From Our Readers:
As one of the expressed purposes of our site is discussion, allowing members of the Faithful a place to share thoughts and information freely, we wanted to highlight some insightful comments from our readers who have done their own digging.
Everyone is encouraged to do their own research and share. We are confident our readership can bring many areas of knowledge and expertise to bear on this.
We also hear our readers who would like more direct links to information. We will do this where possible, but obviously information has hardly been free-flowing. Those who have shared firsthand accounts and information have usually done so in confidence. We will not assert as fact things that are our own opinions, and where we draw our own inferences from corellative information, we will make it clear that this is the case. Our stated purpose is “to ask questions and find answers.” Some of this is unfolding in real time.
Another diocese that used Partner’s Edge/TeamWorks: (Anonymous)
Check out the musings of Deacon Ernie Scrivani, Secretariat for Pastoral Services in the Archdiocese of Hartford. Does he sound like anyone you know or have read? Hartford is another recent customer of TeamWorks (a.k.a. Partner’s Edge, the consulting company hired by the diocese to create and implement Uniting In Heart).
“Stewards for Tomorrow” is Baltimore’s slogan. I’ll give TeamWorks this… they do come up with some inspiring slogans!!
http://www.stewardsfortomorrow.org/
Look what’s going on in Hartford: (Adam)
I would urge everyone reading this to check out the link in the post above: http://www.stewardsfortomorrow.org/ Then, after reading the article where the Deacon (who sounds a lot like our own Deacon Mike Mescall), describes how many people are upset because their parishes went away, and many parishes that stayed were renamed, look at the top right menu item titled “The Plan”, and then look at some of the documents under “DECREES & LETTERS”. See how many parishes after “merging” went away completely, and were deconsecrated.
This is scary stuff. This is a diocese that is just a year or two ahead of us in “The Plan”. This is where we are headed. Some parishes went away because roof repairs would be too costly to maintain and it made more sense to the diocese for the people of that parish to just join the parish it was merged with instead fixing the other parishes roof. Does anybody reading this belong to an old parish that needs repairs from time to time? Sounds like the next repair job could mean the end of your parish entirely.
Good grief this is troubling. If the Uniting in Heart 2030 plan is not modeled after the plan in Hartford CT, I’d surprised. Just look at all the language on that website. It is nearly verbatim the drivel we are being force fed by the diocese through the diocesan propaganda machine called The Catholic Moment.
And Baltimore: (E.B.)
Check out the great slogan and plan Partner’s Edge helped the Baltimore diocese develop:
https://bemissionarydisciples.org/
The core mission priorities Partner’s Edge helped them develop? “Liturgy, Welcome, Encounter, Accompaniment, Sending, and Mission Support”- glad to see our Diocese isn’t the only one paying through the nose for buzzwords and slogans!
And the plan in Baltimore? Same as Hartford, same as here… same as everywhere. Blow everything up and establish pastorates. Level everything and start from zero. And the justifications given? Same as here. This was the Baltimore playbook… and it reads the same as ours.
Social Continuity should not be interrupted: (Anonymous)
Dissolving of the unique identities of parishes into “one Catholic identity” shares a frightening philosophical similarity to the authoritarian Marxist techniques being used to implement it (secrecy & fear). Stripping away the meaningless buzzwords like “vibrancy”, “vitality” and “mission driven”, the Uniting In Heart plan is sudden, radical, inorganic, and revolutionary.
Treating the Church as a machine or a corporation is a denial of the transcendent order, and ultimately a denial of faith in the providence of God. While some of the professed aims of the program (such as how to deal with priest shortages) may seem practical in a worldly sense, they are ultimately utilitarian and faithless- not to mention speculative. Perhaps if we focused on other measures with as much intensity as “standardizing operational process”, we’d have more vocations.
Besides being a denial of the faith, treating the faithful as a machine or a corporation is inhumane, and will result in cures that kill. Social continuity, like theological continuity, should not be interrupted. Revolution slices through the arteries of faith and culture alike, and such radical and imprudent changes give no thought to the new abuses and evils they may create.
Uniting In Heart denies the particular love that parishioners may appropriately feel for their parish or pastors. It similarly refuses to accept the value of the distinct, unique character of different parishes. It instead seeks narrow uniformity and the dead egalitarianism common to so many radical systems. If the natural uniqueness of varied parishes is destroyed in the name of equality and standardization, then new and undesired inequalities and deformities will assuredly take their place, as happens in all societies that attempt such leveling. Soviet Union, anyone?
Uniting in Heart is not slowing down for COVID-19, according to the bishop. (anonymous)
I believe this specific section of Bishop Doherty’s March 27 memo should be of particular concern to us all. Despite many, many requests to postpone the pastoral changes due to COVID-19, the Bishop has chosen to disregard what is going on not only in our diocese but all over the world. If this plan is to take place as was originally scheduled we are looking at longtime pastors not even having an opportunity to say goodbye to their parishes. We are looking at pastors who are hardly able to administer to their parishes now being forced into new placements as of the end of June, regardless of what level this health crisis is at then. I see this as arrogance, ignorance, and straight up denial. But that is just my opinion. These are Bishop Doherty’s own words:
“I have received questions as to whether the COVID-19 epidemic in Indiana would affect the Uniting in Heart 2030 process. I remain committed to the mission and vision as it has been laid out. It is important to remember that the priest assignment or reassignment picture is just one part of Uniting in Heart. I remain committed to the assignment timetable. Uniting in Heart is about so much more than where individual priests are, it’s about our diocese’s future vibrancy and vitality.”
On this last point:
Diocesan meetings on UiH have remained on the schedule even as the churches and liturgies went on lockdown. Implementing the plan quickly appears to be very high on their list of objectives at the moment.
On the diocese’s Facebook page, numerous members of the Faithful are asking for the diocese to apply the brakes:
Users Today : 15
Total Users : 152647
Total views : 501089
Who's Online : 0
54 Replies to “From Our Readers:”
Hear hear to many of the above comments! And God bless him, it is not personally the Disgruntled, or even his seeming condescension. It is the notion that the UIH plan seems not to take into account authentic human nature and the validity of human bonds. The limpid defense of these central realities warmed my heart
Disgruntled Catholicsays:
March 31, 2020 at 4:07 pm
Alright, I’ve been sitting by watching this as an amusing little episode in the laity deluding themselves into thinking they actually control the governance of the Church, but this is getting out of hand. It’s time to stamp out a few myths that have been propogating in this project.
