Don't agree?
Explain why keeping parishes stand-alone led by pastors either exhausted and cynical from impossible expectations, or otherwise neglectful as a coping mechanism, serves the good of said parishes.
Don't understand?
Read all posts on my blog about Beacons. Tell me what you don't find clear.
Forcing pastors into unworkable situations doesn't help them succeed. Why is that so hard to fathom?
Do you prefer the pastor be an employee of the laity? Then say so explicitly.
Contrary to the claims being made in some parts of the Archdiocese, blocking the legal consolidation of parishes does not make unwanted outcomes - such as, your beloved church becoming a brewpub - less likely. It may make it more likely.
Don't agree? Make your case!
13 comments:
You are, of course, correct. It is a moment for emotional growth for us.
Please remember when lamenting the challenges of pastoring a cluster of parishes that clustering nearly all of the parishes in the archdiocese was not “our” idea. This came from the priests, archbishop, and consulting firm – not the laity. We sympathize with the difficulty of pastoring clusters and would love to have a pastor for each church or two, even if they aren’t “pastor-ready,” because we want fathers that we know and see, not CEO’s that are great at running organizations. If our pastor can be both a loving father and a great CEO, awesome. But if we have to choose, we’ll take the loving father. Uncluster the parishes. Our vicars are not so un-pastor ready and bungling that they will be worse than exhausted, cynical, or neglectful pastors. Make more vicars pastors. We are lamenting the loss of connection to our pastors (and vicars), not because we are against our priests, but because we want our relationships with them restored. I do not prefer the pastor to be an employee of the laity, and I am not sure who is proposing this. Is this a straw man? We have been told that the origin for Beacons was a meeting of the priests who already had clusters and they were unanimous in identifying the challenges in pastoring clusters. So the solution was to make more clusters? And then say it is horrible because now they are all clustered? I know that somehow it was determined that there are only about 60 pastor-ready priests and that’s how the number of parishes was determined, but what are the metrics by which pastor-ready priests are evaluated? One mentioned is time since ordination, but this is hard to understand since many experienced pastors were demoted to vicars while many recent ordinands were promoted to pastor. And because of Beacons, they were not only given their first pastorates, but were given suddenly large families of parishes and told to supervise this process which was predictably going to be difficult. I do not know if you are referring to the northern part of the archdiocese in “claims being made in some parts of the Archdiocese,” but at least here the efforts are focused on presenting alternatives (which have been either ignored or denied) and following the process the Church provides. I understand if attendance, support and ministry decline, a church building might be closed, but we are not advocating stopping attendance, support, or ministry. We suspect attendance, support and ministry will decline if Beacons progresses in our area and we do not want this to happen. We are fortunate to have so many priests serving us who have a proper attention to following the guidance of the Church in doctrine, liturgical celebration, and morals, but seem upset that we are following the guidance of the Church in how the laity can respond to this situation. Why are we being threatened that if we exercise our rights and duties as laity through the channels that the Church provides, we might just get our churches closed? Submitted with love, respect, and prayers.
Christina:
Thanks for your comment! I hope you won't mind if I respond?
You say:
Please remember when lamenting the challenges of pastoring a cluster of parishes that clustering nearly all of the parishes in the archdiocese was not “our” idea. This came from the priests, archbishop, and consulting firm – not the laity.
First, no pastor I know of ever proposed taking over more than one parish. If you actually believe it was priests who wanted this, name them, and I will pay a $100 per name to a charity we both can agree on.
Second, do you suppose Archbishop Schnurr woke up one day, and thought, "Golly, everything seems to be going along so well. I am bored. So I will launch a reorganization drive that will scramble everything..."
My point being, don't you see that what is happening did not come out of the blue? It came as a result of . . . wait for it . . . PROBLEMS. And not just little or occasional ones. But LOTS OF PROBLEMS. Pause here, please: and contemplate that. What sort of PROBLEMS, and how many, do you imagine reached the attention of the Archbishop (and others around him), before he took the step of initiating this?
Or, do you suppose the "consulting firm" talked him into it?
