Beacons of Light: How do I stop it (from bringing bad)?

In a number of parishes, there is great anxiety and frustration about how the "Beacons of Light" reorganization and evangelization-preparation plan is unfolding. Folks are alarmed at the prospect of their particular parish-corporation* being on track to be merged into a new, larger parish-corporation, with several parish churches all part of one legal entity.

I've tried to explain at length that for pastors -- who are tasked with administering multiple parish-corporations, embracing multiple churches and communities of people -- it is almost certainly necessary to replace separate legal structures with a combined one, along with combining staffs and other parts of the operation, such as key commissions and programs, or else those pastors will fail. They will either fail through impossible exertion, or through neglect, or through silent, unseen abdication. Note this: any of these outcomes means that the person you assume is doing a key job, is not doing it. The harm done will be invisible until it suddenly comes into view, and you, the people of the parish, will be hit the hardest.

So, however much you may prefer the status quo -- your particular parish community and parish-corporation stands alone -- that is no longer possible once your parish (people, corporation and buildings) share a pastor with another parish (people, corporation and buildings). And you can want to have another priest arrive to be pastor, or you can hope that someday, lay administrators will replace pastors, but until then, once two or more parishes (people, corporation and buildings) share a single pastor, the status quo you want no longer exists. At that point, you can either have a good handling of this sharing, or a bad handling of it. But there will be sharing.

Still, I get that people are concerned. They don't trust any promises; and there are no guarantees (hint: there weren't before Beacons, by the way). Many people respond simply by protesting, organizing petition drives, hoping to stall the project. Many people are circulating very dark explanations, which only makes things worse. Certainly people have the right to know, the right to ask (ask a lot, I say!), and they can speak out in opposition, but I reiterate: the status quo you want -- your particular parish-community, parish-buildings and parish-corporations to stand alone -- is gone, once you share a pastor with another parish (community/building/corporation). The pastor and those assisting him will either lead well, or poorly, and however cooperative and open to change folks are, will make almost all the difference in whether it goes well...or poorly.

(To be clear: I don't take the position that Beacons is ideal or perfectly executed. I was critical at an earlier stage. I wish it had never been necessary. I'm not blind to negatives. But this is what we have, and the problems to which it is a response are REAL.)

So what can you do, if you are concerned? What do I recommend?

Well, not to belabor the point, but certainly you can resist. The faithful have far more power than many realize. You can withhold your time, your contributions and your presence. You can do a lot to slow things down and make the whole process painful. And don't misunderstand me: sometimes those are exactly the right things to do. I will leave it to you to contemplate how productive that will be.

I do caution you to consider that there is a very real chance that the fate you fear is made more likely by such resistance. If any of the parish-corporations that had stood alone (but is now being included into planned, larger corporation) has limited resources -- money and people in particular -- then delaying tactics probably won't help the future of that beloved community and church. It isn't that complicated: if facilities are not being cared for, and funds and the people who contribute them are slipping away, do you really think standing aloof gives the most hope for the future? Wouldn't two things -- sharing resources and shifting as soon and as fully as possible to evangelization (i.e., refilling the pews and coffers) -- be the obvious best move? You do realize those two things I bolded above, are what Beacons is all about?

So what can you do?

1. Ask questions -- that is, of actual decision-makers and those directly involved (as opposed to others who have the same questions you do). I do what I can to answer questions for folks in other families of parishes, but I can't speak for their pastors. 

2. Read more. Some people say they have read everything and aren't satisfied. I believe at least some people have done that; I suspect most have not. I also buy that in many places, not enough information has been shared; but again, if you haven't read all that is available, at least part of it is on you. And, if you say you don't have time to read more, attend more meetings, or otherwise get more involved, that's understandable, I'm not saying that's your fault, but that's not someone else's fault. If you make a choice to focus energy elsewhere, that is, indeed, a choice you've made.

3. Be constructive. If you can't have the "good old days," then spell out what you think the "not-so-bad new days" look like. It's so easy to complain and criticize; it's a lot harder to have to propose a solution. Once you put your proposal next to someone else's, it can become clearer why you got the proposals you did. "Huh! Now I see how we ended up here."

4. Discuss with the pastor and others in lay leadership what structures would give you confidence -- and be prepared to give when you see what you asked for.

In my family of parishes, our priests and lay leadership are all committed to maintaining as many options as we reasonably can for programs, for religious education, for our youth, for adult faith formation, the whole shebang. Our staff is identifying a long list of deferred maintenance, and before too long, everyone will see the list, and together, will develop a plan. But of course, it will all need parishioner support. Wouldn't repairing and improving parish facilities particularly beloved to you be an outcome you would want strongly?

Here's another thing we are going to do: create funds for each of our campuses, for our school, and a general fund, and we will encourage folks to put their money where they wish. They can do that now, with legally separate parish-corporations; the point of these funds is to safeguard donors' wishes after the three parish-corporations become one parish-corporation. If there are funds available for the maintenance of each campus, doesn't that make the future for those particular buildings, and the people who love them, more secure?

Look, if someone has an alternative that doesn't involve asking pastors to helm multiple parishes, in order to maintain the illusion those parishes (corporation/people/buildings) are actually standing alone even when they are not, I'm all ears. (Repeat: once multiple parishes share a pastor indefinitely, they are no longer "on their own" even if you think they are.) 

But all I've seen so far is either denial, or blame, or expecting pastors to do the impossible (while not grasping that what they want actually is impossible -- which I've tried to explain; read earlier posts), or else some version of parishes being neglectfully pastored, or else actually lay-administered. 

If what you want is a new attempt at trusteeism, at least be open about advocating it. I don't believe anyone actually wants parishes run neglectfully; I just think people are in denial about how often that happens, because the damage isn't obvious till later, so cause-and-effect is hard to see. Sometimes the most neglectful pastors are very popular!

* A note on verbiage: the term "parish" can mean different things to most people, either the people, the buildings -- particularly the church -- and the legal corporation that is associated with the first two meanings. To avoid confusion, I'll use terms like "parish-people," "parish-corporation" and "parish church" to be as clear as possible.