==================================================================
Wow! Did I really just read this? This drips of disdain for the laity. The shepherds of our diocese should be guiding their sheep not looking down on them, and seeing our discussions and concerns as “an amusing little episode in the laity deluding themselves into thinking they actually control the governance of the Church” I think we all understand we don’t govern the church, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have dialog about what is best for our diocese with our shepherds. We look for guidance, and yet we receive disdain. This is exactly the attitude that this site seems to be trying to address.
It’s also the attitude of untouchability and unaccountability that has contributed to sexual and financial scandals, and which ultimately got secular authorities involved, a la Pennsylvania grand jury.
Sudden understanding struck me this afternoon. The Catholic laity of the diocese and the bishop and his staff are in opposition, indeed in conflict, because of a lack of clarity about their respective goals. The key to this sudden insight was a post by E. B. in which he shared some facts about Dennis Cheesebrow, the founder and president of Partner’s Edge LLC, the consulting firm responsible for preparing the United in Heart program for the diocese. I followed a link to a talk Cheesebrow gave in 2012 to the Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, in which he stated: “In working with institutions within the Church, I will tell you. . .when collaboration is not working, it’s because the mission of the parish is not the mission of the Church—it’s the preservation of identity. They don’t care about the mission of the Church. They’ll preserve their identity at all costs.” And then I found this exact same sentiment echoed by Disgruntled Catholic (who is clearly the representative in this debate of the diocese): that there is a conflict between parish identity and the mission of the Church.
The key here is what Dennis Cheesebrow or the Diocese of Lafayette considers the mission of the Church, nowhere explicitly stated by them, to be. Everything depends on that. If the mission of the Church is to give glory to God, to help us to get to Heaven by passing on the teachings of Our Lord, and to evangelize all nations, I don’t see the conflict with parish identity. Parish identity supports this mission and strengthens it. Every parish I am familiar with focuses on the worship of God, on the Mass, on the sacraments, on religious festivals, on religious education. If, however, the mission of the Church is seen, even if unstated, as social justice activism that disregards Catholic moral teaching, as co-operation with secular organs to avert climate change or to save the planet, or as the facilitating of economic migration that leaves poor countries without their most vigorous workers—then, yes, there is a conflict. Otherwise there is not.
Disgruntled Catholic makes unfair accusations in his final paragraph against the parishioners of this diocese. “If we [meaning the laity] were actually showing up to the Sacraments, would this be problem? If we were encouraging our sons to discern a vocation to the priesthood, would we be here? How might our parishes look different if we actually gave of ourselves to help both its upkeep and its mission?” The parishes I am familiar with do all this and much, much more. And they do it because they love their parish—they are afflicted with a love of parish identity! Uniting in Heart, if implemented, will cause a disaster in these areas.
American parishes are the strength of the Church in America. In Europe, Catholics go to church, often to the same one every Sunday, but there is no parish life. Maybe a few lectures. I don’t know why the American system is different. But I think it’s better. And I would even make the argument that attachment and love for parishes might be one reason why the Church has lost fewer members in the U. S. than in Europe.
I strongly agree with the OP by PMH, in my opinion and experience, it underlines one of the big concerns I have with the “UIH” plan. As stated in the OP, one of the great strengths of the US Catholic Church is its parishes. When I moved from Europe to the USA, it took me a long time to understand the reason behind this great strength.
In Europe, at the beginning of the 20th century, many governments decided to take control of the church buildings but to leave the right to the Catholics to practice their “cult” in them. That state of law persists today in many European countries. The effect of taking control of the buildings was immediate, the churches were beautifully kept (nice roof, nice furnace…etc…) but the number of faithful decreased dramatically over the following decades. The faithful felt unconnected from the place. And this was the plan all along, as stated by the Marxists leaders later: the goal of this takeover by the state was to prevent Catholics from being rooted in parishes with strong identities. Their predictions were that they would have to keep the parishes opened and beautiful (for the time being) but that by depriving Catholics of their sense of community, the churches will rapidly be emptied. Soon their predictions were realized. Catholics lost their faithfulness to their parish, and later their faith… which eventually allowed the government to sell the unattended buildings at a profit. Over the second part of the 20th century, emptied churches and diminishing clergy led church authorities to reorganize dioceses along the lines of UIH. They asked the few remaining priests to rotate between parishes and shifted priests around from place to place every three years. The results of this was quite dramatic, the remaining European parishioners started to hop from parish to parish to find the priest that pleased them the most. The absence of rooting to a parish led to a cratering of donations. Many priests went into serious depression calling their new ministry the “pastoral of gas” meaning that they were just driving hours to cover the sacraments in huge “pastorates”. Vocations from parishes came to a full halt. Almost all sacerdotal vocations in Europe come from youth movements. Ungrounded pastorates with constantly rotating priests only play the role of sacramental supermarket. Almost no vocations come from parishes anymore. Why? Because without true friendships and common history through a community, Christ has very little opportunity and time to speak. Parishioners and priests are always in a hurry and can’t develop this long-term human bound.
However there is some hope: in the 10 to 20 year interim, many European bishops and priests have realized that the parish community with its buildings, its priests, its history is critical to the health of the faith and a strong response to the constant change happening in our world. Many priests have started to redevelop the parish life as is practiced in the USA. This includes the sacraments but also very simple human things such as parish dinners, sports, schools, parish groups, dances, music, festivals…etc… and yes even going away parties for leaving or retiring priest… I disagree that this is a frivolous need. We are not angels after all, and in this world, we do have a body that needs some concrete things to develop our love. As a parishioner in the US, I became so excited about feeling a true love for my parish that was something I had never experienced before… I think Christ Himself shows us that it is not a bad thing to be attached and grounded in a place with its own traditions and its own community. He became man living in a tiny village of a very uncivilized part of the world. He spent all His ministry in an area that cover about 1 square mile at most and met only a few people. In my opinion Christ had a parish and a very small and poor one.
