www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Update on Holy Trinity in Bridgeport, CT

Here is a letter to the editor that was printed in yesterday's CT Post. Incredible amount of detail for someone who was not a parishioner. And did not attend.

Officials must look deeper into church�s closing

The announcement that Holy Trinity Hungarian Byzantine Catholic Church in Bridgeport was abruptly closed, and the manner in which it was closed, amazed me.
Holy Trinity has a proud history spanning 109 years, and deserved better treatment than it received from the Eparchy of Passaic and the Holy See. As a Catholic I am ashamed.
The Bishops in their positions are morally bound (as are all priests) to act in the best interests of their congregants and protect them. They are �shepherds� of their �flock�. This is why a bishop has his bishop�s crook, or staff, just like a traditional shepherd has a crook to gather and protect his sheep.
The Catholic Church, through the actions of some of its hierarchy, has a reputation of acting with arrogance. The plight of Holy Trinity was petitioned first to its pastor, Fr. George Malitz, who is also the pastor of St. John the Baptist Byzantine Catholic Church; second to its bishop, Andrew Pataki, and even as high up as the Vatican as per the parishioners of Holy Trinity, all with no help (some shepherd and protector).
Malitz, while eager to inform the parishioners of Holy Trinity that the money the parish had saved was gone, refused to explain where the money had been spent. He refused to allow open access to the books and finances of the parish, and told the parishioners that the parish�s operating expenses were more than the parish was making.
He refused to rent out the vacant rectory despite the parishioners� request as a way to make extra income. Malitz stopped the weekly bingo games at the Holy Trinity Hall (a large and very popular fundraiser and source of income for the parish), and refused to rent the same hall to outside groups (the last I knew, the upper part of the hall, which has a fully appointed restaurant-class kitchen) was rented for $800 per event � another parish income source.
Parishioners in the past had bequeathed in their wills both money and even multi-family homes they had worked hard for all their lives because of the love they had for their parish and spiritual home, so that their church would be there for their children and grandchildren through the added income.
All these actions of refusal to find ways to raise the income of the parish and lower the expenses of the parish are very bad financial practices, and are very suspicious.
On Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005, at the end of the Divine Liturgy, Malitz unceremoniously announced that per Bishop Pataki, Holy Trinity was to be closed immediately. The parishioners were rightfully floored and angry.
I applaud Matthew Boucher, who, upon hearing the announcement, went and reclaimed his and other parishioners� collection envelopes. The very act of having a parish collection knowing full well that the pastor was going to announce the immediate closure of the church to those who made its existence possible is not only an arrogant act, but it is also a very greedy act. Both actions are deplorable actions for a priest.
Then, to add lemon juice to the parishioners� wounds, Malitz advised them they could come to his other parish, St. John the Baptist in Trumbull.
Then, to add salt to the lemon juice, Malitz had the parishioners forced out of their church by two armed guards who emerged from, of all places, the two sacristies on either side of the sanctuary.
This was an act of cowardice on behalf of Malitz and the eparchy. These acts of betrayal by the Catholic Church through its agent are morally wrong.
In 1929, the Byzantine Catholic Church cried foul when Pope Pius VI and the Roman rite hierarchy broke the tradition of the Byzantine rite and asserted there would no longer be a married clergy in the American Byzantine Catholic Church. They were bullied by the majority rite, and despite their pleas to Rome, their pleas fell on deaf ears. The same parish Malitz is pastor of, St. John the Baptist, was at the center of this controversy 76 years ago. The parish was split in half and the half that accepted this directive of Rome remained under allegiance with the pope. The other half that wanted to keep its tradition of a married clergy allied itself under the newly organized American Orthodox Christian Church.
The result is St. John the Baptist Byzantine Catholic Church in Trumbull, and the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of St. John the Baptist across from Bridgeport Hospital on Mill Hill Avenue in Bridgeport. The Catholic Church sued the split-off part of the parish so that it could keep all the property in its hands. When the split-off church bought the property they now occupy through individual loans, as the new parish was unable to secure one loan due to their being newly organized, St. John�s and the Catholic Church lost that greedy battle, and the result is the beautiful edifice on Mill Hill Avenue.
Just as the Byzantine rite was bullied as a minority by the Roman minority, Holy Trinity, being of an ethnic minority � Hungarians � in a rite that has an ethnic majority of Slavs, has been bullied into closure. Some of the parishioners have said they would prefer to worship in Orthodox parishes rather than go to St. John�s in Trumbull. I applaud them for making such a choice. They are exercising their religious freedom. I would suggest that the families that comprise Holy Trinity organize themselves and align themselves to join the American Orthodox Church and that the Orthodox Church, buy back the former church properties. This would solve the eparchy�s desire for money, and would also allow the church that was closed to reopen and run its own affairs.
I would also suggest that the parishioners, in light of the possible mismanagement of their parish finances, retain an attorney to protect their interests as parishioners and the assets of the parish. I would also suggest that the heirs of those who gave real estate to Holy Trinity also retain counsel to get back the property if it hasn�t already been sold. As the parish no longer exists, the bequests should be voided, as they were intended for the financial benefit of Holy Trinity only, not for the financial benefit of St. John the Baptist, or of the Eparchy of Passaic, unless specifically given to either one.
I also urge those reading this that if you choose to leave a bequest to your parish, regardless of your denomination, you put a clause in stipulating that if the parish closes for whatever reason, the bequest reverts back to your legal heirs. I also urge the attorney generals of the states the eparchy has parishes in to investigate the books and finances of all of its parishes and the eparchy to make sure the finances are balanced.
In closing, I am sad to report that Malitz, who appears to have severely mismanaged Holy Trinity�s finances, and who refuses open access to the parish books, is on the eparchy�s Retirement Plan Board and is business manager for the eparchy�s newspaper as per the eparchy�s official Website. If he has indeed mismanaged Holy Trinity�s funds, for whatever reason, how well is he managing the retirement fund and the eparchy newspaper?
These actions, coupled with the many reports of sexual abuse and abuse cover-ups over many decades by priests, bishops and even cardinals, severely shake confidence in the church.
When will it be fully realized by all, and not just a few, that the clergy, regardless of position in the church, and regardless of denomination, exist for the people of the church? The people do not exist to provide sometimes lavish lifestyles for the clergy and hierarchy.

