At first, I thought "this is crazy" but the more I think about it, I kind of like it. Why shouldn't the people of a diocese have input? The only problem is that many bishops come from outside the diocese in the US, but maybe asking local priests would actually be better.
I do like this concept, but I will tell you from personal experience that having a bishop from within the diocese is not always a great idea. And in fact it may not be best depending on the situation.
"The body is recognized as a corporation under public law and has a constitution. It is responsible for the construction and maintenance of buildings, payment of Church staff salaries, and ensuring that financially buoyant communities support struggling ones, among other tasks."
Gotta say, this sounds pretty good. One of the awful things about clerical life today is trying to just maintain institutional stuff.
What I get queasy about is the decision-making issues that the previous article brought up. There are good reasons why "trusteeism" was fought so hard here in the United States. I like the idea of clerics being accountable for financial stuff, etc. to competent laity, but not if this accountability could be used to hold the Church hostage from necessary spiritual reform. That's the risk.
My reservation about trusteeism is that it would result with the trustees being the local bank vice-president, the head of a real estate firm, etc, stifling the Church's social justice mission. But I think things are so bad now that parish finances desperately needs to be taken away from parish priests. They are neither competent nor trustworthy.
At first, I thought "this is crazy" but the more I think about it, I kind of like it. Why shouldn't the people of a diocese have input? The only problem is that many bishops come from outside the diocese in the US, but maybe asking local priests would actually be better.
St. Ambrose was chosen by acclamation of the people. In fact, for a long time Popes were chosen by the Catholics of Rome.
I do like this concept, but I will tell you from personal experience that having a bishop from within the diocese is not always a great idea. And in fact it may not be best depending on the situation.
"The body is recognized as a corporation under public law and has a constitution. It is responsible for the construction and maintenance of buildings, payment of Church staff salaries, and ensuring that financially buoyant communities support struggling ones, among other tasks."
Gotta say, this sounds pretty good. One of the awful things about clerical life today is trying to just maintain institutional stuff.
What I get queasy about is the decision-making issues that the previous article brought up. There are good reasons why "trusteeism" was fought so hard here in the United States. I like the idea of clerics being accountable for financial stuff, etc. to competent laity, but not if this accountability could be used to hold the Church hostage from necessary spiritual reform. That's the risk.
My reservation about trusteeism is that it would result with the trustees being the local bank vice-president, the head of a real estate firm, etc, stifling the Church's social justice mission. But I think things are so bad now that parish finances desperately needs to be taken away from parish priests. They are neither competent nor trustworthy.