Anyway all of this is to say that, in my opinion, dissolving parish identity into large pastorates with a uniformed practice controlled at the diocese level is going to destroy this strength and identity of parishes in the Lafayette diocese. As happened in Europe, I believe this plan will further reduce practice, donations and vocations, make parishioners more susceptible to shop around for parishes, decrease the faith in the diocese and very likely discourage the clergy. I don’t deny that there are serious material challenges in the diocese. Strong parishes did not prevent the erosion of practice, sexual scandals, diminution of donations…etc… However, in comparison with most of Europe, the diocese of Lafayette has a lot of natural and supernatural strengths to build upon thanks to its priests and parishes. Most parishioners in this diocese owe their faith to these parishes. Most young priests in this diocese saw their vocations developed thanks to a strong bound with a specific priest in a stable parish. Did Teamwork gather and consider these data? Off course not, these are not easily measurable data but they are the life and soul of this diocese. The full upheaval and probable demolition of parishes suggested by the UIH slogan and the “disgruntled catholics” post is very likely based on biased data by a secular firm. Why should we trust this firm to set our diocese course? I feel our bishop has been convinced by their shiny products that he will solve the material issues of this diocese… Will this plan makes more saints? I doubt it… Most saints in history were born in a poor but strong parishes.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s learn from Europe without repeating their mistakes. Thanks for sharing, CPB.
My response to this person would be to RELEARN about the “sensus fidelum” (that is the sense of the laity) and the understanding of the Church as the Universal Sacrament of Salvation, which came out of Vatican II. Such things were developed for example by Cardinal Walter Kasper. In Kasper’s book Theology and Church (Crossroads, NY, 1992), on page 143 he writes: “Since the witness of the laity is not a pure refection of the church’s magisterium, and since the magisterium is not a mere notary for registering the formation of opinion ‘from below’, there is only one possible conclusion: the process of arriving at truth in the church must take the form of dialogue. As dialogisitic sacrament of God with the world, the church has itself a dialogistic constitution. Today there is no other way in which truth can be reached.” Obviously, this not “united in heart” stuff was forced versus dialogistic.
Additionally, I would suggest the “disgruntled catholic” read Edward Schillebeeckx’s book, Church: The Human Story of God with particular focus on chapter 4: Towards Democratic Rule of the Church as a Community of God. There are many other similar theological texts.
Finally, in my opinion this entire consolidation project is about financial control and power by clerical administrators. Is this new? Of course not.
Recall Matthew Chapter 20:
24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
How many priests in your experience are servants of the laity?
In the mean time, we can only pray for them and for each other.
Lol!! Thanks for the response I’ll surely take it to heart
This is all so incredibly petty and ridiculous. There’s a pandemic going on, instead of uniting as Christians we are deciding to help tear the church apart. These people that have created this page and that are commenting such terrible things about the church and the bishop are not being true disciples of Christ. How sad. I hope you pray for the church that one day their ideas are as perfect as you would like them to be.
No, no my friend. Red Wolf has called on people to pray for the Bishop. I do not think that there is a single person on here who disagrees with this.
However, what the authors are noting is that the same forces that moved other much more evil people of the past to do horrible things, are the same forces that influence the decisions of Uniting in Heart, namely Marxism.
Further, Disgruntled Catholic (and the Bishop for that matter) are the one’s who are unfeeling and uncaring during this pandemic. The people are scared, when people are scared they want their parents. The priests are the laity’s spiritual fathers, which is why we call them “Father”. One does not simply trade one’s father all willy nilly. Especially not because the CEO board said so.
No no, the priest has to have a connection with those he leads. He needs to know Mrs. Smith and her troubles. He needs to know Mr. Doe and his struggles. To rip out 80% of the diocese’s priests as if one size fits all is uncharitable because it is not based in human nature nor reality.
It is sad you have such lack of faith that he and other do not care and don’t have the best interest of the people. What men of little faith.
My full Faith is reserved for Our Lord and His Saints alone.
And I do believe that the Bishop believes that he has the best interest of the people in mind. I just think that he is wrong in how he is acting on that.
Some of the priests have been at a parish for 10, 20, or even 30 years and we are told that because of the possibility of the quarantine extending into the summer, these priests may not be able to be given a proper send off.
These are not simply people whom the priest works with, like a little retirement party that one’s colleagues at the office throw for him on the half hour lunch by bringing in a cake. To many, the priest is a Father to them, a beloved Family member. Someone who baptized them, who baptized their children and grandchildren, who laughed with them, who wept with them, who presided over their weddings, who struggled with them and triumphed with them.
When Disgruntled Catholic says throwing the priest a goodbye party “may be the worst excuse ever,” I can read see nothing but the lack of sympathy, a lack of caring. Perhaps this person has never had that connection with a parish priest. If that is the case, I feel sorry for him because it really is a blessing.
Reading these comments from Disgruntled:
“…an amusing little episode in the laity deluding themselves”
“…the youth, inexperience, and immaturity of those involved in the project”
“these parishes have far more attachment to their pastors than the Catholic Church”
“Moving them in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic may not be the best idea, but because we can’t throw a goodbye party? Seriously? That might be the worst excuse ever.”
“Parish identity as practiced in this diocese is actually wrong,”
“…he is under no obligation to consult with the laity before making a decision”
“The attitude of the writers of this website, which is also found in an even more frightening way among the commentators, shows an explicit disobedience to the bishop”
“This is direct opposition to legitimate authority, to which Catholics are bound by conscience to obey in all things but sin”
“This project will not be taken seriously at a diocesan level. You’re already a rather large joke among many parish staff members”
“…to those who actually know what’s going on,”
“…the tantrum has turned into play-acting at investigative journalism and inciting… some sort of reaction,”
“No one in authority will do anything differently as a result of this website”
as well as the naming of priests and the time they’ve served gives credence to what’s been written on other pages: that priests are indeed living in fear.
Um, what? How does that connect to priests living in fear?
I am both deeply concerned and relieved that my family and I are not the only ones with such concerns! Thank you for what you are doing and be assured of our prayers for your efforts. Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
When I first read of the Uniting in Heart plan last summer, the most concerning bit for me was the seeming indifference with which it was declared that some parishes must merge or close for financial reasons. Questions: Was there any effort to create a localized plan for the renewal of these parishes? Were the parishioners aware of the scope of the problems? Where did these parishes come from in the first place? Were they not built from the ground up by men and women who loved the Lord enough to build and fund his temple themselves? Are people not willing to do the same now? It seems instead we rely on parish finance councils and the diocesan budget office to take and redistribute donations as they see fit, at the expense of parishes too small to matter, thus building a growing bureaucracy that cares about people basically as numbers, as Doc says.