You state:
We sympathize with the difficulty of pastoring clusters and would love to have a pastor for each church or two, even if they aren’t “pastor-ready,” because we want fathers that we know and see, not CEO’s that are great at running organizations. If our pastor can be both a loving father and a great CEO, awesome. But if we have to choose, we’ll take the loving father.
I bolded all the "we's" in your comment here, in order to ask: who, precisely, do you mean by "we"? This is a serious question.
Again, I beg of you to consider that the "we" you have in mind is rather smaller than you realize? How do you imagine pastors who were assigned too early (I was one of them, by the way, in 2005) reached that conclusion? How do you suppose the archbishop, and those assisting him (i.e., he doesn't make pastoral assignments all by himself), reached this conclusion?
This, too, is a serious question, which I beg you to think about for a bit.
Do you know how many priests assigned as pastors in this archdiocese have contacted the archbishop in recent years, in order to beg to be released from being pastors? Do you know how many of those didn't just move to another assignment, but left the priesthood altogether? And how many of them needed serious help to recover from the difficulties?
Does it occur to you that perhaps there were others -- besides the "we" you have in mind -- who wanted and expected rather more from their pastors than the "we" you describe?
I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying to illuminate the reality at work here. And what I am suggesting is that while I doubt not at all your sincerity, your account of a "we" that has far fewer expectations of a pastor is far from a complete picture of the reality in parishes.
To keep this from being too lengthy, I will break up my answer into several parts. I genuinely mean this to provide clarity.
Make more vicars pastors.
Some of the current vicars would certainly make fine pastors; many of them have been, previously. And in the next few years, many of them will be. However...
Many of them are close to retirement. Are you suggesting they not be allowed to retire at 70 from administration? (No priest ever really retires from being a priest. But even my mother, at a certain point, got to "retire" from daily laundry and meal preparation, precisely when I, the youngest, reached high school age, and was mature enough to do for myself, and my mother, in her 60s, wanted to enjoy some time with my father, approaching 70. Were they wrong to "retire"? Are priests not allowed to retire from administration?)
There aren't enough vicars who are ready, NOW, to be pastors. And over the next few years, as current pastors retire, and pastors leave for other reasons, the existing "slack" will disappear. The creation of 57 "families" of parishes is based on careful projections of where we'll be circa 2030 or so.
I do not prefer the pastor to be an employee of the laity, and I am not sure who is proposing this. Is this a straw man?
Not at all. But your response makes me think you haven't read my other posts here on this subject. Please do so.
I made this observation precisely because this IS something that has been proposed, however, those who propose it don't quite realize, I believe, that this is what they are asking for.
Namely: many are suggesting that pastors be "relieved" of administrative or financial responsibilities. That is, in effect, making them employees, because whoever does the hiring and evaluating (and, alas, even firing) of employees, and whoever writes the budget, and whoever oversees administration, whoever leads the long-term planning, is the actual person in charge. When pastors no longer do these things, whoever takes up these tasks in their place, is "in charge," and the "pastor" becomes at best an employee, or perhaps even a "contractor."
There are ways to make the administrative and leadership tasks of a pastor manageable, and that's EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW!
We have been told that the origin for Beacons was a meeting of the priests who already had clusters and they were unanimous in identifying the challenges in pastoring clusters.
That is true but very incomplete. Your account makes it sound like that, until that meeting, no one had the slightest notion of any problems, which I suspect you didn't mean to suggest.
So the solution was to make more clusters? And then say it is horrible because now they are all clustered?
NO.
Please stop and re-read that last word. The answer is NO!
Beacons of Light is not about more "clusters"! Add 100 more exclamation marks to that last statement!
I know that somehow it was determined that there are only about 60 pastor-ready priests and that’s how the number of parishes was determined, but what are the metrics by which pastor-ready priests are evaluated?
That's a great question, but not an easy one to answer. It's not a matter of a simple formula, because we're talking about human beings, both the priests and the people they serve. The short answer is that the process of evaluating the situation involved the following:
- Counting how many priests currently were active in any way (including those who were retired and how old and infirm they were).
- Determining their age and condition, in order to calculate how many years of service could be expected. Again, this applies both to retired priests, and those who might be expected to retire in the near future.
