As bad as parish closings in the Boston archdiocese, they haven’t been handled nearly as badly as this one in the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic.
But worshipers at what is believed to be the oldest Hungarian Byzantine parish on the East Coast said they were devastated by the announcement last Sunday that the church was closing. But what happened next, they said, was unconscionable. Moments after the announcement was made, armed guards emerged from the sacristies to escort worshipers from their spiritual home. When she saw the guards, “I felt like I was in a Communist country,” said JoAnn Manzo, one of the startled parishioners.
It’s one thing to try to remove people who have been illegally occupying a building for months, but it’s another to surprise them at the end of the liturgy and send in armed guards to remove them as if they were penniless rabble being evicted by a cruel landlord.
Parishioners said they had heard of financial troubles for two years or more. But they said fund-raising went into high gear last March, when Malitz announced there were thousands of dollars worth of bills and insufficient funds to meet them.
Boucher said one congregant promptly wrote out a $5,000 check to cover the bills, but the parishioners were not allowed to see those or any subsequent ones. Parishioners said their wishes to rein in costs, such as by keeping the heat at 55 degrees, were ignored, and that the eparchy and Malitz rebuffed their efforts to review the financial situation. “This didn’t have to happen,” Christopher Gombos of Fairfield, another lifelong parishioner, said of the closing. “It happened because they wanted it to occur, like a show of power.”
At least Archbishop Sean O’Malley explained his reasoning for parish closings several times. However, I have to say that a couple of the closings in Boston seemed nearly as arbitrary. If you’re going to close a parish, you have to delineate the reasons why that particular one was closed. You owe the people at least that much.
When you think past the trivial cases, do you really want them to be _that_ in-your-face candid about the whys and wherefores of the decision making process?
I’m not sure all the reasons _are_ going to be ones that would be charitable or unalienating in themselves, since a lot of them may involve judgement calls: “We can get more money for this one than the other one”. “Ugly architecture.” “Side altars too trans-SoVII to tolerate.” “I finally had to flip a coin.” All of which are endlessly ‘arguable’ for a decision that just has to be made.
This story from another paper mentions that the parish population was down to 40 families. That may be the reason.
JRP,
They are arguable, and redeemable, that is why one discusses such things rather than having arbitrary decision making by Bishops.
In most cases, a decision does not “just have to be made”. There are churches in Florence that were dormant for hundreds of years, that are again glorious and busy. There are Churches in Avignon that were turned into stables, before being restored.
Some calm decision making and plans are generally a much better methodology than flashing guns at the flock.
I can recall a few Polish Parishes here in Chicago where there were guns flashed by the hierarchy, where it turned out the parishoners were also armed. Generally not a good thing to happen in a Church.
JBP
Two things.
First, Pataki is known to be… well, a unique personality. Several years ago he made “provisional” alterations to the liturgical text for divine liturgy in his eparchy (diocese). This would normally take place at the metropolitan provincial level.
Second, from what I’ve observed of Byzantine Catholics in the last twenty-plus years, His Immenseness probably guessed his people would roll over and play dead no matter what he did.
Armed guards—now there’s something that won’t be forgotten. It should rank with the “celibacy wars” of the 1920s.