We’re starting to hit the nail on the head here with the objection that the Plan thus far disregards the familial aspect of the Church in favor of a top-down, cold economic approach to reform. I don’t dispute the main problems the diocese is addressing—priest shortage, financial deficit, low Mass attendance—but I am coming to agree more and more that localized, open, accessible grassroots discussion is the way to identify and solve the problems, rather than pure business analysis and (dare I say) *rigid* top-down decrees. The chosen strategy seems to be business-forward, rather than faith-forward as it should be, for the root of the aforementioned problems is arguably the de-emphasis of faith in most facets of public and private life.
However, there is extremely valid reason for transparent authority in the Church. The Church is not a democracy, and opening the “grassroots” door too widely also risks a watering-down of the practice of our faith, vulnerability to heresy, and indebtedness to the biggest donors.
I now begin to realize what another reader was pointing out by with the odd post defining “concern troll.” It’s an effective method to subvert a project such as this- to initially ingratiate yourself among those concerned with some apparently sympathetic comments, then move into expressions of regret, concern and ultimately disavowal.
In light of this, it seems fairly likely that some commenting here are concern trolls. Perhaps none other than Disgruntled Catholic himself posting under a different name, who realizes that the vitriolic spleen of his first reaction played overmuch into the arguments of the Red Wolves and those commenting here. The talking points of some of these likely trolls are rather the same as D.G’s.
Disgruntled Catholic-
As an obedient servant of the bishop (which you obviously are) and apologist for Uniting in Heart (also obvious), it seems that you would have little to fear in the way of reprisals. Moreover, some of your arguments seem to rest upon your claim to personal knowledge and experience. You chide those participating in this page for anonymity, yet you chose to hide behind it as well. Why? Why don’t you tell us how you know so much, and why we should trust what you claim?
Everything except the job stuff is publicly available information.
Well alright then. That could be a start. The air could be very much cleared. Might you perhaps link directly to the publicly available info. But what then is the job stuff? It is you must admit a bit imprecise as terminology goes. Then again for maximum clarity perhaps if more of the “job stuff” were also publicly available, the air would be that much fresher.
“It comes across to those who actually know what’s going . . .”
If we only knew what those who actually know know!
Oh, we all get the public information. Please, share the other… the “job stuff.” The stuff you know that none of us does. Are we unworthy of it? Is it beyond our comprehension? And how do you come by this information? You seem to be in the know. Please share.
Oh clearly, the project is not being taken seriously… is it? Nobody has taken ANY time to refute it, have they? I’d say “the project” must be touching some nerves, judging from Disgruntled Catholic’s lengthy post….
Alright, I’ve been sitting by watching this as an amusing little episode in the laity deluding themselves into thinking they actually control the governance of the Church, but this is getting out of hand. It’s time to stamp out a few myths that have been propogating in this project.
1. There is no such thing as a “right to know”. We may want transparency, it may be a good idea, but we are in no way owed it. With the exception of the canonically mandated Finance Council in each parish, the bishop *and pastors of parishes* are under no obligation to consult with the laity. They’re under even less of an obligation to make public what his private musings are regarding the best course of action for the diocese. Which leads us to:
2. Secrecy is how plans get made. The idea that having “secret meetings” is somehow sinister betrays the youth, inexperience, and immaturity of those involved in the project. Strategic planning meetings are always secret, because if something emotionally sensitive reaches the public before it’s finalized, there will be reaction to something not happening. Imagine if the idea had been tossed around to merge OLMC and SMG into a single parish (not pastorate, parish) and leaked out. Obviously it wasn’t the final plan, but that would have provoked all kinds of headaches for something that was never going to happen.
3. The laity of the diocese had an opportunity to ask questions and give feedback. When the volume of feedback was overwhelming, the deadline to send it in was extended. Then, when the deadline passed, the project moved forward. We don’t know what the feedback was or how it was taken. Maybe some reassignments changed, and I know for a fact at least a few parish combinations were reconsidered with one confirmed change (that I know of). All canonical processes work like this. You get the chance for feedback, then we move forward. It’s the only way to get things done.
4. Yeah, it’s tough for people to say goodbye to pastors that have been there forever. But that’s *what’s supposed to happen.* Pastors are supposed to be assigned to temporary terms, that’s by design. In the Carmel deanery, for example, there is only one priest that’s fewer than 5 years into an assignment, Fr. Weisenberger at St. Joe’s in Lebanon. Fr. Dan in Geist has been there since 2014 (after 17 years in one parish). The next most recent pastor is Fr. O’Keefe at St. Alphonsus, who has been there since 2006. Heck, Fr. Kevin is still the only pastor Goretti has had, and it’s been 20 years. Several of these parishes have far more attachment to their pastors than the Catholic Church. A single priest, after being in a parish for 20 years, can bring about the schism of the whole parish with a single statement. I’ve seen it happen and I’ve seen the effect it has on the priest, the parishioners, and the rest of the diocese. Moving them in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic may not be the best idea, but “because we can’t throw a goodbye party”? Seriously? That might be the worst excuse ever. Because roads get closed, because it’s nonessential work, because some priests physically cannot move without assistance, sure those are good reasons. But we don’t know enough about this disease and its spread right now. Who knows, we may be done with all this by the second week of June. Or we may be under martial law. Until more information is known, they’re proceeding like things will be alright, just like literally every other business and organization in the country. That’s how big picture plans work.
5. The ecclesiology involved here is so unbelievably bad I don’t even know where to start. “One Catholic identity” is the structure the Church is *founded* on. We are One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. There are currently 23 churches sui iuris in the Catholic Church, each with their own liturgical identities and “local” traditions, but each united in one thing – their Catholic identity, united in the Pope. Parish identity means nothing compared to the unity of Catholics around the world. Parish identity as practiced in this diocese is actually wrong. Canonically, a parish is a local group of the faithful, bounded within a certain territory or person, in the case of a personal prelature. Registration means literally nothing to parishes canonically. It doesn’t matter if you’re registered at St. Boniface, if you live in Monticello, your parish is Our Lady of the Lakes. Feel free to move anywhere you want, the parish you belong to doesn’t identify your religion, your baptism as a Catholic and obedience to the Magisterium are what unite you externally and visibly to the rest of those baptized. Individualism is NOT a value of the Catholic Church. It’s actually in direct opposition to the Church as it understands itself. To have not only singled out this comment for further sharing, but to provide emphasis to this point, is to propagate error among the faithful. Having such an elementary error permeate the approach of this project makes it impossible for it to take seriously, even aside from the other reasons to ignore this.