- Take into consideration the sort of demographic projections you might expect an insurance company to use. Sorry, this sounds cold, but it's reality. If you are the archbishop, and you have, say, 200 priests in total (including those ordained a few months before, and those who are nearly in a nursing home), and you are trying to project your situation in 10 and 20 years, you have to allow for the following things:
a) Some number will have unexpected health issues, and retire early, or become completely incapacitated.
b) Some number will unexpectedly die.
c) Some number will leave the priesthood for various other reasons.
d) Some number will have a personal challenge that means they need fewer duties, or specialized duties.
Obviously, you cannot know the unknown, but you can anticipate this sort of thing. Some number, quantifying these realities, must be assigned to the formula, agreed? (This also means that, at any given time, there is "slack" -- because trying to plan for unexpected deaths or health problems means at any given point, you're doing better than projected and there's a priest who's "on the bench," till, whoops! Father X in Parish Y just had a massive heart attack! Who saw that coming?)
And, let me just add, even if the "calculus" for determining readiness isn't a simple thing, it should be obvious such a calculus is needed. I know virtually no one who thinks a priest should be ordained on a Saturday and made pastor on Sunday. All reasonable people can agree there needs to be some seasoning. Of course it's not an exact science.
In my own case, I was 41 when I was ordained. I served two years as a vicar under a very capable pastor, in a large parish, with realistic challenges. I.e., a near-ideal situation. I was assigned as a pastor in a parish with many difficulties, and with the plan that, one year later, I'd take over a second one and have to serve as two pastors, instead of one, and make it work. And I testify as before God, with utmost seriousness, that despite my relative maturity and prior life-experience, I was assigned too early in my priesthood.
If all you do is think it through, the process of assessing the abilities of priests and assigning them isn't all that mysterious.
But notice this: if you are short-handed, as we have been for the last 30 or so years, guess what? Priests are going to be rushed into responsibilities for which they aren't ready. And do you think that fact might have something to do with why a notable number of them have left the priesthood? Does this cause you to appreciate more why the Archbishop and others thought we were in a crisis situation demanding action?
Why are we being threatened that if we exercise our rights and duties as laity through the channels that the Church provides, we might just get our churches closed?
Who is "threatening" you? Are you accusing me of that?
A "threat" is this: if you throw that book at me, I throw it back at you. A threat means my response is something I have power over, make sense?
But what I say to you: if you don't fix that gutter, and the rainwater keeps pouring down on the foundation, you will eventually have to repair that foundation at a great cost. Is that a "threat"? Clearly not. The bad thing being warned against is not in my power.
Of course, in this case, you may say: but you're "threatening" to close a church. I am doing no such thing! I am giving a forecast of what is more or less likely, depending on how things unfold.
To be clear: closing and selling off a church building is NOT IN MY POWER. Re-read that last statement, to let it sink in. The pastor has no such power. He can propose it, but he must get a lot of others to agree, particularly those who call that parish church home.
And I refer you back to the point I keep making. What priest or bishop is so evil AND so stupid, as to close a building, sell it or demolish it, when the building is well maintained and well loved and used? That's the implication when you talk about "threats" -- that pastor or bishop is going to pay you back for making unwelcome observations. Believe me when I tell you, I have better things to do with my time, and the same for the archbishop and everyone else who would need to be involved in the tedious, lengthy and difficult process of shuttering and selling or demolishing a church. We'd rather do 100 other things than go down that road of misery.
So if you keep insisting that's our plan, will you please, I BEG YOU (I'll offer money if that is what it takes), please give me a rational explanation of WHY we priests or bishops or others who are involved in that decision (it's a lot of people) would choose that misery when we could avoid it. Serious question: please give me a reason! Let me know what bonus I must pay to get that reason!
I'll close with this. Consider that the Archbishop (who didn't invent any of this or decide it all on his own) is now 75; he started down this road a few years ago, fully aware that, at 75, he must submit his resignation to the Holy Father. The Pope has allowed him to stay on, past 75, and although no one has confirmed this officially, the assumption is that he did so to enable the Archbishop to wrap things up with a celebration of his 50th anniversary of ordination as a priest.
The point being, Archbishop Schnurr could have kicked this can down the road for the next guy.
