Comments on: Lost Artwork isn’t the Issue with Closing Catholic Churches http://www.thewestsidereview.com/archives/305 A Social and Political Dialogue Between Students and Citizens of the West Side of Cleveland, Ohio Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:11:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dan McCarthy http://www.thewestsidereview.com/archives/305/comment-page-1#comment-239 Dan McCarthy Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:49:03 +0000 http://www.thewestsidereview.com/?p=305#comment-239 Rage is not the way to respond. Many parishioners at closing local churches are up in arms against Bishop Lennon. Many have staged nasty protests and even aggressively lashed out against the present diocesan administration. Granted, many clergy members and Sunday regulars have been justifiably unhappy with the Bishop. Many are disapproving of his outside manner. His actions are visibly adverse with what Cleveland Catholics have grown familiar. However, this does not mean that the vehement anger many disgruntled Catholics are feeling needs to be so publicly expressed. The root of the argument is rarely talked about. Nate brings up a good point: people's dismay comes from seeing Parochial schools closing, losing the services provided by their church, and having to vacate a beloved worship space. However, the reason for these failures comes from a lack of greater interest in the organized faith. Church attendance is down--especially in Cleveland's more urban areas where the corporal-need programs are most required. Incoming capital presently coming into the diocese is strained. In turn, officials have had to make measures to balance its budget and offset fiscal constraints. A nasty one of these measures is church closings. Many blame Bishop Lennon for not doing more to avoid church consolidation and closing. However, we must remember that these changes are not unexpected. After Bishop Pilla left the office of Cleveland Bishop, Richard Lennon was brought in from Boston's Catholic diocese. He was known to be mindful of the budget and sorely, fiscally concerned. Drastic measures were sure to be taken, for an obviously struggling Cleveland diocese. Rather than be enraged and militant against losing our worshiping spaces, let us be mindful and considerate. Recognize that if a solution or a compromise is to be made, it must be done via positive action. Productive negotiation must be done in a Christian way. Let us embrace our sacrifice, and let us remember our brothers who are less fortunate. Accordingly, let us work towards better conditions for those who are in need of it. We must find a way to part with our beloved worship space, but continue the positive affects these temples provided for each community. Rage is not the way to respond. Many parishioners at closing local churches are up in arms against Bishop Lennon. Many have staged nasty protests and even aggressively lashed out against the present diocesan administration. Granted, many clergy members and Sunday regulars have been justifiably unhappy with the Bishop. Many are disapproving of his outside manner. His actions are visibly adverse with what Cleveland Catholics have grown familiar. However, this does not mean that the vehement anger many disgruntled Catholics are feeling needs to be so publicly expressed.

The root of the argument is rarely talked about. Nate brings up a good point: people’s dismay comes from seeing Parochial schools closing, losing the services provided by their church, and having to vacate a beloved worship space. However, the reason for these failures comes from a lack of greater interest in the organized faith. Church attendance is down–especially in Cleveland’s more urban areas where the corporal-need programs are most required. Incoming capital presently coming into the diocese is strained. In turn, officials have had to make measures to balance its budget and offset fiscal constraints. A nasty one of these measures is church closings.

Many blame Bishop Lennon for not doing more to avoid church consolidation and closing. However, we must remember that these changes are not unexpected. After Bishop Pilla left the office of Cleveland Bishop, Richard Lennon was brought in from Boston’s Catholic diocese. He was known to be mindful of the budget and sorely, fiscally concerned. Drastic measures were sure to be taken, for an obviously struggling Cleveland diocese.

Rather than be enraged and militant against losing our worshiping spaces, let us be mindful and considerate. Recognize that if a solution or a compromise is to be made, it must be done via positive action. Productive negotiation must be done in a Christian way. Let us embrace our sacrifice, and let us remember our brothers who are less fortunate. Accordingly, let us work towards better conditions for those who are in need of it. We must find a way to part with our beloved worship space, but continue the positive affects these temples provided for each community.

]]> By: gbashour http://www.thewestsidereview.com/archives/305/comment-page-1#comment-238 gbashour Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:27:08 +0000 http://www.thewestsidereview.com/?p=305#comment-238 Good article, Kevin. However, I agree with Nate's points, in addition to one other aspect. Many people have become accustomed to their parish (e.i. the setting, their pastor, their fellow parishioners, etc.), and, for better or for worse, I bet that many worshippers feel that they are in a "zone" (for lack of a better word) praying-wise when they are in their church. Although, ideally, people should be able to worship well in any setting, many people feel that they are at their optimum worhsipping ability (again, lack of a better phrase) when they are at their church. I think that many people are reluctant to close down their churches not for the physical aspect that their church provided, but rather the psychological aspect. Good article, Kevin. However, I agree with Nate’s points, in addition to one other aspect. Many people have become accustomed to their parish (e.i. the setting, their pastor, their fellow parishioners, etc.), and, for better or for worse, I bet that many worshippers feel that they are in a “zone” (for lack of a better word) praying-wise when they are in their church. Although, ideally, people should be able to worship well in any setting, many people feel that they are at their optimum worhsipping ability (again, lack of a better phrase) when they are at their church. I think that many people are reluctant to close down their churches not for the physical aspect that their church provided, but rather the psychological aspect.

]]> By: Nathan Peereboom http://www.thewestsidereview.com/archives/305/comment-page-1#comment-236 Nathan Peereboom Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:14:01 +0000 http://www.thewestsidereview.com/?p=305#comment-236 I agree with you in a strict sense: that is, I agree that "the Church" is more than a building or a set of tax-sheltered assets. However, although I am not Catholic, the crux of the issue seems to be that parishes are, in fact, more than churches: they are centers of community and identity. They are schools and arts programs. They are places of fellowship and communion (not just in the eucharistic sense). These places evoke a sense of belonging that cannot be rebuit or recreated so quickly. It is this belonging that people are torn by: how can we ask people to uproot their identity is such an abrupt fashion? Is the issue here the continuation of the theology of Catholisism or do the purposes of parishes extend beyond the mass? I'm not saying Catholics ought to cling to artwork or buildings for the sake of them themselves, but I do think that those closing parishes are more than red brick and stained glass: they are symbols of where people came from and who they are. That is something that ought to be cherished and fought for. I agree with you in a strict sense: that is, I agree that “the Church” is more than a building or a set of tax-sheltered assets. However, although I am not Catholic, the crux of the issue seems to be that parishes are, in fact, more than churches: they are centers of community and identity. They are schools and arts programs. They are places of fellowship and communion (not just in the eucharistic sense). These places evoke a sense of belonging that cannot be rebuit or recreated so quickly. It is this belonging that people are torn by: how can we ask people to uproot their identity is such an abrupt fashion? Is the issue here the continuation of the theology of Catholisism or do the purposes of parishes extend beyond the mass? I’m not saying Catholics ought to cling to artwork or buildings for the sake of them themselves, but I do think that those closing parishes are more than red brick and stained glass: they are symbols of where people came from and who they are. That is something that ought to be cherished and fought for.

]]>