What is wrong with this excerpt and quote from a recent article?
Until parishioners are satisfied with the definition of chapel, their round-the-clock vigil will continue. “There hasn’t been a final resolution of all the issues yet, therefore the vigil is continuing,” Ryan said. “It will (continue) until there is final resolution to all of the issues.”
They’re talking about St. Anselm parish in Sudbury, Mass.,, one of the original sit-in parishes.
They were originally put on the list of parishes to close, and then four months ago were told that the church would stay open as a chapel of a nearby parish. Unfortunately, the protesters don’t seem to understand what a chapel is, and think they’re going to be re-opened as a parish.
The problem with the quote above is that it has the roles reversed. You don’t get to dictate terms of governance to the archbishop while retaining the right to call yourself a Catholic in good standing. Yes, there are times when legitimate dissent is possible, and even appropriate, but here they’re telling the archbishop that until he bends over all the way, they’re going to remain right where they are.
They’re also basing part of their appeal to Vatican on the Diocese of Spokane’s bankruptcy case that claims that parishes aren’t owned by the bishop under canon law, but are independent juridic persons. Yes, they are juridic persons, but it doesn’t put them outside the bishop’s authority to open or close them. After all, if the archbishop doesn’t have authority to close or otherwise modify a parish, then under what circumstances would any parish be closed or modified? Silly.