6. The Church *is* an autocracy. The Pope is the sole legislator and the judge of final appeal. The Roman Curia exercises their authority only because they have been deputed to act on the Pope’s behalf. The bishop has that exact power in his diocese. The bishop has sole legislative authority and is the judge of appeal in his diocese. Like I said in point 1, he is under no obligation to consult with the laity before making a decision.
7. Turns out, there’s a reason this is being done. Assuming every single one of them gets ordained, in 5 years, we will have 6 or 7 new priests. In the meantime, barring tragedy, we’re going to have a similar number of priests retire. In addition, it’s bad for priests to not have community. A big part of this plan is the opportunity for our priests to live in community with one another, something we should be encouraging. Communal living simultaneously helps prevent scandal by providing far fewer opportunities for it and gives our priests close coworkers in the life of holiness, something we all need for both encouragement and accountability.
8. The diocese is shrinking. There simply are not as many Catholics attending Masses regularly at many parishes throughout the diocese, especially in the more rural parts. More importantly, collections are not able to sustain full staffs and parishes. No one wants people to lose their jobs. But also, the Church teaches that workers should receive a just wage for their work. When you’re pulling in $800/week in collections, it’s a bit difficult to fund a liturgist, a youth minister, a DRE, a secretary, and a custodian, and also keep up with all of the routine maintenance that needs to be done, including fixing the roof. It’s not just a bad idea, it’s impossible. But that’s the situation significant portions of the diocese are either in now or are facing in the very near future. St. Joseph in Covington, for example, pledged $12,000 for fruitful harvest this year. St Francis in Francesville pledged under $5,000. It’s not possible for them to fund a staff the size of something like OLMC. 6 parishes pledged under $15,000. By area, we are primarily a rural, agricultural diocese. There is not a ton of money to be had. We need to act like it.
9. The attitude of the writers of this website, which is also found in an even more frightening way among the commentators, shows an explicit disobedience to the bishop. Bishop Doherty absolutely has the authority to tell his employees what they may or may not say regarding certain initiatives, especially unpopular ones that are being undertaken for the long-term health of the diocese. This is *normal* in fact. It’s literally how businesses function. To speak out publicly or privately against a strategic initiative is grounds for termination of employment in… just about every business on the planet. But you are encouraging employees of the bishop to act in direct defiance of his orders, speaking out publicly (by attaching a name to it) or privately (by remaining anonymous). This is direct opposition to legitimate authority, to which Catholics are bound by conscience to obey in all things but sin. Advocacy that employees disobey their bishop is advocacy to disobey a precept of conscience, also known as leading into sin. In addition, you compared the shepherd who has the care of your soul with Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Communist Party of China and famous for killing as much as 10% of the population under his rule. That’s… so many different kinds of wrong.
10. On turnover: it’s not just sorely needed in some places, it’s a mandate of conscience. Ever seen a person in charge of marriage formation undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage? I have. Ever seen an RCIA director tell people there’s not really a difference between being Catholic and being Methodist and it’s fine to be either? I have. Ever seen a priest attempt to pass on his responsibility to bring the Sacrament of Anointing to the dying to a lay staff member? I have. These three situations are not just poor fits for their positions or in need of some guidance as to how better to perform their jobs, they directly put souls in jeopardy. This CANNOT be accepted by the Church.
11. This is all happening at once because it’s going to take a decade to get the rest of this mess sorted out. What parishes have parishioners invested enough in the care of their parish to actually show up and clean it? Are there parishes whose Sunday Mass attendance includes a grand total of 15 parishes? What are the practical implications of living at this parish instead of that one? But this can’t be sorted out without the big shakeup. And on a more practical level, with the radical restructuring of the diocese, it’s necessary to do it all at once because of how quickly the web of priests moving gets completely entangled. But again, we had advance notice. We’ve known since June that 80% of the priests were getting moved. This is not a sudden surprise now, 9 months later.
13. This project will not be taken seriously at a diocesan level. You’re already a rather large joke among many parish staff members. It comes across to those who actually know what’s going on as an exercise of a person or group of people mad that their priest is getting moved, so the tantrum has turned into play-acting at investigative journalism and inciting… some sort of reaction. But the total anonymity, the ignorance of the way the Church both views Herself and is governed, and the advocacy to directly disobey the bishop all come together to a single point. No one in authority will do anything differently as a result of this website.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I agree the implementation was ineffective and the initial conversation poorly handled. I too have questions about the particular drawing of boundaries (Logansport and Carmel in the same deanery is an odd combination). Hiring an outside consulting firm to come up with slogans and buzzwords seems like a poor use of money. I wish the bishop had simply had the confidence to exercise his legitimate authority in this restructure himself, without giving the image of needing to consult the faithful, because it then leads to initiatives like this website. Yeah, it hurts seeing priests that we’ve known for 10+ years move. It’s very unfortunate. But how about we take this for what it should actually be? **A wakeup call for the faithful.**
If we were actually showing up to the Sacraments, would this be a problem? If we were encouraging our sons to discern a vocation to the priesthood, would we be here? How might our parishes look different if we actually gave of ourselves to help both its upkeep and its mission? When was the last time we actually went out and attempted to bring more people into the Church? Or do we just go about our lives thinking that it’s the priest’s job, the RCIA coordinator will figure out how to get new people in, and the youth minister will point our boys towards the priesthood. We are the Church too, and it’s time we actually answered the call to action. Priests moving shouldn’t be a huge change. A priest having two parishes shouldn’t be impossible. But for it to work, and for parishes to stay open, the laity need to actually invest themselves in the Church’s mission and take seriously Christ’s last words- “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Before we tear down our bishop for what he’s doing, we need to ask ourselves what we’ve done to obey Christ’s final order.
“We are NOT taking you seriously.”
*proceeds to write small novel arguing with everything that has been said*
I think it was Evelyn Waugh who said that journalism consists is saying “Lord Jones is dead, to people who never knew he was alive in the first place.” The importance of his death to men is dependent on the importance they attached to his life. Things must matter to people for them to be “invested.” More so perhaps, the people must feel they matter to get them invested in the things.
