A city council vote will take place in Holyoke, Massachusetts about
whether a Polish historic district will be created. One of the anchors of the proposed
district is the Mater Dolorosa church, which has been a thorn in the side of Roman Catholic Bishop McDonnell since his decision to close the church and merge the parish
with another parish nearby several years ago.
Recently, a
petition from the pastors of four Catholic parishes in Holyoke was directed to
the city council members seeking to influence their up-or-down vote on
whether the historic district should be created.
As a longtime Catholic of the Springfield Diocese and follower of the parish
downsizing plan which has been implemented here, I
believe this petition from the pastors contains questionable assertions. Those
assertions are the subject of this blog post.
The assertions are paraphrased.
Assertion # 1: The four undersigned pastors care for the
people of God in Holyoke by administering their donated money.
Assertion # 2: The inclusion of Mater Dolorosa property in a
historic district would:
1. force the OLOTC parish to become a property manager.
2. cause fiscal responsibility for MD to fall squarely on
the OLOTC community.
3. tie up the money of OLOTC parish to maintain the property
of MD.
Assertion # 3: A "yes" vote will prevent OLOTC
parish from caring for the people of God in Holyoke by causing parish
administrators to spend less of the money collected from its parishioners on
the parishioners themselves.
Assertion # 4: We, pastors employed by a religious organization,
ask you, a secular body politic, for your support in our opinion about what is
best for the people of Holyoke.
_________________________
Let's take these one by one.
There is
nothing radical in Assertion #1 but it's worth noting that this peculiarly
Catholic "care" has two limitations: Number one, it has to do
specifically with the "care of souls." In Catholic theology, this is
the only care that matters. This spiritual care for Catholic adherents has
nothing to do with the civic involvement of Catholic parishioners, and still
less to do with care for the general population, or care for the values that the
general population might or might not embrace, such as historic preservation. All of these issues, including the civic responsibilities of Catholic adherents, are properly the subject of secular debate.
Number two, this "care" is also limited because the Catholic Church is not a social
agency. Although the Catholic church has a generally good record of generosity
toward all citizens, it has also proven on occasion to be intolerant, small-minded,
and vindictive, particularly on gay rights and abortion rights issues.
Oddly, this
obsession with control has been even more on display when those within its
ranks have a difference of opinion with central administration. Let us not
forget that Bishop McDonnell sued the former parishioners of Mater Dolorosa and
attempted to evict them from their own church. In fact, lawsuits have been a prominent feature of the McDonnell administration. See here:
This is not
the time to go into every culture war battle of the past. Suffice to say that
the Catholic church, as represented by these four pastors, and by implication
their immediate supervisor, Bishop McDonnell, certainly have no moral high
ground to stand on when it comes to putting the values of all citizens ahead of
the institutional aims of the church. On the contrary, we've seen that when the institutional
aims of the church conflict with the rights of abuse victims, gay rights
advocates, historic preservation advocates, and displaced parishioners, the response of Bishop McDonnell has
been to support the centralized institution above all else.
Although
Assertion # 1 is true on its own merits, toward the end of the letter the
pastors conflate this spiritual "care" which is good for the
parishioners of Holyoke with the general civic "care" of all the citizens
of Holyoke. The two "cares" are not the
same, nor can they ever be, because of the plurality of religions in America and the need to
maintain a separation of church and state, a value which Americans hold dear.
Assertion
#2 has three clauses, each of which claims that the money of OLOTC would
be tapped following the successful integration
of MD into a historic district. Those who don't understand church finances (and even longtime parishioners do not) might be swayed by this argument,
because it has logic on its side. After all, even the most fervent supporter of
MD must admit that it takes money to keep a property up, and the money must
come from somewhere. Unfortunately, logic has little to do with church
finances.
