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, including those who are your own, diocesan priests, and those who are on loan from elsewhere, including religious-order priests whose leadership in their orders can re-assign them outside the archdiocese), 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 these unknowns, 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 this situation of "slack" is actually what you want; you hardly want to plan such that you're always catching up.)
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.e., an older vocation with more life experience than is customary. 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. In other words, a "cluster," or to use the term at the time, a "pastoral region."
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. I made plenty of mistakes, more than I likely would have. None of them were malicious, yet there were many of the people of God who were hurt and angry about my mistakes. I do not blame them. I simply point out, I didn't have enough of the "we" my correspondent assures me will overlook a pastor not being the best CEO. And the truth is, I didn't lack the ability to be CEO; I lacked experience.
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? Is that what you think I'm doing?
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 if 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. This was a serious question: please give me a reason! Let me know what bonus I must pay to get that reason!
Let me return to the phase 2 of this, which barely gets talked about: evangelization. The fact that almost all the ferment about Beacons concerns phase 1 -- the reorganization part, and almost none about what follows, is extremely noteworthy.
Maybe that's the fault of us priests and all those involved in the designing and implementing of this whole project; we aren't calling enough attention to the next phase. In our defense, it's well nigh impossible to say everything that needs to be said, and easy to say it without the right emphases. And I think a fair-minded person would acknowledge, the evangelization phase has gotten at least some mention.
But again, in our defense, if we're answering questions, then if evangelization doesn't come up enough in the answers, could it be it's not coming up enough in the questions? Again: this isn't about blame, but this is my way of hitting the pause button and inviting some reflection.
How might all our reactions to the process of reorganization be changed if we allot just 30% of our energy to consideration of the next phase, rather than, oh I'd guess the 5% of attention given to phase two, that is represented in the ongoing reactions to Beacons?
Weigh the possibility that there is what is called "opportunity cost" involved here. The change at work now, however costly, will cost notably more if further delayed. Perhaps one lesson from the past 20 or so years is that it already was delayed too long. What have we lost from inaction?
I'll tell a story from my own experience from a "cluster," where -- this is hard to understand, but true -- I was expected not to be one pastor, but two pastors, simultaneously (and which is actually impossible and doomed to failure). In that dual assignment, at a certain point, the need for evangelization became clear. I'm not saying it was my own idea; it was God's idea, that somehow percolated up through the entire enterprise. But at a certain point, I started talking about it, and tried mightily to get the two parishes, of which I was two pastors, to focus on evangelization. It was my express desire to get us all focused on that.
It failed. I blame only myself. It failed.
Here's a fact that may be part of causation, but I will leave to others to decide. At the same time I was trying to re-orient the two parishes toward evangelization, I was also trying to get them to work together. To combine operations in such a way that the whole enterprise was reasonably manageable. And that never happened. I failed at that.
Do you see it? Back in the oughts, in my two parishes, in my own way I was trying to do the same two phases now part of Beacons: first a reorganization so things are manageable, in preparation for a far more important focus on evangelizing. I failed at phase one, and that ensured I failed at phase two. All that cost me a great deal, but that isn't my focus. What did my failures cost those two parishes?
Maybe this helps you understand why I am so emphatic about not returning to the model of multiple parishes sharing a pastor, nor do I find persuasive the claim that we can just put insufficiently seasoned priests in as pastors and it will all work out. And not only have I lived the alternatives, many, many priests have as well. But until recently, we didn't talk publicly about it, because until someone "upstairs" was willing to consider more fundamental change, what was the point?
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?
* This is actually a figure of speech. I do not ask you merely to "trust me."
Think about the facts available and the easily discoverable, very human, motivations of all involved. Does it actually make sense for decision-makers to act unnecessarily in ways contrary to their own interest? To cause themselves more pain, when a less painful route lies open before them?
If you don't know why a decision is being made, at least rule out that the decision derives from some indecipherable mystery, grounded in motives requiring those deciding to be stupid, evil or masochistic. Then consider, of what remains, seems most likely.
