Response to "Diocesan Statement On St. James Parish, Kansas Ohio"
Portions
of the diocesan statement are numbered to refer to our corresponding responses appearing below. Some of these
are for the purpose of expanding on what is being explained in order to clarify the process which the Toledo Diocese followed (for those who have not experienced this process). Other references are
for the purpose of reconciling portions that do not completely or accurately describe the process as it has taken place.
The diocesan
statement reads:
Following months of consultation
considering the reconfiguration of the Diocese of Toledo parishes, Bishop Leonard Blair met with parishioners at St. James Parish in Kansas, Ohio in October, 2004. (1) When Bishop Blair announced his decision to close the parish effective July, 2005, its former parishioners
appealed his decision to Rome. A Vatican decree in November, 2005 affirmed Bishop Blair's decision to close St. James Parish, (2) and directed that the
closed parish's property go to the two surviving nearby parishes. (3)
Despite its closure last
year, the diocese allowed members of the parish to hold a 24 hour vigil in the building for several months. (4)
Recently, legal counsel
representing the diocese and members of the parish agreed upon a date and time when former members of the parish could remove
their personal belongings from the building. (5) Just prior to that date, diocesan counsel was informed that the
former parishioners objected to the diocese removing any parish property from the building for safekeeping. The former
parishioners claimed that they were entitled to all parish property (6), and a request of an accounting of funds, which still
remain in a diocesan deposit account in the approxomate amount of $77,957.60. All funds currently in the account of
the closed parish were transferred to the diocese to be held until a decision is made between the diocese and former members
of the parish as to the disposition of the funds. (7)
The Diocese is confident that church and civil law
have been fully satisfied in this matter. (8) The former parishioners of St. James will receive their personal belongings
(9), and possibly additional requested sacred good if those items are not needed in other parishes, and the funds of the former parish will be properly distributed in the interests of the local parishes
(my emphasis is added) (10). Civil courts generally defer to the
internal decisions of church tribunals such as this, especiallly where administrative appeals uphold the ecclesiastical decision,
under a separation of church and state principle (11).
The leadership of the diocese continues to pray for all those who experience parish closings, and encourages those
parishioners to make the journey to a new parish community and find comfort through their faith and prayer (12).
Our response reads:
1.
For this meeting, parishioners were told this would be a consultation where our concerns would be heard and our suggestions
for alternatives for closure would be discussed. Prior to beginning, parishioners were briefed by Sr. Joyce Lehman and
Mike Wasserman on what was appropriate to say during the meeting. A detailed presentation which laid out a plan
for restructuring Masses without closing any churches was laid before the bishop and the Task Force. Upon completion
of this presentation, Bishop Blair praised the recommendations. After closure was announced several months later, these
suggestions were never addressed.
2. The
appeal process asks the Vatican to call in to question whether or not the correct procedure was followed
by the bishop for closure of the parish. The Vatican did affirm that the process was followed correctly with the exception of the Canon Law used. We were not to
be suppressed, but rather merged. The decree instructed the bishop to apply the change retroactively, but otherwise
upheld that this would not call for the process to be re-visited, thus upholding the closure. The diocesan statement
says the Vatican decree "affirmed Bishop Blair's decision to close St. James Parish,"
which implies that the soundness of the decision was affirmed. The only thing affirmed was the soundness of the process
utilized, and is not a judgment on the soundness of the rationale for closing the parish. The diocesan statement should
clarify this by making that distinction.
3. The
property was not directed to go to the two surviving nearby parishes. One of the parishes directed to absorb St. James
was St. Joseph in Fremont, which is not
one of the two closest parishes. The other however, St. Andrew in Liberty
Township was one of the two closest.
4. While
St. James parishioners chose to hold a 24 hour vigil in our parish, this statement implies that permission from
the diocese to do so was sought and graciously granted. The purpose of the vigil was to pray for Mary's intercession
and keep our vibrant and thriving parish open. If permission to do so were granted by the diocese, why would they grant
such permission without the intention of opening the parish? Why would they state now that they allowed it to happen
when granting permission would require dialogue on the matter to take place; dialogue which they did not have with us until
January of the following year?
5.
St. James parishioners did not agree to a date with the diocese. We were in talks with the diocese on resolving this
matter when St. James parishioners were given 2 days notice that people would be coming to remove ALL items from the church and that we would need to be there to claim our belongings. Our position was that only
our personal belongings were to be removed and that temporal goods were to remain pending the outcome of the case. The diocesan statement claim that an agreement existed is false.
6:
As the action which the diocese announced they were planning to perform had not been agreed upon, it was legally halted; and
rightfully so. Items that are not the personal property of parishioners in the church are subject to pending judgment
regarding the nature of their ownership terms, and are therefore not eligible for removal by the diocese.
7:
This is where we will need some clarification from the diocese. We have been told that the funds have already been transferred
to the two parishes that the diocese wants to merge us into; AND we
have been told that the funds are frozen until we reach an "agreement" with them about how to manage them. First of
all; which is it? Have they been dispersed, or are they frozen? They cannot be both. Also, this is the first
any of us has heard that they are waiting to hear from us about the disposition of said funds. If the diocese is
waiting for us to provide counsel on the matter, it would be more efficient to communicate that directly with St. James parishioners
than to do so through the press.
8. This statement does not appreciate the civil issue of trust.
9. St. James has been waiting to retrieve their personal belongings for 4 months (as of the time this statement
was released. It has now been 1 full year and we are still waiting). This promise to allow us to receive what
legally belongs to us is more than mildly absurd. This is not an act of graciousness on their part, but rather a promise
to reverse their position and stop committing the illegal act of conversion of assets, and begin obeying the law again.
How grateful we all are that the Toledo Diocese has promised us that they will stop breaking the law some day soon.
10. This is now the third overall position which the diocese
has taken on the disposition of parish funds, and the second one taken in this statement. Much secrecy surrounds
the diocese handling of this matter, and the inconsistency of the official statements which they do provide
only serves to confound this matter even further. All Catholics from local parishioners up to the Pope
would benefit from greater financial transparency. If nothing questionable is taking place with the funds of closed
parishes, than put this matter in the light for all to see. It is important to note that nearly all of the churches
closed last July were operating in the black. Many churches with dwindling attendance (which the diocese often invokes
as a reason for closing parishes) that were operating in the red were spared from closure. It is critical that this
gap be seriously addressed if the diocese wants to maintain any credibility here.
11. This is not a church and state issue. It is a property issue. Is it the diocese official position
that they should be allowed legal deferment from the law regarding property?
12. The parishioners of St. James continue to pray that Church leaders can find it within themselves to uphold viable
and vibrant parishes as a model for healthy growth of the Church. Nearly all St. James parishioners attend
Mass at other parishes and do find comfort through faith and prayer. They also find comfort through community, and implore
Bishop Blair not overlook this detail. It is the very reason that St. James continues to exist as a parish.
