Parish Closings Fast Facts

January 14, 2004 statement on Parish Closings

February 3, 2004 letter from Jim Post and John Hynes to Archbishop O’Malley

March 8, 2004 VOTF statement calling for moratorium

March 9, 2004 letter from Steve Krueger to Chris Coyne

March 31, 2004 letter from John Hynes to O’Malley

March 31, 2004 Letter from Mark Maloney, Boston Redevelopment Authority, to Bishop Richard Lennon

May 7, 2004 statement by John Hynes

Flyer for May 23, 2004 event

Financial Implications information

MEDIA ADVISORY

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
As of December 22, 2003

Church Closings and Diocesan Finances Financial Implications: A Boston Overview

Prepared by
David Castaldi
Member, Voice of the Faithful
Former Chancellor, Archdiocese of Boston

Church Closings and Diocesan Finances - Draft
Financial Implications: A Boston Overview
December 22, 2003

• The Archbishop of Boston held a meeting with priests of the diocese for December 16 at which “reconfiguration of parishes” (i.e. the need to close some parishes) was discussed.
  • Church/parish closings have important pastoral and financial considerations.
  • Only financial considerations are considered in this draft.
• It is easy to make a case for the need to reduce the number of parishes
  • Personnel Issues: There are too few priests, many of them nearing retirement, to pastor 357 parish communities
  • Parish Finance Issues:
    • There are many parishes with relatively few parishioners and inadequate parish financial resources to sustain them.
    • Many parishes have church buildings that have physically deteriorated and cannot afford the major and costly repairs that are needed.
  • Diocesan Finance Issues:
    • The diocese does not have the financial resources to sustain this uneconomic model.
    • The budget for the Central Fund of the diocese is running a large deficit because for two years donations to the Cardinal’s Appeal (now, The Catholic Appeal) have been dramatically below the level reached in prior years.
    • The diocese cannot, therefore, subsidize all the parish operations that are running deficits and have large capital needs.
  • The sex abuse crisis and settlement have only an indirect impact on potential church closings.
    • The “direct” drivers are parish and diocesan finances and personnel issues
    • Given that the sex abuse crisis has impacted the economic well-being of both parishes and the diocese, it is an indirect driver.
    • The financial consequences of the crisis make it easier for parishioners to understand the need for some parish/church closings.
• If parishes/churches are closed, who will get the money (including proceeds from sale of property)?
  • Background
    • Types of parishes
      • Geographic (the normal parish with geographic boundaries).
      • Personal (mostly national or ethnic parishes without geographic boundaries originally established around language needs which, for the most part, no longer exist because Italian, French, Polish, Lithuanian, etc. immigrants now speak English.)
    • Types of closings
      • Mergers (two or more parishes combine into one)
      • Suppressions (a parish is closed or terminated and the geographically dispersed parishioners must find a new parish(es)
    • “Ownership” and Type of Closing
      • Civil Law: Parish assets are owned by a corporate entity with the name, “Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, A Corporation Sole.” The assets of all parishes are part of this one corporation.
      • Canon Law: Parishes are separate “juridical persons” and have certain specified rights,
        • In a merger, one juridical person (a parish) is merged with another juridical person (another parish) with the result that a juridical person (the combined parish(es)) still exists.
        • In a suppression, the juridical person (a parish) ceases to exist.
        • Who (and how and why) decides whether a parish closing is a “merger or suppression.”
          • Ultimately the archbishop decides, hopefully with significant consultation with the parish communities involved.
          • If two parishes are geographically contiguous, a merger is the normal decision.
          • Suppression is typically used in “national” parishes which, while physically situated within the boundaries of a geographic parish, have no natural link to that geographic parish because they served a language-based national need. When that language-based need no longer exists, the need for the parish ceases to exist.
    • Who gets the money (including the proceeds for the sale of any real property such as a church building)?
      • Civil Law: The money belongs to the corporate entity, “Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, A Corporation Sole.”
      • Canon Law: The money has, however, typically been distributed by the diocese differently depending on the type of closing
        • Merger: The new juridical person, the combined parish(es), gets the money.
        • Suppression: The juridical person ceases to exist and because the money belongs to the “Corporation Sole,” the “central fund” of the diocese or “chancery operations” receives the money.
        • Can a “juridical person” who does not own the assets (e.g. a parish) count on general canon law to protect how money is distributed? The short answer is “no,” but there is a longer answer
          • A diocese should not use any property for a purpose different from the intention of the donors without their permission
          • It may, however, be difficult to determine who were the donors and what were their intentions.
          • Whether a judicial proceeding in a Church tribunal would be possible is uncertain, but that is not a good approach for many reasons.
        • The most important factor may be a non-legal one: the “court of (Catholic) public opinion” would make it extremely difficult for any bishop in any diocese, especially in Boston, to use a geographic parish’s money for “central fund” purposes without substantial consultation with the laity in the involved communities.
        • In all cases a parish pastor is the “administrator” of the parish juridical person and can give parish money to the “central fund” of the diocese without lay consultation.
          • The “court of (Catholic) public opinion” might effectively prevent such action without consultation with the laity.
          • For the good of our one Church it should be noted that in some instances, the best use of the funds could be the “central fund.”