People more attached to their buildings than the Church continue to look for ways to avoid the inevitable. Today, it’s the people in wealthy Concord, Massachusetts, who are asking their town to seize their parish church by eminent domain or otherwise restrict the property because they think such totalitarian, unconstitutional tactics will pressure the Archdiocese of Boston to keep their parish open. It’s not going to happen.
They can steal the church through eminent domain. They can make it a national historic landmark. Whatever they do, it won’t force the Archbishop of Boston to put a priest there or call it a parish. The problem with all these groups is that they assume that Archbishop O’Malley’s first concern is the money to be gained from selling the property. It isn’t and I think there’s a bit of projection here on their parts. Remember, he’s a very observant Franciscan. Money is way down on his list of worries. The parishes must be closed to meet different needs.
So even if these towns succeed in stealing from the Church, and if they succeed in convincing the federal courts that this isn’t a violation of the First Amendment, it won’t change a single thing. They need to grow up and accept reality and realize that the Church is bigger than their own little parish.
Many years ago when I lived in England outside London, I would visit Anglican churches in the city. Some were ; decisions are in the hands of other people and
not in my hands.”
I don’t see a problem with them wanting to preserve the property. Of course, I can’t imagine why exactly the town couldn’t just wait until the Archdiocese puts it up for sale and then buy it from them that way, rather than using legal strategies such as historic districting.
Bryan,
these are the same tactics being used elsewhere in the archdiocese to attempt to pressure the archbishop to either keep the parish open or to get it for themselves so they can have some kind of “independent” parish. The pastor could be a good guy who knows the reality or just doesn’t want to say anything either to alienate the people or anger “The Boss.”
What he’s saying is, I don’t want to get into the middle of this.
so they can have some kind of2004-09-18 15:04:24
This, like so many things Catholic, is baffling to me, a convert.
The bishop has every right to close a church as he sees fit because he has to staff them with priests under his jurisdiction. I don’t have a problem with that.
I think the Catholic church is more than buildings, so I don’t have a problem with closing one if it isn’t staffed by a priest. In fact, it should be closed and un-consecrated as a Catholic church in EVERY CASE where a priest cannot administer it. I don’t think lay associates or whatever they are called should be used EVER.
But whose building, technically, is it? Hasn’t the real estate been bought and maintained by someone?? If so, they should have title to the un-consecrated building after the closing, it seems to me.
Unless and until the Catholic church gets into the business of actually building and maintaining real estate for themselves, without direct donation, it should not receive automatic deed. That is, unless at some point along the way the real estate was actually legally given or sold to the diocese. That may have been the case, I don’t know that. Do you?
BTW, schismatics and wannabees will stake out some of the buildings. There’s nothing you can do about that in this day and age. They will operate if they have to do it out of a garage. Deal with it. Or let God. You can’t stop them.
Thomas, the SSPX is the least of our problems. They’re not the raving loons who want to destroy the doctrine of the Catholic church, piece by piece. They’re simply resisting the destruction and that is so politically charged, they’re out there. We shun such truth-tellers because we don’t want to admit what has happened to the church.
I’m not SSPX, but when they are maligned it makes me a little crazy because they’re only resisting what the rest of us mourn on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, it appears that there are schismatic “Catholic” sects waiting in the wings to set up shop in these churches. We’ve already seen it in Salem. The archdiocese closed St. Mary’s parish, and sold the property to a local Protestant church to use for its homeless shelter, and they’re letting a schismatic group use it for their “Mass.” It’s something called the apostolic Catholic church or something. Basically, they allow women and married priests and abortion, contraception, and the rest is okay too.
I wouldn’t be surprised, if some of these other groups convince a judge to give them ownership of the chuches, that one of these guys shows up in those towns.
Just looking around on the web, I found info on 8 “faith communities” in the Boston area with services conducted by married ex-priests or even dissenters officially in ‘good standing’. They meet in community centers, hotels, members’ homes, non-Catholic church buildings, and even a Masonic hall in Framingham. No doubt there are more.
Sounds like CORPUS at work, RC. They’re here in the Milwaukee and Midwest area also, with assorted websites where you can ‘rent a priest’ – or a ‘church’.
Sheesh – so to speak.
Just as a side note for the those not living in the Bay State: Concord, Sudbury and Wellesley are all well to do bedroom communities just west of Boston.
