| Rumblings. There are rumblings of discontent, unhappiness, among the faithful people of God. In Manchester or somewhere north of Watford a church was closed a year or so ago against the wishes of the local parishioners. There was probably a very good reason for doing this but the locals are not convinced. They claim they were not consulted properly, that their letter of protest received a mere acknowledgement, that the closing procedure was hasty, rushed and – above all – not necessary in their considered opinion. So, every Sunday morning a group of discontented people numbering about a hundred, gathers at the locked doors of the church. They pray, sing a hymn or two and are sometimes joined by outsiders who give them moral support out of sympathy, a shared experience or just for the sheer kicks of joining in a protest – who knows. But they don’t have a Sunday Mass and, presumably, do not attend a Mass elsewhere having just taken part in a rather unorthodox act of worship. Without knowing any details no balanced judgement can be made, no condemnation of one side or the other ought to be even entertained. But it is sad, it is disquieting and may well prove to be the tip of a very large iceberg and, to a pessimist, a sign of more trouble ahead. There have been huge, positive and practical advances in the involvement of lay people in the running of parishes and the whole daily life of the Church. Sometimes this is still rather superficial, there is no real sharing in responsibility and authority. But it is early days still for such changes and it is better not to rush in as long as the process continues. Every time, however, when something happens which does not appear to be in line with such progress it is duly noted and casts into doubt the genuine desire of ‘authority’ to share realistic responsibility. “Why” people ask “ the delay in appointing our new Bishop? What’s the hold-up?” “ Who are the faceless powers in the diocese who shift priests from one parish to another, who decide that bits of church land attached to churches should be sold for development ( and where does the profit go?), who close parish clubs, who seem to eschew local and professional talent when it comes to architects, surveyors, builders and import them from vast distances when it comes to refurbishing or building churches or presbyteries?” Who does make the decision to close a church and even when efforts are made to explain the reasons why do such explanations seem so spectacularly to fail to convince the parishioners?” There is a rather sad growth of lack of trust; suspicion that even when protests are made and meetings called and explanations offered there is some hidden agenda, that even when there is an appearance of consultation the decisions have already been made in some (now) smoke-free room or office by a few faceless doers and shakers - and that these decisions are, more often than not, based on mere financial considerations and do not take into account the symbolic, emotional, effect of a church closure. Even less does it seem to matter that when a place of worship is closed down it is an obvious failure of faith in that neighbourhood or district, some people will quite inevitably cease to attend the alternative place of worship some miles away and not ‘ their church’, confidence is eroded and a sign, a symbol, a Catholic ‘presence’ is lost. It probably took a generation or so to build/buy the church or Mass centre and it will certainly take more time than that to restore, re-establish, not just a building but a community – if ever. Nor is it a solution to share a church with others or use a suitable hall - this simply becomes a borrowed roof over a weekly gathering with no Real Presence and no local focus or pride. It probably means there is never a weekday Mass in that area, no flower ladies, no church cleaners, no nice old-fashioned aids to devotion such as pictures, stations of the cross, statues or votive candles. In fact, no community as such, no feeling of ownership, responsibility or ‘home’. Sunday Mass attendance goes down, priests get thinner on the ground, repairs and maintenance becomes more of a burden; the church may even be on a ‘prime site’ and parking is at a premium. So a financial decision is made: close it down, sell it, provide an alternative meeting place or get worshippers on their wheels ( which, of course, everybody is presumed to have) and drive – giving lifts to the wheel-less parishioners – to the nearest available church or chapel. In any case, there is a new principle and bench mark: if a church is not more or less full then there should be no Mass there on a Sunday; it is liturgically unacceptable, wastes priestly man hours, and, above all, it is a financial disaster. Surely the only reason for closing a church is if the surrounding population has moved out. This does happen, but is rare. With in-building and new development it is far more likely that the local population is increasing and Mass attendance is going down for innumerable reasons other than a drop in the number of bodies. Finances should be the very last and least important reason for any closure. In fact, churches, land, halls, presbyteries are being sold like the proverbial family silver and the money raised is drained away in various community schemes and salaries for all kinds jobs and services. This is a generalisation which may well be unfair in many instances. Nor would it be right to have anyone doing a definite job to be without a just and proper remuneration. But the tendency to multiplicity and centralisation is there. Diocesan financial and ‘real estate’ consultants, youth services, liturgical and musical experts, school commissioners, children’s agencies, advice