Well, and financial stability seems to be a stretch.
Sure, they raised money to buy the property, but what condition is it in "under the hood"? They want a full-time priest, how will he be paid? Where will he live now that the rectory is sold off? Some office space is necessary to store records and keep the books, where will that happen? …
Well, and financial stability seems to be a stretch.
Sure, they raised money to buy the property, but what condition is it in "under the hood"? They want a full-time priest, how will he be paid? Where will he live now that the rectory is sold off? Some office space is necessary to store records and keep the books, where will that happen? Sure, maybe we can grant that there are enough priests right now, but what about in five years? Even less? Can fifty people (and likely that's broken down even further into families/couples) even maintain the building, let alone the other costs?
I often get frustrated by these "save our parish" campaigns and, by extension, some of the canon lawyers that drum up all kinds of false hope for people. The bishop didn't do this right, that's for sure, and sticking up for people's rights is important. But the people cannot possibly expect that the bishop is just going to cut his losses and kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with? Slim chance, I think.
Don't get me wrong, I am not passing blame from the bishop to anyone else. If he had followed the process appropriately, been forthright and clear, the pain of these people losing their parish wouldn't be so prolonged. But lose their parish they will, I think.
My brother is a priest in Kentucky with three parishes, none of which is being closed. The smallest has about 15 parishioners for whom he says Mass twice a week.
Well, and financial stability seems to be a stretch.
Sure, they raised money to buy the property, but what condition is it in "under the hood"? They want a full-time priest, how will he be paid? Where will he live now that the rectory is sold off? Some office space is necessary to store records and keep the books, where will that happen? Sure, maybe we can grant that there are enough priests right now, but what about in five years? Even less? Can fifty people (and likely that's broken down even further into families/couples) even maintain the building, let alone the other costs?
I often get frustrated by these "save our parish" campaigns and, by extension, some of the canon lawyers that drum up all kinds of false hope for people. The bishop didn't do this right, that's for sure, and sticking up for people's rights is important. But the people cannot possibly expect that the bishop is just going to cut his losses and kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with? Slim chance, I think.
Don't get me wrong, I am not passing blame from the bishop to anyone else. If he had followed the process appropriately, been forthright and clear, the pain of these people losing their parish wouldn't be so prolonged. But lose their parish they will, I think.
My brother is a priest in Kentucky with three parishes, none of which is being closed. The smallest has about 15 parishioners for whom he says Mass twice a week.
Consolidation or multiple assignments is a possible solution, but not for every diocese or in every parish and certainly not for every priest.
True. And it helps to have a permanent deacon in that situation.