And similar calculations occur to pastors when faced with difficult challenges; do the minimum, postpone, let the next guy worry about it. (And believe me, pastors do that.)
So why do you suppose Archbishop Schnurr didn't do that? What can you deduce from that?
Isn't it just possible that the situation is rather worse, and less easily fixed, than you suppose? And will you please notice that what you are proposing as the alternative to the Beacons plan, was tried and failed? Or at least allow that the people who launched us on this path, have given your plan (which would have been easier for the planners than what they actually chose) consideration already?
Thank you very much for your replies and including my comments as additional posts. I will reply in the comments here, but if you would prefer that I reply in your newer posts or if you would like to place them there, I have no problem with that.
I do not have names of individual priests who requested it. I am using Fr. Sean Wilson’s video “My Thoughts and Reflections on the Canon Law Event.” Around minute 7 he discusses the meeting and at 8:40 he remarks that almost all the pastors in the archdiocese now have clusters to pastor (which is a direct, if temporary, result of the Beacons process). I have no problem amending my statement as to the origin of the clusters as follows: ‘Originating from a meeting of priests in the archdiocese to address challenges that have developed over a number of years and subsequent to many more discussions, the decision was made by the archbishop with the advice of a consulting firm to solve the problem of pastoring clustered parishes by temporarily creating many more clustered parishes.’ It would not be fair for me to speculate as to the thoughts or motives of the archbishop or consulting firm in any of these specific decisions. I think I have been careful not to do so, and I do not know that your invitation to do so would be helpful. In a broad sense, I am convinced that Archbishop Schnurr desires the best possible outcome for our archdiocese, including priests and laity, working toward the salvation of souls. I respect and admire his leadership and believe that he has done tremendous good in our archdiocese. Some of the individual decisions (I can discuss these publicly or privately if you think that would be fruitful) I disagree with. (I am sure that if my spouse were archbishop, I could make the same statement. 😊)
In using “we” my intention was to describe the laity, but you are justified in requesting clarification. I really meant “I” and those I know of like mind. That number may indeed be fewer than I suppose (or more than you suppose). There are far too many individuals with nuances of attitude to accurately lump together. I know that pastors and archbishop will always unfortunately be in the “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” position, and that will include unjust attacks on character and intentions. I am aware of horrible things that have been said to and about our pastors by individuals opposed to parish closures. I am sorry for that. Please be assured that the flock can be both critical and admiring at the same time, and our tendency will be to communicate the parts we are unhappy about and not communicate all the things we are grateful for.
I have no opposition to priest retirement. I am referring to pastors below retirement age that are now vicars. I do not know their individual situations; they may have requested it (I would have if I were in their shoes) or they may have been evaluated as being not pastor-ready. Since I am not privy to that information, I am left to observe the facts. In fairness to those who do propose delaying or modifying retirement, please see this not as an attack on priests but an acknowledgment that we do have a lack of vocations and because our priests are beloved and valued, this has been proposed as a lesser evil than closing parishes.
I have read all your posts on this subject, and am grateful for the open expression of your point of view, especially the admission that none of this is as we would hope it would be and that it is OK to disagree with certain specific aspects of this process. I hope you will not find it offensive for me to say that despite reading all your posts on this subject, given the lack of historical precedent for this process, I remain unconvinced that the route chosen is the best route in every parish situation or that adequate attention was given to the variety of parish situations. I do not expect to convince you to come over to my point of view, but I hope that we both, and those who read these comments, can at least understand the other and hopefully maintain a charitable disposition with each other.
Perhaps the employee discussion was a miscommunication regarding semantics. I truly thought that you literally meant you had heard proposals for the pastors to somehow be a legal employee of the laity. As far as what degree of involvement and with which aspects of parish life a priest becomes a de facto employee, I am not able to judge that, but I suspect that may be somewhat different from parish to parish. I think the ideal would be a strong pastor with much authority in all aspects, but when that becomes an impossibility, I take you at your word that in your experience and judgement, which is much more relevant than mine, it would be better to keep that level of involvement over one larger parish. Please do not be offended when I say that I admit my inferior position of being able to judge the situation but I remain unconvinced. I am also sincere in saying that if things proceed according to the current plan, I pray that I am wrong, you are right, and that souls will be nourished as a result.
