Here are a few thoughts pertinent to disturbing events when you are trying to spell out what is going on. One of my key principles is that rational and normally-motivated people tend to act in rational ways, that tend away from pain for themselves. Not guaranteed! But it is what is more likely.
Of course, there are always "crazies" and people who make colossal bad judgements. My approach isn't capable of predicting everything. But it is observable that most people are generally capable of making choices aimed at what they perceive to be advantageous to themselves.
They most often make sacrifices of self interest for reasons not hard to figure out. For example, parents living modestly to save for their childrens future. Also, people who make short term decisions, in effect, sacrificing their own long term benefit. Both decisions are not mysterious.
Hence, it seems reasonable to assume decisions others make are likewise grounded in comprehensible motives, whether they are what we ourselves would prefer or not.
So, it makes sense to look for those comprehensible motives. And when guessing about the actual intentions, the explanation that supposes choices that are either irrational or bring pain that could be avoided, on balance seems less likely.
In a few minutes I will go buy a hat. Suppose I can buy one for $10 or one for $1,000. The more expensive one is only slightly better in some way but that isn't important to me. I don't like it better. I prefer the cheaper one. Yet you insist I am going to buy the very expensive one. Why would I do that? It's possible but so very unlikely.
Now Beacons of Light. Pastors and bishops sure could choose paths causing far more pain to themselves and others -- such as needlessly destroying thriving activities and boarding up and selling off, or demolishing well maintained buildings, alienating people and their financial support.
But why, when other choices involving less pain are available? If you insist they will nevertheless make less rational choices, and you can't explain why, how likely is your explanation?
2 comments:
Why close a well-attended and supported church? Beacons seeks to streamline resources and improve evangelization, and a rational argument to close church locations can be made. Given multiple church buildings in one parish, it is highly likely that the services provided at one of the locations (Building A) could easily be provided at the other locations from a standpoint of capacity. From a resource point of view, even if half of the support at Building A disappeared, the other 50% of the support would follow to the other locations. 100% of the expense of maintaining, heating, insuring etc. went away, but 100% of the income did not. The increased cost of moving three Masses and an hour of Confession to the other locations is near zero. Excellent streamlining of resources. As far as improving evangelization, the time that the priests are spending driving to and from Building A will disappear, as well as time spent in decisions managing that location and any occasional parish festivals or carry-over from the former parish occupying Building A. Location A could easily be a twenty-minute drive for the priests, so if three Masses and an hour of Confession are moved to another location, that is 160 minutes round trip each week freed up for evangelization. Easily more time than is required each week by the pastor in meeting with multiple parish councils. Additionally, the costs of transportation are eliminated, further streamlining resources. And it may be even more beneficial to implement this at locations that are doing well – there is a larger number of resources to be consolidated, if the faithful are committed Catholics, they are more likely to travel to the new location than to quit, and the more activities that are held at Location A, the greater the reduction in time spent traveling to that location. So, I think a pastor or Archbishop who is rational and normal-motivated could very reasonably make a decision to close certain locations. Submitted with love, respect and prayers.
Christina:
Yes, but your response only gives one side of the ledger.
Certainly, if you close buildings, or cancel Masses, or consolidate various activities at one campus, there will be savings of travel time, and utilities and other expenses.
But did you actually mean not to address other costs?
When a pastor cancels a Mass, or even says, "we'll stop having this Mass at your beloved church, and shift it over here," and does the same with other activities, do you actually think there won't be negative consequences? I.e., people who stop coming, and others who stop giving?
Why did you omit these considerations -- or why do you suggest a pastor or bishop would do so?
Post a Comment