A friend’s parish in Marlboro closed and I think people are angry but they’ve mostly threatened to defect to Worcester Diocese.
I suppose if my parish closed I’d be furious but then again I might temper my fury by asking myself…how many people have I evangelized?, did I tithe?, did I say novenas and rosaries for vocations? Did I avoid birth control and fill that parish with my children?
The question is, do these parishioners have that type of introspection?
On the independent chapels: doesn’t sound like the SSPX will be setting up a chapel anytime soon.
This, like so many things Catholic, is baffling to me, a convert.
The bishop has every right to close a church as he sees fit because he has to staff them with priests under his jurisdiction. I don’t have a problem with that.
I think the Catholic church is more than buildings, so I don’t have a problem with closing one if it isn’t staffed by a priest. In fact, it should be closed and un-consecrated as a Catholic church in EVERY CASE where a priest cannot administer it. I don’t think lay associates or whatever they are called should be used EVER.
But whose building, technically, is it? Hasn’t the real estate been bought and maintained by someone?? If so, they should have title to the un-consecrated building after the closing, it seems to me.
Unless and until the Catholic church gets into the business of actually building and maintaining real estate for themselves, without direct donation, it should not receive automatic deed. That is, unless at some point along the way the real estate was actually legally given or sold to the diocese. That may have been the case, I don’t know that. Do you?
BTW, schismatics and wannabees will stake out some of the buildings. There’s nothing you can do about that in this day and age. They will operate if they have to do it out of a garage. Deal with it. Or let God. You can’t stop them.
Thomas, the SSPX is the least of our problems. They’re not the raving loons who want to destroy the doctrine of the Catholic church, piece by piece. They’re simply resisting the destruction and that is so politically charged, they’re out there. We shun such truth-tellers because we don’t want to admit what has happened to the church.
I’m not SSPX, but when they are maligned it makes me a little crazy because they’re only resisting what the rest of us mourn on a daily basis.
Unless and until the Catholic church gets into the business of actually building and maintaining real estate for themselves, without direct donation, it should not receive automatic deed.
I think you are proceeding from a false understanding of what the Catholic Church is. The Church is not some other. The Church is all of us: the parishioners of the closed church, the rest of the people of the archdiocese, all Catholics around the world, every priest, bishop, deacon, and layperson.
The Church is in the “business” of building and maintaining real estate: every Catholic church in the world. When parishioners donate money to build a church, they are not buying shares in it, they are giving their money and goods for the whole of the Church.
Re-read the Acts of the Apostles for a clear, early Church view of this at work.
BTW, schismatics and wannabees will stake out some of the buildings.217;mtaking my marbles and going home.” It doesn’t belong to us any more, but neither does it belong to the bishop alone. He holds it in trust for every Catholic in the diocese.
If the church is not some *other,* how does it happen that so many things are done in our name, against our fundamental understandings and wills?
But in order not to completely lose face, we’ll invite the president’s father, a former president himself, and another prominent Democrat (who may or may not be pro-abortion; I don’t know him.)
Here’s what the official archdiocesan spokesman says:
God forbid that we should provoke divisiveness and disagreement over abortion. Instead, it’s most important that we all look like we get along.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34)
]]>http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1998-01-02/prolife.html
But, Dom, if you have someone in your family who continually overextends your VISA balance way beyond your ability to ever pay, do you keep giving them your card with a smile?
No, I never said that. But my point is that it doesn’t make him any less a part of the family. I was responding to your challenge of the Church not being an other.
Oh, if I had someone in my family misusing my VISA card and expecting me to pay for it, they’d still be a member of my family all right. And I’d have their butt in a sling. That’s all I’m saying.
It applies, 100% here too. They are family. And we can deal with family.
Dom, if you want to see an instance of people really stealing from the Church, just click on the link to this story:
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/02/cover-arellano.php
The problem here is that we think the Catholic church is a family. Dom thinks so. I think so. I think even Joseph here thinks so. BUT obviously the bishop of Orange, CA, and most of the rest of the bishops are having trouble with the concept.
Maybe they need the lecture. How do you get them to take it seriously though? Maybe we could starve them into it? Or ignore them into it? Or sue them til they *have* to behave enough to catch on? Any suggestions?