Now Disgruntled Catholic says a number of things are true, namely the particularities of what a bishop is obliged to tell to or ask of the laity, and that the laity have been decreasing in their attendance. But he or she rather misses the point.
People are not showing up at Church you say. Might it have something to do with
A) You’re already a rather large joke among many parish staff members.
B) Imagine if the idea had been tossed around to merge OLMC and SMG into a single parish (not pastorate, parish) and leaked out. Obviously it wasn’t the final plan, but that would have provoked all kinds of headaches for something that was never going to happen.
C) Bishop Doherty absolutely has the authority to tell his employees what they may or may not say regarding certain initiatives, especially unpopular ones that are being undertaken for the long-term health of the diocese. This is *normal* in fact. It’s literally how businesses function.
And I could go on quoting, but every business knows when you treat your employees badly, they leave. Fancy that?!?! When you convey to people consistently that they don’t matter, I suppose they take the hint.
What is more, he talks about the overall mission of the Church. All rather dreadfully like the Communists saving mankind no matter how man individual men they have to hurt. Or rather like the idea of building up marriage and telling people they are practically selfish for caring too much about their own marriages. If your parishes are not valued they will not be sound, and if they are not sound how you expect the greater whole to do anything but suffer is anybody’s guess. After the families, its in the parishes that the vocations will or will not be fostered.
But what is yet more, when one private, or one platoon is dysfunctional, the problem is likely with those few. When the problems are general, it is not merely a general problem.. it is a General problem…a problem with the generals. The diocese and the Church in US are in sad shape in many ways. But the blame lies largely with the shepherds ( though not entirely.) It has been, as they say, a crisis of leadership.
I will begin to close with one anecdote relayed to me. It concerns an old parish in the northern part of the diocese. It was to be renovated, back in those halcyon days, when vandalism was de-rigueur. The Chancellor at the time insisted it should be done. But the patriarch of one of the local families, who had all but built the Church objected, up to the grounds that he should not fund the diocese anymore if the aforementioned fad for architectural dis-figuration was followed through with. The wrecking did occur and the patriarch made good on his threat. Beauty and fellowship and even just income were lost . Why? Because those in authority held the laity in contempt. And made the whole matter of contempt rather obvious. And all for what was a rather conspicuous and much regretted fad.
“You know that the rulers of the unbelievers lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. That’s not the way it should be among you.” What the Disgruntled One fails to realize is that the principle problem is not the lack of authority to do this or that, but whether it is a Christian or charitable or even just nice thing to do in the first place.
While Jesus was on occasion harsh, His representatives would do well to be more meek. Why? Because they do in a fashion represent Christ. And if they give the example that Christ is not the good shepherd but an autocratic employer whose fold are more “employees” than they are sheep or children, it is not merely a not a wonder that the sheepfold is sickly, that catholic piety is weakened. Really it is more a wonder that any Catholics remain at all. And these what remain, in spite of it all, will no doubt be asked to pay for the demolition of what they love, and to be contemptuously remonstrated regarding charity and catholicity in the process.
If it really is to be a brutally calculated business plan then identify it as such. No need for all the flowery and really disingenuous going on about “uniting in heart” when the whole thing is being executed in a rather heartless and really I dare say less than honest fashion. If hard things must be done, be honest. If you cannot bear the response of the people or fear it. You must either bite the bullet and be open, or perhaps think long and hard whether or not you should be doing something which requires deceiving the people for its successful execution.
I will end with a quote from something a little less weighty and perhaps less witty than Waugh.
From the Princess Bride of all things.
“We are men of action. Lies do not become us.” — Westley.
It is obvious that you are the creator of this website
If that is directed toward me, I can only say that it is not true. It not you will forgive me I hope
Maybe you should argue with the actual points raised, since they seem very valid to me. I thought this was a forum for open discussion, but it seems pretty heavily biased so far. I’m listening.
Still listening, EM? I sure hope so. I hope everyone in the chancery is listening. I hope they read the excellent post from a reader this morning.
I think this summarizes well the true, beautiful and peaceful vision of “Uniting in Heart”… Maybe the logo should be redesigned though. I don’t feel the cute heart and little hands give full credit to what is going on.
Agreed. Reeks of clericalism, and dripping with contempt. “You petty laity scum…. “
This is amazing. I couldn’t agree more. Thank you for believing in Uniting in Heart!
Hi, Father D! Welcome to the conversation! Say, since you’re here and since you know so much about so much, and since you brought up the diocesan finances, can you shed any light on the alleged budgetary overruns on the St. Joseph retreat center? I heard it was a doozy. Of course the Red Wolves may shed light on this in time… I hear they are amassing quite a number of interested people within the diocese who don’t think this is quite as much of a laugh fest as you do.
What are you talking about? Does this have something to do with Uniting in Heart?
Questionable financial/construction budget decisions made during construction/renovation of the retreat center may have create a certain amount of not insignificant financial difficulty for the diocese which may have brought about or impacted a fair amount of the UiH Plan. But, as disgruntled Catholic stated, we the laity do not need to be made privy this situation. 🙂
Oh, I see. How awkward. Why haven’t we heard about this in the Catholic Moment? Or from ANYWHERE?
Probably the same reason that the Catholic Moment does not publish letters to the editor anymore.
SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK.
I wish I would have read this before immediately responding to Red Wolf’s ideas. I’m torn between two things: disappointment at how UIH has been handled, and the sneaking suspicion that these objections are being raised suddenly by people who JUST realized their beloved pastor is being transferred and can’t stand to see that happen.
Also, I had to chuckle a little when I read Red Wolf’s report on attendees’ phones being confiscated for UIH planning meetings. It sounds like…a typical Catholic retreat.
Yes but do they collect numbered packets at the retreats. And are people literally scared to mention anything said at the retreat?
Parishes do indeed close, and as Hilare Belloc noted of the passing of things.
“For I know very well in my mind that a day will come when the holy place shall perish and all of the people of it, and never more be what they were. ”
But he also noted in the same preface
“And on this account, Sussex, does a man love an old house. which was his father’s, and on this account does a man come to love with all his heart, that part of the earth which nourished his boyhood. for it does not change, or if it changes, it changes very little, and he find in it the character of enduring things.”
