June 17, 2004
Richard G. Lennon
Auxiliary Bishop of
Fax 617 782-8358
Dear Bishop Lennon,
Imagine that the
Though they are faithful, the Jesuits fear that it will be
hard for some to become Franciscans and worry that they will lose even more
priests. When the Jesuits protest that
each order has its own history, sense of identity and community, their pleas are
“sympathetically” filed. The Jesuits offer
to raise the necessary funds, to reallocate assets, whatever it takes to make
it work and get no response to their offers. When the Jesuits object that the reasons
stated for closing their order make no logical sense, they are told that
because canon law has been followed it is not necessary for them to know the
criteria used. They are also informed that
while they may appeal the process used, that process must remain a secret. The Jesuits are waiting for the final decree
closing their order, knowing that they will then have ten useful days to appeal. If you can imagine this, you have some sense
of the position of the parishioners of
We are deeply disappointed with your response to our initial petition regarding the decision to close Sacred Heart. We had hoped for more from the Boston Archdiocese. In the charter of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops dated June 14, 2002, regarding the lack of concern shown for children, the bishops agree to be answerable to the laity for what they do or fail to do. They state that answerability begins with openness and that the charter is intended to remove the cloud of secrecy which has undermined the trust of the laity. The bishops also pledge to earn back our trust by their actions.
As we stated in our initial petition dated June 2, 2004, we believe the process used to close Sacred Heart is seriously flawed. Though we noted four ways in which we believe you failed to meet the standards set by canon law, you only mentioned two of our objections (Cannon 1645 and 1752) in your response dated June 7, 2004. We can only infer from this that your review of our petition was cursory at best, more evidence of the Archdiocese’ lack of concern for the faithful (Canon 526).
We remain in the dark regarding the specific criteria used to select our church for closing. Our initial petition pointed out problems with the criteria that the Archbishop originally cited as reasons for closing Sacred Heart. In response, you contended that other factors and a larger context were involved. How can we be expected to mount an appeal without knowing the specifics?
The only thing that you seem to want to tell us is that a bishop (in consultation with a council of priests) is the only one allowed to suppress a church. As we understand it several councils of priests thought that our church should remain open and it was only when the decision disappeared into the Presbyteral Council that we lost our church. We believe that this indicates a shift in decision making away from those most affected, minimizes the input of individual pastors and laity, and indicates further lack of regard for the souls of the faithful. Our problem is not primarily about who makes the decision, but whether the process involved is fair and open. We also expect the process to seriously consider the viability of each church and to allow for a role for the laity who has the most to lose in the reconfiguration process.
Part of what is so upsetting about this process is the lack
of candor regarding the connection between the liquidation of financially
solvent parishes and the episcopal errors in judgment that led to emotional
damage and financial problems for the faithful of
In his introduction to the charter, mentioned above, Bishop Wilson states: “Listening is easy. Talk is cheap. Action is priceless.” Your words and actions give the impression that you are not listening. You have neglected to inform us of the specific reasons for your actions. And the most egregious violation of our trust is that you intend to close our thriving church. The parishioners of Sacred Heart have donated and contributed for over seventy years with the expectation that our church and our souls were safe in your hands. Your recent deviations from customary and responsible behavior are disheartening.
The Council of Bishops no longer expects laity to live happily in a cloud of secrecy and neither should the Archdiocese of Boston. We want to know why Sacred Heart and other churches were chosen to be closed. There can be no hope of an effective appeal or real dialogue between the Boston Archdiocese and the laity if you persist in concealing the criteria used for closings. By failing to reveal the specific criteria you have already compromised our ability to mount an effective appeal. As you must be aware, without your cooperation the appeal process is an exercise in futility.
However, given the whole truth and a collaborative effort
from the Archdiocese, we are confident that we can generate a mutually
satisfying solution. To do this, we need to know under what circumstances the
Archdiocese would agree to keep Sacred Heart open. We want to work with you on this. Please let us try.
Please respond directly to us, as our pastor, Father Arnold Colletti
will be traveling in
Sincerely,
Francis Xavier (Frank) Bellini
Co-chairman of Stewardship Committee
781 861-7039
Kathryn Porter Rapperport
Assistant to Parish Council
781 862-7487
(Please, do not send mail 6/28-7/7)
On behalf of The Lay Members of the Sacred Heart Pastoral Parish Council
and the Parishioners of Sacred Heart Parish in
cc: Fr. Arnold Colletti
Sacred Heart Parish