I say that we are threatened because of statements like “…blocking the legal consolidation of parishes does not make unwanted outcomes-such as, your beloved church becoming a brewpub – less likely. It may make it more likely.” I do not think I understand your book analogy; you throwing the book back is not the threat; you saying “Hey, if you throw that book, it might get thrown back at you” is the threat. Maybe I am missing what you are saying there?
I understand that you are trying to communicate that if support decreases, it may become more likely that a church is closed as a result. Nonetheless, on two accounts I do not think it inaccurate to describe this as a threat. First, if we put the shoe on the other foot, and I said, “Father, if you think that it is difficult to meet the budget now, if you fight us on Beacons, you might just find it even harder to meet the budget,” I think it would be fair to describe that as a threat, even if what I am trying to communicate is that your approach is likely to disenchant or drive away parishioners rather than that I will take any proactive measures to make sure it happens. Secondly, my understanding of Beacons is that it emphasizes that the decisions to close churches will lie with the pastors. I hope that all our pastors do make those decisions in consultation with their parishioners, but I think if you took a survey, at least in our area in the north, about whether parishioners were consulted in the decision to close/merge parishes, even the parishioners who are supportive of this process would admit that there was little/no consultation. I hope you can understand why we would be skeptical of the role that parishioner opinion will play in future decisions. I am sure this will vary from parish to parish and pastor to pastor.
I have already attempted to give my rational explanation, so I am not sure there is much to be gained by rehashing that. I sincerely appreciate your reading and consideration of it, even if it was not convincing. Maybe a couple comments to shed light on where I am coming would be as follows:
I think you have more confidence than I that people will behave rationally. I understand that makes it incredibly difficult to have this discussion, but I daily observe what I would judge to be irrational behaviors from all types of people in all sorts of situations. Again, there are specific historical public and private decisions by high-ranking archdiocesan personnel that even in hindsight I cannot justify as rational. Furthermore, what I judge to be rational in a specific situation is often is at odds with those I would usually agree with. I truly appreciate that you have reiterated that you are not just asking us to “trust you,” (you may be more unique in this attitude than you realize). I appreciate the sharing of your personal experiences in trying to lead multiple parishes. For me the most convincing argument is that “my” approach has been tried and failed, and perhaps since my parish experience has not included that, I am finding it difficult to accept. I concede that the situation is both worse than I suppose and less easily fixed than I suppose. Unfortunately, we are in a bad place and people must make difficult decisions. I hope that all involved can improve our mutual charity and understanding and that when the dust settles, we remain faithful to Christ and His Church. Submitted with love, respect, and prayers.
Christina:
Thanks for all your comments.
I will just observe, in a summary way. All my experience in being asked to be a pastor of one parish, and then being two pastors of two parishes, and currently, serving as three pastors of three parishes (on the way to becoming one), if the archbishop told me that instead of bringing the three parishes together as one, they would stay three indefinitely -- meaning, I would have to continue serving as three pastors...
Then I would tell the archbishop I find it impossible to carry out the task as assigned. Either he would need to spell out in significant detail how I was expected to compromise my duties as three pastors -- which would, in turn, be spelled out to the three parishes, so they realized I was given a task at which I was certainly going to fail -- or else, I would resign as three pastors and accept an assignment that was not doomed to fail.
Does that convey to you my seriousness about how I view the absolute untenable-ness of continuing to ask priests to be pastors, not once, but twice, three times or more, at the same time? In retrospect, I wish I'd said all this approximately 20 years ago, the first time I was asked to be two pastors at once, but it didn't occur to me until many years later, what exactly was wrong with that situation, and that it isn't just "hard" -- I don't mind hard -- it is impossible.
Again, thanks for your observations, it is all very helpful, and I've tried to be helpful in my responses.
Fr. - Thank you so much for your response and engagement, and more importantly for your service as a priest. It has been helpful. I appreciate the gravity of the situation better and am sad that such burdens are laid upon our priests. You, all our priests, and our archbishop are in my daily prayers. Sincerely - Christina
Post a Comment