centres for the married, single and divorced, drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless are being set up often duplicating services provided by the welfare state. Architectural, maintenance, health and safety advisers are appointed and must be consulted on every detail of parish life. There are ‘way forward groups’, ecumenical think tanks, centralised gurus on hospital visiting and even planners of pilgrimages, world peace and diocesan liturgical events. Practically all diocesan income comes from the weekly collections and parishioners are incredibly generous on a regular basis – plus donating small fortunes for special occasions such as world disasters, famines, many specific annual appeals and even the clergy seasonal offerings and ‘golden handshakes’ to make sure their priest leaves the parish on a high note after a few or many years of – one hopes – faithful service. These same generous parishioners are also human and like to see how and where their money is spent. They do understand many of the expenses of the diocese as a whole but the most obvious and clear result of their giving is their very own, ‘home’, church building. They might well be horrified if they knew what ‘levies’ are imposed on parishes, how much of their willingly given money is actually spent on advisers, schemes, committees, consultants, keeping up with ‘good practice’ suggestions, catechetical and pastoral initiatives and so many other activities which are often quite invisible and in no way affect the ordinary worshipper ( and donor) in the pews. When any church is closed down against the wishes of even a large minority of the community affected all these questions are asked. The feeling of unease grows – perhaps out of sheer ignorance but also because of lack of proper information – that neither the needs nor the wishes of the faithful people are being taken into account and that decisions are made simply on financial grounds. There is a definite danger – or so it appears to a pessimist looking in from the outside - that such feelings may grow into convictions and the faithful donors will become less faithful and also less generous. Let’s suppose that all, most or even some of the above is true. What should be done about it? In our congregations we have not only people with common sense and a ‘down-to- earth’ financial acumen which enables them to run their own economic lives. We also have bankers and accountants, advisers on stocks and shares, savings and investments and even experts on the higher flights of the money world. We also have personnel managers, architects, surveyors, structural engineers - even publicists and what are jocularly known as ‘head shrinkers’; the former knowing how facts can be presented and how they can be made clear to people while the latter can advise on how people are affected by circumstances, attitudes and presentations and how they can react. Many of such parishioners are concerned, they make comments, they feel uneasy, they disagree with so many things being done. At all levels even those just interested (never mind frustrated, annoyed, baffled or scandalised) should make polite but persistent efforts to be informed and then to make their views known , with proper respect, to those in authority in the parish, diocese or wherever this authority may be. There is no point in being uneasy, in grumbling and then just shrugging and letting ‘them’ get on with it. No matter how much consultation there may be, how much things are explained or how obvious the solution to a problem might appear to those in authority, there will never come a time when everybody is happy, everyone agrees. But it is, in this day and age, ever more essential to have ‘openness’ and transparency. No hidden agendas, no deep ‘principles’, no blanket, cover-all responses such as “ it’s always been done this way” or “ Holy Mother Church in her infinite wisdom says so”, “Canon Law won’t allow it”. No disposal of a property on the grounds of lack of use or support but it does happen to be a prime site. No deep theological or liturgical explanation that there should, for some reason, be only one Sunday Mass in each community or that priests are so worn out by saying Mass(es) that they cannot travel and serve several communities. [ A lovely comment (probably unjust) recently made by the Bishop of Nebraska: asked about the danger of 'burnout' his priests are facing through stress and overwork, he is reported to have said: "The only priests in my diocese who complain of burnout are the ones who never caught fire in the first place."] There is no easy solution - but wholesale closing down, amalgamation, clustering, restricting opportunities for worship, treating the whole subject along industrial lines or looking at it as pure economics will only instil a sense of despair, a negative mind-set which will continue the ‘them and us’ attitude, allow no space for confidence, hope, the basic trust in God that he knows what he is doing. The all-embracing aspect of the Church will continue to suffer, the idea of service, of being available to those who need the Church ( at all kinds of levels, often casual) will no longer be taken for granted and we will, more and more, be run by committees, initiatives, five year plans, schemes organised by excellent and hard working committed members of the Church - but be excluding, alienating so many who are on the periphery, who cling to a simple faith and are, unfortunately, so human and so weak (unlike the rest of us ?) that any kind of added obstacle or difficulty will make them give it all up. Perhaps we ought to think a bit more deeply about Our Lord quoting the words of that wise old man, Isaias, about the bruised reed and smoking flax? |
|