Phil Lawler of Catholic World News grouses about the parish closings in his e-mail today:
Closing parishes might solve the superficial problem, by saving money. But it doesn't solve the deeper problem. If there's a long-term plan in place for revitalizing the archdiocese-- getting ordinary Catholics back to church-- I haven't heard about it.I don't want to lump Phil in with some of my fellow parishioners, but they make the same complaint too, and in their case I call it whining, because they speak of long-term efforts to preach the gospel and re-convert the lapsed faithful as a substitute for consolidating parishes.
That's a losing proposal from the start: instead of correcting real current problems with overextended priests and underfunded, underattended parishes, it tells everybody to keep paying and praying, and tells Father to keep saying four Masses on Sunday, and makes the future of the Church dependent on the return of people who have left the Church!
Look, miracles are great, and a substantial re-conversion of lapsed Catholics would be one, but to base the Church's pastoral strategy on them would be somewhere between irresponsibility and presumption.
RC, I disagree.
The Church in Boston is in the sorry state it is in large part because it has failed to heed the core message of the Second Vatican Council, which was to evangelize. Instead, those laymen who are involved in the Church's mission tend to be involved in parish-centered ministry instead of world centered outreach and evangelism. The laity have been clericalized and few do the job of the laity.
Without a long-term plan for revitalizing the life of the Church here in Boston, we'll just face another round of parish closings in 15-20 years, because the cause of the problem won't be dealt with...a failure to do God's will and to promote the sanctification of the members and the evangelization of the world.
The only problem, Steve, is that while any re-evangelization effort goes on, the buildings have to be maintained, heating bills paid, parish staff paid, etc. You're correct that there needs to be a massive effort at re-evangelization--led by a passionately believing, faithful bishop.
O'Malley has probably looked at his presbyterate, which to my reading has the ho-hum evangelical fervor one finds in most dioceses, and figured, this train isn't going anywhere fast. Of course O'Malley should be offering the example of strong ardor for the faith, but changing an organization's culture takes time.
Finally, I'm still convinced that O'Malley is simply planning ahead for further homosex-predator-priest scandal costs. The $85 million settlement was with 400 specific victims; Geoghan alone had at least 130. Many victims don't report for 10 or 20 years, and the '60s and 70's St. John's ordination classes have had lots of time to offend since most of the current victims were molested.
There could literally be *hundreds of millions of dollars* in further settlement costs out of Boston alone. O'Malley may just be planning for that scenario; he may well have no other option.