The facts
are these: all church property in the Springfield Diocese, many millions of dollars
worth, has been deeded over to the bishop. There are other financial
arrangements that could have been made. For example, a minority of Catholic
dioceses nationwide are beginning to convert to a system in which each
individual parish incorporates themselves, leaving central administration as a separate unit. In point of fact, this would be a better fit with canon law, according to canon lawyers such as Nicholas Cafardi. However, the vast majority of
dioceses, including Springfield, are still using corporate sole. The first permission to a church group to use corporate sole in the Commonwealth was granted to the Archdiocese of Boston by the legislature in 1898; the Springfield Diocese followed soon after. For more on this aspect, see:
See also:
3 historical articles on Corporation Sole (Boston Globe)
Corporate
sole is maintained by investing the office of bishop with the powers of a
one-person corporation, in perpetuity. The power is indivisible. The only one
who gains the power is the successor bishop. An outstanding advantage of the
system is that corporate sole avoids probate. But, there are many more
advantages, the chief of which is that all of the money is in one pot, and the
pot is controlled by the Bishop.
This highly centralized system is completely
at odds with the idea that OLOTC, or any other parish in Holyoke, is responsible
for MD. The opposite is true. The individual parishes are responsible for
upholding the diocese financially, just as the dioceses are responsible for upholding the
Vatican financially. MD at present is under the complete jurisdiction of the
bishop, and will remain so regardless of the vote of the Holyoke city council.
The corporate sole system, under which all power over the parishes is given to
the bishop, was simply never set up to have one parish care for another. The structure of corporate sole will not change if a
historic district is created.
What the
historic district would change, however, is the scrutiny of Bishop
McDonnell's treatment of the MD church. It is this change, which would entail better
maintenance and preservation of outstanding cultural features, which Bishop
McDonnell is fighting. At the moment the church is mothballed, and in decline.
A "yes"
vote would bring to the public eye the responsibility of the Diocese to
maintain the stone structure of MD, including its tower, and
the duty to provide adequate heating and general maintenance, including minimal landscaping.
More seriously, the lack of reasonable maintenance may subject the diocese to fines if it engages in "demolition by neglect," and does not maintain MD's historic appearance, for example, if it were to replace stained glass windows with plywood. That possibility is not as remote as it may sound.
Most serious of all, a historic designation would undercut the ability of the Springfield Diocese to sell the church and the ground under it to the highest bidder. Despite the protests of church officials to the contrary, it is simple unbelievable that this possibility is not a part of the options being considered within the chancery for the future of MD.
Most serious of all, a historic designation would undercut the ability of the Springfield Diocese to sell the church and the ground under it to the highest bidder. Despite the protests of church officials to the contrary, it is simple unbelievable that this possibility is not a part of the options being considered within the chancery for the future of MD.
Assertion # 3: A "yes" vote will prevent OLOTC
parish from caring for the people of God in Holyoke by causing parish
administrators to spend less of the money collected from its parishioners on
the parishioners themselves.
This is not
true. Parish administrators such as Rev. Scherer and Rev. Lunney do not have
the power to decide how much they will spend on their parish. The money of
these parishes, like all money in the diocese, is administered by the bishop.
He alone can decide. The little money that goes toward maintaining MD at
present can come only from the general funds of the diocese, because that is
the corporate sole system. Again, there is only one pot of money, and the
bishop controls the pot.
The former parishioners
of MD have been told repeatedly by Bishop McDonnell during their long court
battles (and this is on permanent record in several civil courts of law, by the way)
that MD, as a parish entity, no longer exists, and that MD, and indeed all churches in the diocese, "belong to" the bishop. How then is it possible for
Bishop McDonnell to argue now that MD, as an entity, still exists, and that the
newly created parish, OLOTC, is responsible for it, and will somehow become even more
responsible for it, should a historic designation pass? The contradictions
abound.
Assertion # 4: We, as pastors of a religious organization,
ask you, a secular body politic, for your support in our opinion about what is
best for the people of Holyoke.
Read the
last assertion through, and you'll find that it amounts to an argument that the
city councilors should trust the judgment of four men about what is best for
everyone in Holyoke.
The most positive spin that can be put on their
statement is that they sincerely believe that shooting down a historic
district would be in the best interest of their boss, the bishop, to whom they have
sworn an oath of loyalty. Yet even this interpretation is undercut by their questionable allegations about how corporate sole works and about how money is administered within the Diocese of Springfield.
Posts
