Even before he was officially installed as the Roman Catholic bishop of Cleveland in 2006, Richard G. Lennon was already talking about the need to close churches.
“As painful as a funeral is, it’s there that you commend your loved one to God,” Lennon told reporters just weeks before his installation.
Those words, coming from an auxiliary bishop who had just closed scores of churches in Boston, sounded a death knell for dozens more in Northeast Ohio””and unleashed a small but shrill backlash across Lennon’s new flock.
The extensive downsizing is essentially over, although some of the closings remain under appeal with the Vatican. In the end, 50 parishes were closed. Vacant churches are up for sale, merged parishes are moving forward.
It’s a pity that defunct parish buildings can’t be converted into chapels of ease, if the congregation is willing to assume the maintenance costs. If they can’t (or won’t) then I don’t see that the Bishop has any other option. Most of us get angry when our ox is gored, but if we can’t feed it . . .
Of course, giving that degree of lay oversight over property carries the risk that other ‘rights’ will be assumed to go with with it.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jeremy,
This article shows the main reason why I could never “cross the Tiber” from Anglicanism to Rome. I could see myself accepting most (if not all) of the doctrinal beliefs of Rome. But I could never give up the involvement of the laity in church government which we in Anglicanism (at least in the US) treasure.
Some contrasts: Rome-Bishops appointed by Pope (with advice from church leaders), Anglicanism(US)-Elected by clergy AND laity of a diocese.
Rome-No real diocesan laity control, Anglicanism(US)-diocesan councils, trustees, standing committees etc. All of which include LAITY, plus churches are represented by Laity as delegates. (Not to mention the fact that lay people control the budget!!)
Rome-Priests appointed to parishes by bishops, Anglicanism(US)-Priests chosen by Vestry (or in rare cases-congregation)
Rome-Parish Priest has pretty much total control of Parish (under the authority of the Bishop) and any “Parish Council” is only advisory, Anglicanism(US)-Vestry (elected by laity) control all non Spiritual affairs of the Parish.
Given the low state of many TEC bishops, I’m not sure that this form of polity has much to commend it.
There is no perfect administrative system. But whenever I hear people extol more lay power over running the Church I remember a close Unitarian friend of a few years ago who was disgusted with the way his church was choosing a new pastor::: by how much work they could get out of the new pastor’s wife–they were determined to get a two-for. (or is it twofer ).
Seeing lay people run a church who may be brilliant and highly educated with a phd. in some scientific or business field, but with very little Biblical or doctrinal education, reminds me of those hotel ads where someone sleeps in that hotel and the next morning feels qualified to do brain surgery.
To All:
Let me add a couple of “givens” which I guess weren’t understood.
A) I was talking about ANGLICANS in the US (NOT ECUSA!!!)
B) I assume that vestymen and lay delegates are men of God and that they are doing everything they do under the authority of Holy Scripture and through prayer.
I hate to see parishes close, but you have to understand the situation. Imagine maintaining 2 or 3 very old parishes in a neighborhood in which Catholics no longer live, when there is a new Catholic church literally 10 miles away (where the Catholics that attend the 2-3 parishes actually live). In my diocese, our bishop refuses to close anything, and the result is that some parishes are getting a very hefty subsidy from the diocese just so a few families can drive from other neighborhoods (with their own Catholic parishes) to attend Mass there on a Sunday. This is a demographic issue.