Don’t understand why they feel the need to reassign everyone along with a huge parish reduction. I’m very sympathetic to bishops wanting to reduce the number of parishes in a diocese because I most historic diocese, there are way too many. But coming from the diocese of Buffalo, the move is always unpopular and this seems to make it worse.
I think it’s to try to prevent the idea that some places or people are exempted - if the pain is completely across the board then it can quell some of the complaints of favoritism or special treatment - at least that is the theory…
This article is 100 percent right on how priests feel - which is totally helpless when our rights are violated with no one to turn to without risking retaliation. To be clear, where I am now I don’t feel that, thanks be to God, but I know many priests in many diocese who do, and even if your bishop is good, that is no guarantee his successor will be. Sometimes we have joked about forming a priest’s union and entering into collective bargaining. We never would, of course, but it points to a need for something. I have seen religious priests working in a diocese as more protected as they have a group they are part of that in theory can have their back if they are mistreated, and that is at least one interesting solution…
One is reminded of the late Justice Scalia's remarks on the constitution of the USSR, which on paper was magnificent in its enumeration of human and civil rights, far surpassing the text of the US Constitution, but in reality was a dead letter because of the lack of true institutional separation and balance of powers. "Reality is greater than ideas", as Pope Francis was fond of saying, and legal rights are empty when vigorous checks and balances are lacking. https://youtu.be/aggPVu6pksg?is=v_imQncfrqg6x1h9
The article rightly says, "The parish pastor is not a 'branch manager' of a large corporation with locations spread across town. He is instead the spiritual and practical shepherd of a real community." Likewise, a parish is not supposed to be seen as merely a local branch of a nonprofit corporation called the Diocese of X, Inc. Each parish is a community with its own dignity and character, united together in the diocese, but not simply an asset of it. However, parishes are often treated as merely the local place of business of a large corporation, and its people as merely customers who can simply go to a different place. In particular, if it is the case, that a decline in the number of Catholics and/or priests requites some parishes to be merged into other parishes, the bishop, in consultation with the priests and laity involved, as well as with his presbyteral and pastoral council, should carefully consider each individual situation and what is the best for the specific people involved. If there is a long run decline that will involve a lot of mergers, they should take place one or a few a year so that such a careful consideration can take place. The bishop should not let a crisis develop and then merge half of the parishes of the diocese into the other half all at once as a part of some overarching plan. Treating parishes as merely parts of a mega-plan is the model of the modern corporation not the kingdom of God.
What actually is (if it even exists) policy on non-retaliation for good faith objections/reporting of problems? For example, in the corporate world, there's a general understanding (including ways to protect privacy of individuals involved in complaints) that protect them from retaliation. Nobody says its easy when a complaint is found without merit, but there are practices.
How does this exist or not exist in the Church? because it seems there is a general expectation that unless you get a bishop sacked, he is going to retaliate against a priest, even if he was in the wrong.
What a fabulous idea. My diocese has lost 50% more newly ordained priests in the last 5 years than it has in seminary. Most decided reincardinating in another diocese would be easier than dealing with a hyper-liberal, hyper-authoritarian, unfriendly bishop. One priest I know who stayed was without a parish for 2 of the last 3 years and only recently assigned to a tiny mission church that hasn't had a priest in eons because the community is too small to support one. No wonder seminary numbers are so low. The vocations director is a good and holy man, but he can't compensate for working under a tyrant who would rather see vocations crash from 20 seminarians to 3 before he budges an inch on pushing his ideological extremism and punishing those who aren't on board.
Don’t understand why they feel the need to reassign everyone along with a huge parish reduction. I’m very sympathetic to bishops wanting to reduce the number of parishes in a diocese because I most historic diocese, there are way too many. But coming from the diocese of Buffalo, the move is always unpopular and this seems to make it worse.
I think it’s to try to prevent the idea that some places or people are exempted - if the pain is completely across the board then it can quell some of the complaints of favoritism or special treatment - at least that is the theory…
In Archbishop Weisenburger's case, causing his people pain may very well be the goal of this entire exercise.
This article is 100 percent right on how priests feel - which is totally helpless when our rights are violated with no one to turn to without risking retaliation. To be clear, where I am now I don’t feel that, thanks be to God, but I know many priests in many diocese who do, and even if your bishop is good, that is no guarantee his successor will be. Sometimes we have joked about forming a priest’s union and entering into collective bargaining. We never would, of course, but it points to a need for something. I have seen religious priests working in a diocese as more protected as they have a group they are part of that in theory can have their back if they are mistreated, and that is at least one interesting solution…
Why do you say “of course” a union would never be formed?
I just don’t see us picketing in front of the cathedral or not celebrating masses or anointing the sick during a strike ;)
No, but there are presumably quite a few bureaucratic obligations which you could refuse to comply with?
I can't see even that fitting in with our vow of absolute obedience to the bishop...
One is reminded of the late Justice Scalia's remarks on the constitution of the USSR, which on paper was magnificent in its enumeration of human and civil rights, far surpassing the text of the US Constitution, but in reality was a dead letter because of the lack of true institutional separation and balance of powers. "Reality is greater than ideas", as Pope Francis was fond of saying, and legal rights are empty when vigorous checks and balances are lacking. https://youtu.be/aggPVu6pksg?is=v_imQncfrqg6x1h9
The article rightly says, "The parish pastor is not a 'branch manager' of a large corporation with locations spread across town. He is instead the spiritual and practical shepherd of a real community." Likewise, a parish is not supposed to be seen as merely a local branch of a nonprofit corporation called the Diocese of X, Inc. Each parish is a community with its own dignity and character, united together in the diocese, but not simply an asset of it. However, parishes are often treated as merely the local place of business of a large corporation, and its people as merely customers who can simply go to a different place. In particular, if it is the case, that a decline in the number of Catholics and/or priests requites some parishes to be merged into other parishes, the bishop, in consultation with the priests and laity involved, as well as with his presbyteral and pastoral council, should carefully consider each individual situation and what is the best for the specific people involved. If there is a long run decline that will involve a lot of mergers, they should take place one or a few a year so that such a careful consideration can take place. The bishop should not let a crisis develop and then merge half of the parishes of the diocese into the other half all at once as a part of some overarching plan. Treating parishes as merely parts of a mega-plan is the model of the modern corporation not the kingdom of God.
What actually is (if it even exists) policy on non-retaliation for good faith objections/reporting of problems? For example, in the corporate world, there's a general understanding (including ways to protect privacy of individuals involved in complaints) that protect them from retaliation. Nobody says its easy when a complaint is found without merit, but there are practices.
How does this exist or not exist in the Church? because it seems there is a general expectation that unless you get a bishop sacked, he is going to retaliate against a priest, even if he was in the wrong.
What a fabulous idea. My diocese has lost 50% more newly ordained priests in the last 5 years than it has in seminary. Most decided reincardinating in another diocese would be easier than dealing with a hyper-liberal, hyper-authoritarian, unfriendly bishop. One priest I know who stayed was without a parish for 2 of the last 3 years and only recently assigned to a tiny mission church that hasn't had a priest in eons because the community is too small to support one. No wonder seminary numbers are so low. The vocations director is a good and holy man, but he can't compensate for working under a tyrant who would rather see vocations crash from 20 seminarians to 3 before he budges an inch on pushing his ideological extremism and punishing those who aren't on board.