His Excellency Sean P. O'Malley
Dear Archbishop O'Malley,
You inherited a mess from Cardinal Law. Acting as the
CEO of a major corporation, instead of as the shepherd of his flock, he just
about bankrupted the enterprise, squandered all the goodwill of the Archdiocese
and maligned Catholics everywhere. Like several other CEO's in the same time
frame whose Corporations have gone bankrupt (with several executives jailed) he
"cooked the books" trying to hide the bad news, as if bad news can
get better with time.
As a retired Corporate
executive, I have passively watched, and tentatively supported your early
efforts to rapidly attack and resolve the Archdiocese's major problems in order
to strengthen the foundation for rebuilding.
But with your current action in the closing of 65
parishes (plus 11-20 still unnamed) I think you're making the same fundamental
error as Cardinal Law. You're acting like a CEO instead of as the leading
Shepherd. You're dismissing a large number of your junior shepherds and leaving
their flocks to find their own way.
You have taken the position that our Religion is on
the decline in
You could have taken a different position, albeit more
challenging and ambitious. That is, to implement a plan to stop the decline and
reinvigorate the Church, starting with the viable parishes we currently have.
There is fertile ground for renewal in all these parishes, even if only among
the 80% dormant Catholics, let alone new converts.
Your approach is defeatist and hence your expectation
is self-fulfilling, the Church will decline. The many active Catholics in the
viable parishes that you are closing are incensed at your plan. Instead of your
building on this base, you are alienating this base.
Your approach (i.e., as long as there is space for all
active Catholics within reasonable traveling distance, what's
the harm?) is too simplistic. This corporate "bean counter" approach
treats all your sheep as numbers rather than individuals in your faithful flock
The problem is much more complex. Although al1
parishes worship the same Christ they al1 are unique communities with respect
to history, culture and pride and that can't be ignored. If there must be
closings, these should be worked out with each individual community and should
be as a last resort, even with those that cannot support themselves. Granted
that this is a painstaking undertaking, but what is more important than
building on the base that exists? 1 can't help but wonder how many communities,
with hundreds of active members, financial self sufficiency and evangelical
outreach, St. Paul would have closed.
The overriding problems you seem to be trying to solve
are financial and a growing priest shortage. Regarding the financial, Cardinal
Law started a campaign "Promise for Tomorrow" which was very
successful in it's first phase but which essentially died when the scandal
broke. The goodwill was there to support the enormous needs of the Archdiocese
and can be built again. But this will not happen if you confiscate the
estimated $400million worth of community properties currently contemplated. You
will have a one-time windfall. But the goodwill for continued support will be
lost for more than a generation.
Regarding the priest
shortage, the church has a systemic problem that cannot be solved by church
closing Band-Aids. Attack that problem with a wider view. St Paul
started with no priests.
With great hope for
the future of our Church, I am