Skip to comments.Card. Burke with doís and donít's of parish, church closures
Posted on 05/11/2014 3:13:41 PM PDT by NYer
Hearts can break when churches close. But if the church cannot be repaired, or if people are not paying the bills… what to do? Sometimes they must close.
However, I think there are many case in which a church does not have to be closed… but it is closed all the same for one “reason” or another. There are, in fact, parish churches which could be revived with, for example, the use of the older form of Mass.
In any event, one of the Church’s greatest jurists, His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke has comments about law and closing churches.
From Catholic Review with my emphases:
Hew to canon law when closing churches, Cardinal Burke says
May 09, 2014
By George P. Matysek Jr.
When considering the suppression of parishes or the closing of church buildings, bishops should hew closely to canon law not simply because its a legal requirement of the church, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke said, but because it helps foster unity.
In a May 7 interview with the Catholic Review, the prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, the Vaticans highest court, said following proper procedures helps ensure legitimate decisions.
When we dont follow the requirements of the law, then people rightly claim that theyve been aggrieved by this, said Cardinal Burke, who was a featured speaker at the Eastern Regional Conference of the Canon Law Society of America, held May 6-8 at the Hotel Monaco in Baltimore. The cardinals presentation was closed to the media, but he granted a brief interview to the Catholic Review.
(When) we do follow the requirements of the law, he said, even if we take a decision thats unfavorable to people, at least they know that it was taken legitimately with respect to what the church requires for that decision.
According to canon law, a bishop has the authority to suppress (close) a parish when there is a just reason. [That's the kicker, ain't it? What is a "just" reason?] He must consult with his diocesan presbyteral council, and parishioners have the right to make their views heard.
Closing a church building, a process canon law refers to as relegating it to profane, but not sordid use, requires that a bishop have a grave reason for the closure.
Cardinal Burke noted that when discerning whether to reduce buildings to profane use, dioceses should avoid presuppositions that are not correct, including the notion that a parish can have only one church. It is possible for a parish to have two or more church buildings, he said. Although a parish may be suppressed, its buildings may continue to be used as part of another parish.
If a church is being closed because the parish doesnt have the means to keep up more than one church, Cardinal Burke said, then you have to demonstrate that, in fact, there arent the means there for the church to be maintained. [So, if there are means, that is, the place is paying its bills and keeping the place up, then that can't be used legitimately as an argument for closing it.]
The cardinal, a former bishop of La Crosse, Wis., and a former archbishop of St. Louis, added that sometimes a church is in such a terrible state of deterioration or has suffered some calamity that has left it so seriously damaged that it would be a burden for a parish to maintain.
All those things simply have to be documented, he said.
The laity plays a key role in the health of churches, Cardinal Burke said.
Especially in this country (the United States), the existence of churches depends on the generosity of the laity, he explained. If the laity arent contributing generously, these churches cant continue. [If you want your church to stay open you have to pay for your church to stay open.]
Maintaining multiple churches within a single parish requires a strong commitment from the laity, he added, who are often entrusted with the maintenance and care of church buildings.
In my own experience as a bishop, I found the lay faithful to be exemplary in this, Cardinal Burke said. In the first diocese I served, there were a number of these churches, and they were kept up, cared for completely by the laity and they did good work.
Cardinal Burke said he knows no bishop in his right mind who would want to close a parish unnecessarily. He acknowledged that it is always a source of a lot of suffering for the lay faithful. [I believe His Eminence is being kind. I think there are bishops who want to close certain parishes for ideological reasons, not because the place is too run down or isn't paying the bills.]
The bishop and the priests have to provide as best they can for the spiritual needs of the parishioners with the material goods that they have available, he said.
Bishops must be good stewards, he said, and use prudential judgment in how material resources can be best used. He cautioned that there shouldnt be a prejudice against keeping church buildings open.
The bishop needs to have before him all the factual information in order to know the best way to decide with regard to a particular church, Cardinal Burke said. [I think that the lay people who pay the bills need that information as well.]
I feel bad for people whose parish church or school is closed. However, the Church is not responsible for the economic and demographic changes that have resulted in the growth of the Church in the South and West, and the aging/declining of the Church in the North and East ... except to the extent that the Church has supported Democrat politics, which have smashed the economies of Northern and Eastern states and driven the population South.
Even without that, who wants to live in New England if they could live in Tennessee, except that they were born there because that’s where their grandparents could find a job when they arrived from Miserable Country X.
How about a parish like Holy Redeemer in San Francisco? Is there any way to deal with that disaster other than closing the church and leveling it? Or St. Joan of Arc in Mpls? Or how about any church that allows Nancy Pelosi to set foot inside?
**According to canon law, a bishop has the authority to suppress (close) a parish when there is a just reason. [That’s the kicker, ain’t it? What is a “just” reason?] He must consult with his diocesan presbyteral council, and parishioners have the right to make their views heard.**
Wondering if this happened at St. Stanislaus in his previous diocese?
I took my mother there for a couple of services but she fell and broke her wrist and never returned there. I am Catholic but I thought she might want to go after being away from her Episcopalian faith so long.
The congregation uses their chapel. The church-goers were older British women and gay men. I wondered about the gay men. THEY said that the Episcopalian Church allowed homosexual unions, so that explained THEIR church attendance.
Life is very strange.
Wondering if this happened at St. Stanislaus in his previous diocese?
The situation at St. Stanislaus was different from a normal church closing. There was a disagreement between the church and the Archdiocese over who controlled the assets of the parish and the administrative authority of the archbishop, which began under Cardinal Glennon, and continued under Cardinal Ritter and his successors up to and including the current Archbishop, Robert Carlson. All of the archbishops had the support of the Presbyteral Council in this matter, and the Archdiocese did try to work with the parishioners to resolve the conflict. Not to defend Cardinal Burke, though, as he did not handle the situation in a good way. But the parishioners did not handle the situation in a good way, either.
I never knew all those details. Thanks for your succinct explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.