preliminary studies been done? Doesn't seem like it. All you have to do is look around and see houses going up and know people are moving in, not out.
So far as I can tell, the real reason for the destruction of the Diocese is that Galante, McGrath, and Volmer simply do not like traditional Catholic churches, particularly not small ones. It's an issue of preference. They embrace a different model of church altogether and wish to radically change the face of Catholicism in South Jersey. Just look at the churches the bishop seems to like: Gloucester County Community Church and St. John the Evangelist in Naples, FL. One is protestant and the other a liberal McMegachurch. But if they gave their true reasons, who would be behind them? Hardly anyone is now, can you imagine if they were administered a truth serum and were forced to lay bare their real motivations? We must pray for their conversion, it's our best hope and their best hope. Bishop Galante is the bishop of our Diocese, we must pray for his soul and those who will be affected by these actions!
*Of course, while claiming to promote "unity within our diversity," according to the mission statement of the Diocese, Galante plans to close the only Catholic church in the diocese that was established for the Black population. What an insult. But that is another matter.
Read here if you want to waste your time with more propaganda.

