That's what religion will do for ya...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17516

Keep On Keepin' On!

JW

The St. Margaret's stuff is a cheap shot; as cartoonish as the action being railed against.

yes, but...

There does seem to be some truth in the general theme that the archdiocese lacks any sort of imagination in its thinking about how to nurture congregations in these areas--or is that too much to expect? One wise priest has said that the Catholic Church does well in preparing its priests in how to shut down churches but little in how to keep them open. In terms of some of the specific churches, it is unclear what exactly the issue is:

*is it the declining number of Catholics, a trend occurring nationwide although sprawl is clustering increasing numbers in the underserved hinterlands;
*the declining number of priests, although in most churches laity plays an increasingly important role;
*declining financial support for local parishes from contributions or inability of the parish to pay the cathedrum.

The inability of the archidiocese to create new models of parish--beyond the megaparish approaches--is hampered by policies, doctrinally or otherwise. Certainly standing in the way was the recent Vatican ruling that tightened restrictions on which sort of laity can service the mass (gender, basically) and the forms of appropriate worship. Having said that, there have been some interesting and novel approaches to these issues emerging from the parishes themselves--for example, St. John and St. Mary of Victories suggestion that they continue to operate their parishes separately, given their status as historic churches that drawn broadly--a daunting task, but along the lines philosophically with Boston congregations that are contesting ownership of the parish with their archdiocese. Such a position challenges the archdiocese to think of parishes as only as boundaries and real estate and more as living organisms that can't just be moved.

Besides, Joe can be given a break in this case and the date of his impending nuptials draws closer..

Will

What was Joe's position when Roberti was closing schools all over the N. side? Citizens also rely on schools as an anchor in thier community.

First, some questions:
I still haven't seen a comprehensive list of how parishes are being consolidated. Does anyone know if it has been made public?

Are these still at a "draft" stage with more time for parish input, or is this a final list of recomendations being presented to the Archbishop for approval? (My understanding was that this is still a draft proposal. If so, the wailing and gnashing of teeth might be a bit premature. When parishes in Northwest county were consolidated about three years ago, All Saints Parish and St. Rita's parish in University City both received a reprieve between the draft stage and the final decision.)

Now, some comments:
I believe this process is driven partly by money (it is expensive to maintain and heat older half-empty churches) but mostly by the current and impending shortage of priests. My understanding is that almost all of of these parishes are "making it" financially. Simply running a church is not terribly expensive (though a major expense like a bad roof or boiler replacement might put some parishes "over the edge.")

The real financial drain on the parishes over the years has been the schools. Tuition alone cannot begin to cover the costs of salaries, etc. So the parishes have heavily subsidized the operation of their schools. This financial strain has been lightened a bit the last few years as the Archdiocese has closed a number of schools and moved to more of a "regional school" model with one school serving several parishes.

The most scarce resource for the Archdiocese now is its priests. St. Louis has been relatively lucky in this regard. We have a higher ratio of "priests to Catholics" than many similar dioceses and a large number of Jesuits, Dominicans, Francisicans, etc. who also help run some of the parishes in the area. But reality is cathcing up with us. The number of priests reaching retirment age is rapidly increasing, and there simply are not enough seminarians being ordained to replace them.

It's hard for the Archdiocese to justify having 35 parishes (each with a pastor and many with an associate pastor) in South St. Louis where the Catholic population is declining, while outlying areas (e.g. St. Charles County with 19 parishes) have fewer parishes and a growing Catholic population.

I believe that maintaining a strong presence in urban neighborhoods and serving the vulnerable populations that live there is a critical component of the Church's mission, even if the Catholic population of the area is declining. But it's hard to do that while also serving the spiritual needs of parishoners in suburban areas.

There are several ways of trying to deal with the priest shortage. On a very broad level, the universal church needs to have a serious discussion about the possibility of married priests and women priests. But the Vatican is absolutely opposed to even a discussion of such radical steps. More moderate steps might include allowing broader lay participation in the Mass (though hardline conservatives argue that this might actually WORSEN the priest shortage by making confusing the role of the priest and the laity and making the priests role less meaningful) or allowing women deacons (an idea that seems to have been seriously contemplated by the Vatican in the 1970's.)

Any of this, though, would require a a pretty substantial shift of thinking in Rome and seems unlikely to happen in time to save parishes in South St. Louis. Meanwhile, we should look at what some other dioceses in the United States are already doing to maintain active parishes in the face of a declining number of priests. A handful of dioceses have some parishes without a priest/pastor but instead have a deacon, nun, or a trained lay person serve as "pastoral administrator." This individual handles all of the financial and administrative aspects of running the parish. He or she may even take on many of the pastoral duties of visiting the sick, pastoral counseling, etc. Visting priest, who may serve two, three, or four parishes, come to say Mass and administer the sacraments.

Again, hardline conservatives will probably be opposed to such an idea. And given Archbishop Burke's reaction to the situation at St. Stanislaus, I doubt he will be a supporter of greater lay control over parishes. But I think it's time for Catholics to start thinking and talking about creative ways to maintain active parishes in the face of a declining number of priests while respecting current Vatican regulations.

I agree, Tim. baring an unlikely decentralization in archdiocese/parish relations--which most parishes aren't ready for--then the best next steps is for hybrids in managing parishes without a 24 7 priest. Isn't this largely how parishes function anyway? However, even that may seem to great of an advance for church leaders. The problem is not just that archdiocesan leadership is conservative, but also that they lack imagination. Closing churches in areas with declining church attendance--but not religiousity, another issue--is likely the easiest choice, particularly when the alternatives chip away at the standard of diocesan control over church property. But that is what several Boston churches are contesting--so far unsuccessfully. It is interesting to see what traction that idea might have in St. Louis.

Is it unconceivable that Catholic schools could find some future in education of non-Catholics primarily? That is certainly the case of the Catholic school in my area.

Will

Well, I guess local Catholics can either continue to whine and go along or look to other Catholic parishes for some new answers.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/09/13/2d_vigil_seeks_to_halt_church_closing/

Will