To be connected to local parish is the human was of being. And while bishops and dioceses mu pay the bills, Chesterton observed that the modern world had mad sort of an idol of economics which should be “nothing more than a minor annoyance three times a day.”
But literature and wit aside. If the parishes are in some cases to be lost eventually what is to be gained. If we are going to go off and convert the heathen that might be something. But if all are we going to get is follow a half-baptized reheating of a business philosophy…the laity are rather getting the short end of it. To attempt to fit the laity into some …er the gentleman with the cheese-name….. well just say Procrustean plan, because it makes numbers better is certainly not human and is not in the least bit likely to bring about any uniting of hearts.
And while I am too young to remember “the old ways,” I am old enough to know that attendance numbers have plummeted and abuse crises were many, and hidden to boot. The hierarchical nature of the church not withstanding, even if the bishop does not owe the laity an explanation, he would do well to write checks against the facts. As it stands the bishops as a group, and most individual bishops by extension, literally have a hairs more than zero credibility. They have no reasonable expectation of their prudence or their honesty being presumed. On the contrary there is a good deal of reasons to mistrust them. The mishandling of UIH is not so much the exception, it is merely the crystallization, the apogee…. wait .. the nadir perhaps ….of along line of failures.
When I first heard of it I thought it was rather controlled demolition. The bishops having mismanaged the Church, were now faced with too little money, too few parishioners, and too much real-estate. An economic and demographic crunch to be sure, but save that they should address the root causes, the diocesan leadership will merely find themselves rinsing and repeating a few decades down the road. Until after the final iterations , as they say “last one out, please turn off the lights”
I have seen no indication that this site is about any single parish or any single pastor. We are all being affected by this plan. This is about an entire diocese. A Catholic retreat, where people are encouraged to unplug from technology, is very different from a work meeting.
Red Wolf commenters: We want to know what people REALLY think!
Also Red Wolf commenters: Anyone who disputes the Red Wolf must be in the Bishop’s pocket!
I’m interested to see where this “open discussion” is going!
I agree! I am interested to see where is open discussion is going, and I am glad the diocese is finally responding! More please Disgruntled Catholic!
Agreed! Let’s hear more from the man who has the inside information! More D.C.! More!
Disgruntled Catholic, you make several comments that I want to address, but as I have children at home, I have limited time and can only type for a few minutes right now. First of all, you may have been better served by not being so condescending at the start of your missive. If you really want to foster charity, an inherent Catholic value, scorn and superciliousness is not an effective approach.
You made comments throughout your address that seem directly aimed at parish loyalty. I understand that we are “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church,” and, as such, we are united in many ways. That being said, it is natural to make certain choices about which church one goes to most of the time based on a number of factors, including but not limited to the homilies and attitude of the priest(s), the music used, the apparent reverence of the liturgy, and even the appearance of the church building itself. We are drawn to beauty and toward those unique characteristics that unite our hearts and minds to God. To be dismissive of these characteristics is to ignore basic human conditions. To homogenize the church by trying to make all parishes the same is to strip the church of its Catholic culture, which is how saints are raised and vocations are fostered. To say that these preferences ignores our shared Catholic faith is assign. We can share American heritage, but that does not change the fact that little pockets of heritage still exist in Little Italy and China Town. Just so, different parishes offer different aspects of Catholic culture. We do not want to whitewash the faith. We want to live it.
Condescending at the START of the missive? Did you read the whole thing? How about at the start, through the middle, and right up to the end. But, perhaps you were just being charitable. His little note didn’t inspire any charity in me. That’s rather sad if he’s of the cloth.
But the main thrust of your comment is well taken. The notion that the ONLY identity that we have is “Catholic” and nothing else is ridiculous. Are churches fungible? Are pastors? Are communities? Are the faithful themselves? Do we betray “youth, inexperience, and immaturity” if we have preferences and human feelings? Obviously not. If no other identity than “Catholic” mattered, then I would be sinful to have any particular preference for my own home, or my own parents, or my own children. These attachments are human, they are natural and they are how we grow in love and build communities.
The ontology involved in Disgruntled Catholic’s diatribe is so unbelievably bad, I don’t even know where to start, to say nothing of his anthropology. He’s quick to throw around a bit of latin, demonstrate his erudition, drop some names and make reference to his own experience, but he’s simply wrong in several ways and on several levels about how humans work. For one, to reduce the love of one’s community (as well as all other sources of identity that human persons can have, apparently) to “individualism” and write it off as anti-Catholic is an obvious straw man. It’s contrary to canon law, the catechism, the witness of the saints and the consistent tradition of the Church. Fortunately those sources give us good guidance on more than just ecclesiology, and demonstrate D.C.’s rant as mere puffery. Individualism, as understood by the church, is something else. I suspect D.C. knows this.
Don’t be discouraged by his scolding. Keep living the faith, and bear the slaps with pride.
This Uniting in Heart plan, and Disgruntled Catholic’s long response to this site indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘Universal’ and “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic’. These terms don’t mean we shouldn’t have our own identity within the Church. Why do you think people and even saints have their own devotions to different orders and saints. We don’t all have the exact same love the for the Church for the exact same reasons. For some, St. Francis is an inspiration for how they live out there faith. For others, St. Joseph, St. Dominic, and thousands of others. There is no one way to see and find beauty within the Church, which inspires and creates vocations and saints.
I fear the attitude of Disgruntled Catholic and the attitude of this plan indicates that our priests, our spiritual Fathers will be treated as nothing more than ‘sacrament dispensers’. All priests treated the same (unless they oppose the plan in which case they will be treated even worse) and moved around as if they are interchangeable, as if it doesn’t matter which priest is assigned where. No account taken into each priests individual strengths and weaknesses, because to this plan, it doesn’t matter. Each priest has the same ability to dispense the sacraments, and that is all that seems to matter. I feel so bad for our priests, I cry for them, and I pray for them to be able to withstand this treatment.
Disgruntled Catholic makes excellent points. It appears that he has inside knowledge that no one has contested, anecdotal evidence that rings true based on my experience, and his writing is meticulous. I have to believe he is a priest. I do not agree with everything he states, his condescending tone, or his hypocrisy (of condemning anonymity anonymously), but I really cannot argue against the facts he presents. I wish he would have been more, dare I say, pastoral. He may have reached and convinced more people that way. Really could have done without his opening paragraph and point 13; sowing doubt and attempting to demoralize is the style of demons. However, the bottom line is that he is correct on most of what he says.
