 |
||||||
|
January 14, 2004 statement on
Parish Closings |
March 31, 2004 Most Reverend Sean Patrick O’Malley, OFM Cap Dear Archbishop O’Malley, Once again, we feel the urgency to address the issue of lay involvement in the reconfiguration process currently underway in the Archdiocese of Boston. This time we will focus on the final review and recommendations regarding parish closings that are scheduled to be made to you by Bishop Lennon and the Central Committee. We have seen the list of participants on the Central Committee. We are very disappointed by the minimalist approach to lay involvement reflected by the membership. Given the call for lay involvement in your letter of January 9, 2004 (“I want to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for parishioners to be heard - this process must truly be the work of the whole Church.”) and your plea on Boston Catholic television, we were expecting more. We were expecting more - both in terms of the numbers of lay people selected and in terms of the transparency of the selection process. It would appear that the resistance to having lay people with a meaningful seat at the table continues. The current configuration of the Central Committee is not true lay involvement. It is only the illusion of inclusion. As we have said before, we believe that the closing of some parishes in the Archdiocese is a given and is necessary for the present and long term viability of the Church in Boston. We also believe and agree with the statement you made on Boston Catholic Television on February 4th to the effect that the reconfiguration process should be made to work by Catholics in the Archdiocese giving you good, well thought-out advice with an understanding of the challenges. We are in complete agreement with you that the input of our priests and laity is crucial. Some statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the reconfiguration process at the parish and cluster levels thus far has involved primarily pastors, and members of parish pastoral councils and financial councils. Although some discussions have occurred where proposals have been explained and shared with lay Catholics within the parishes and cluster groups (and in some instances passed on to the cluster participants), that is a model used in only a scattering of parishes. Overall, the process to date has not provided for anywhere near sufficient input by the laity of the Archdiocese. We understand that you feel some sense of urgency with respect to moving forward with reconfiguration. While we have requested a moratorium on the process, we are not surprised to see you proceed. Nevertheless, we are asking that you please consider the following proposal. Expand the Central Committee to include additional members of the laity from across the Archdiocese. We propose that the expanded Central Committee be constituted in such a way as to provide truly meaningful lay involvement. By truly meaningful lay involvement we mean that:
We would be happy to discuss with you or your staff some possible approaches for obtaining meaningful lay involvement and for doing it very quickly. We would appreciate you letting us know as soon as possible whether or not the Central Committee will be expanded to include additional members of the laity and will be constituted in such a way as to result in truly meaningful lay involvement. This is our second letter concerning reconfiguration. We have not yet received a response to the first, which you would have received nearly six weeks ago. We wonder why it is so difficult to establish this conversation. We look forward to your response to this letter within the next several days. Sincerely yours,
Cc: Kathleen Heck et al |
|
| |