|
|
 |
Mike Humphrey
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
I was recently talking with my mother about
Church-related issues in the secular news.
I explained to her how at least seven dioceses
in America have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy
due to the priest crisis scandal in 2002 and
its after effects.
She said if the Church has so much money,
why can't it just step in and do something.
For the same reason, she was wondering why
the Holy See doesn't step in to stop some
of these church closings.
I went on to explain to her that the local
bishop, and only the local bishop, is still
responsible for the total financial, pastoral,
and spiritual well being of his diocese and that
no bishop has a right to infringe on another
bishop's diocese.
This still brought up another point I couldn't answer.
If there is a diocese that has filed for chapter
11 bankruptcy, the Church isn't going to leave
its members without the needed sacramental
life and the things required for them to receive
it.
- Would the Church let members of a particular
diocese suffer due to the financial incompetency
of a bishop?
- When, if any, would the Nuncio or Vatican
step in?
- Does anyone know how situations like these
are addressed:
- by the local diocese?
- by the American Nuncio?
- and, by the Vatican?
Mike
|
| {
Would the Church let members of a
diocese suffer due to the financial incompetency
of a bishop? }
|
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Mike —
Bankruptcy doesn't mean that all
assets are liquidated. Even if it
did, the priests would still be there
to dispense the sacraments.
As for the Church's power, she had
the power, and still has the power,
to immediately remove priests and
bishop malefactors. The Church should
have stepped in and stopped the abuse,
rather than knowingly tolerate and
promote it.
Read Leon Podles'
book, Sacrilege,
the best book by far on the topic — no
agenda, and he is a faithful Catholic.
Mary Ann
|
One of our colleagues, Andrew replied:
|
Hi, Mike —
The idea that the Church has
so much money is pretty much
a misconception. The Holy See owns
some fantastic real estate and a
lot of great artwork, but they don't
produce cash flow: they're a drain
on cash. The Holy See runs a deficit
most years, with donations making
up the difference. The Knights of
Columbus is usually the biggest single
donor, giving tens of millions each
year to support the Holy See.
Dioceses have to support themselves
and can't look to the Holy See for
a bailout. Occasionally,
if a bishop is incompetent about
finances, to the point where it causes
harm to his diocese,
the Vatican may get him to resign.
It's not that common, but I think
there was a case of that in Rwanda
just a few weeks ago. Some of the
resignations of U.S. bishops in recent
years have involved financial issues
too, as well as mishandling of abuse
cases: e.g., that of Bishop Pilla
in Cleveland.
Your mom's questions mentioned
church closings as well:
For the same reason, she was wondering why
the Holy See doesn't step in to stop some
of these church closings.
In this country, finances are usually
not the reason for most church closings.
They happen because some parish populations
have declined badly, and the number
of priests has declined as well.
There are many old city churches
whose younger generations have all
moved to the suburbs,
so while my big suburban parish has
2,600 people attending Mass on the
weekend; there
are old city churches like St. Stanislaus
in Chelsea, with 216 people attending
on Sunday.
It just makes sense to close those
little city churches and merge them
into neighboring parishes.
If there
is a financial angle, it's because
216 elderly people cannot possibly
donate enough money to keep up a
100-year-old church building when
it needs some major repair that costs
a million bucks.
On the question of whether bishops
get removed in cases of financial
failure, here's an article where
Bishop Martino of Scranton may have
resigned due to a failure to control
the budget:
— Andrew
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, Andrew —
Based on what you said, it looks
like the initiative was by the bishop
who fouled up the finances himself.
I guess it would require something
from the faithful to the Vatican, if the bishop had not resigned on
his own.
Mike
|
Andrew replied:
|
Hi, Mike —
In cases like this, it's hard to
know whether someone expressed a
concern to the Vatican, or the nuncio,
or the local metropolitan (in this
case Cardinal Rigali).
That's not public communication,
so if it happened, we have no way
of knowing about it.
— Andrew
|
|
|
|