That said, I do believe that this site will serve a useful purpose in getting laymen more interested and in getting some feedback to the bishop. If His Excellency truly cares about dialogue, he will take this feedback to heart and at the very least choose to be more decisive and have his actions follow his words in either transparency or secrecy, whichever he chooses.
Dennis Cheesebrow is the founder of TeamWorks International and Partner’s Edge LLC, and is the philosophical guru of those companies. He’s also a published author- you can find his book Partnership: Redefined: Leadership Through the Power of “&” on Amazon.
In 2012, he spoke at the annual meeting of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, which addressed these topics:
“Catholic organizations and institutions have been impacted by demographic and economic factors facing both the Church and the nation. How are we responding to the new realities within the Church, and are we transitioning to new structures to help carry out our mission? Philanthropists and foundations foster and support strategic alliances as a way of leveraging their investment to make the greatest difference in the life and work of the Church.
This gathering of leaders from both the Church and private sector will address key questions: How can Catholic institutions—dioceses, parishes, and nonprofits—collaborate and position themselves more effectively to do more with less? How do they manage for the mission? What will allow them to thrive now, in 10 years, and beyond? We will gather business executives, philanthropists, educators, Church leaders, executive directors, trustees of Catholic institutions and networks, and other stakeholders for a highly participatory series of workshops and meetings designed to identify and develop creative and practical suggestions for how alliances might be structured, funded and sustained.”
Further information about that conference (which looks quite interesting) can be found here:
http://theleadershiproundtable.org/TLR/AboutUs/Annual-Meeting/2012-Meeting/2012-annual-meeting.html
In his presentation at that meeting, Cheesebrow expressed his opinion that parish identity conflicts with the mission of the church, and the collaborative missions which are his company’s work. He says:
“In working with institutions within the church, I will tell you… when collaboration is not working, it’s because the mission of the parish is not the mission of the church- it’s the preservation of identity. They don’t care about the mission of the Church. They’ll preserve their identity at all costs.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=149VAZGFn_c
(starting at 9:50)- feel free to listen to more if you want to know how corporate consultants talk.
This is the CEO of the company the diocese has hired to implement Uniting in Heart, and he sees our sense of identity as contrary to the mission of the Church, and contrary to his purposes… and now, presumably, the Diocese’s purposes as well. His philosophy is to win us over, sidestep us, or run us over.
the reference for the quote * https://www.chesterton.org/hudge-and-gudge/
The Hartford comments are really worrying, for a reason which I shall get around to. They show that the one thing worse than the diocese seeming to not know at all what they are about, is that with all the secrecy, they may know very well what they are about, and that they fear the people shall not like it.
But first a little thought about… well.. being a normal human….. the normal human way of being, delivered with a little humor to cushion the blow that might come
The English essayist (and well writer of all sorts) Gk Chesterton personified the forces of big government and big business in an uncannily humorous fashion.
“Who are Hudge and Gudge, and why are they important to us?
Chesterton introduced these two in his 1910 book, What’s Wrong with the World. Both Hudge and Gudge were gentlemen of the governing class. Gudge was described as a plutocrat, a Tory, an individualist, and perhaps a slumlord. Hudge was described as a socialist, an idealist, a progressive, and perhaps a vegetarian.” *
But for our purposes, we might say that Gudge is “Catholic Inc” and Hudge is “Marxist Catholicism.” The striking thing about them is how much they really view the average man, whom Chesterton named “Jones” in the same fundamentally inaccurate way.
Jones is an average (but really a particular) guy, who lives in a particular town, is married to a particular girl, and goes to a particular parish. But the Catholic Hudges and Gudges don’t see him that way. He is not an average catholic, or even the average Catholic. He is rather the average of Catholics. He is not so much a particular man in a particular parish, but functionally he is a non-descript widget that fits with a non-descript cog called a parish the combination of which would appear to be a mere franchise in the machine that is Catholic Inc…. or “the people of God” as dated qua trendy expression goes. All of it is but interchangeable parts. He is not a man, but a place holder for mankind ( or worse still humankind).
But what of the priest? The man called “Father.” Chesterton once called daycare “day-orphanges.” The modular approach of constantly moving priests or of moving most priests at once gives rise to the phenomenon of an almost “rent a father” or a “day -father.” When one looks at the whole affair, bromides about avoiding “a cult of personality” not withstanding, one is struck by how little account is taken how men really live, what the truly human way of living is. The fact that if the Church is a family it must be strongly affected by particular relationships and a particularity of place. For all the going on about “being Church” one hears these days , one wonders how they could have thought so little about it.
But to bring the matter back around, one thing I read above in the Hartford examples very much worried me. It brought something to mind that worried me when I first heard of all of this.
Let us be direct! A parish recently shattered is a parish easily shuttered.
The continuity, of a longtime pastor in many cases or of the constant local life of the parish in others, being broken means the whole thing in unmoored and is ripe to be toppled or pushed over. This prospect frightens me a good deal.
“See how many parishes after “merging” went away completely, and were deconsecrated. ”
That is very frightening indeed
I am a young Catholic. A friend sent me this link because I am involved in our young adults group at my church but also at diocese events.
I’ll turn 20 this summer. I want to see transparency on the part of Catholic leaders, not double talk. I read George Orwell’s 1984 in high school. Here are some quotes that apply to the Plan we know almost nothing about:
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” The diocese is not being clear and transparent to us!
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing.”
This all seems to be about the power of those “who know” what’s better for us than we know ourselves, and so won’t honestly listen! Please do not ignore me because I’m 19!
“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
I’m very thankful someone started this website and to all those who are sharing information here. We aren’t crazy. We are sinners but seeking the Light of the Truth. Please church leadership — lead us before you command us.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.”
I love the church. I love Jesus. I love to be able to express myself here now because my soul needs a church leadership that is transparent.
Help us Jesus and Mary! Something has gone wrong here. I don’t know who started all this but secrecy is wrong. Jesus said clearly, “I am the way, the truth and the life…” Help us now Jesus!
Your wisdom speaks volumes and far advanced for your age. I hope you will become an outspoken leader in reclaiming our Church and our local diocese. God bless!
Thank you for doing this. Please keep it coming.