Roger W. Weldon
Bridgeport

As much as we Byzantine Catholics should be ashamed of our "dirty laundry" being viewed publicly, I believe in Holy Trinity's case, this should be publicized. The Passaic Eparchy isn't the only place in our Ruthenian Metropolia that mismanagement is happening. I think that Rome should do a full internal audit and investigation of such church closing cases, as it seems that our own "sui juris" Particular Church officials are not policing our parishes' finances.

If Rome refuses to act, then I think we will start seeing a new round of civil court cases against our Eparchs and Eparchies. Because these cases involve money management of "tax exempt" institutions, these cases could probably be successful. What other recourse do we laity have?

Ungcsertezs (who is very ashamed of our "sui juris" Particular Church)

I think your suggestion that Rome should act is correct.

According to church dogma the Pope is 100% responsible for everything that happens in the church down to the parish level. If there is a suspicion of financial malfeasence a formal complaint to Rome (perhaps through the Nuncio?) should be made right away, because the Vatican is notorious for acting slowly.

I agree that the situation looks to have been mishandled or the closing was done very clumsily, however I would hope that the people refrain from condemning the Ruthenian church as a whole and withhold their judgment regarding an affair which so few of us have first-hand clarity of understanding.

+T+
Michael

It seems that the letter to the editor is one of the best things that could have happened given the situation. I pray that such letters be multiplied. I pray that people will storm Rome in protest not only of this action but of all suspicious actions so that these shameful events will never reoccur.

CDL

I just don't think Rome gives a hoot.

Reading through this, two questions come to mind. Fr. Malitz is still a kid. Does he wonder if his career and reputation are dead in the water after the current bishop is gone?

Secondly, what exactly IS the role of the metropolitan? I would think cases such as these would be something a metropolitan would get involved in, if only in a pastoral role. Why did our Metropolitan refuse to take a leadership role here?

Sam

Ok, is that true about the two armed guards coming out of the sacristies? This is wrong on many levels. Why in the world would you let two armed guards (presumably not parishoners) on the altar? Why would you use armed force to clear out the church? What about the collection? There are many things, many things, wrong here if they are true as reported.
Will those that did these horrible deeds be held accountable (other than releasing an "apology")?
Probably not.
If it was all about combining parishes for the good of all it would have been introduced as such and handled with respect for the parishoners.

Yes it is all true. I was at Holy Trinity the day that this all occured. I believe, having armed guards automatically deconcecrated the building and therefore allows them to sell it to anyone without any issues. Also, as one of the cantors at HT the offeratory was brought upstairs to the quior loft for the cantor to bring to Malitz after the DL. As the letter was being read I had taken back the envelopes of the cantors...Matthew came up to get his offeratory back and I told him to take it downstairs and let everyone rummage and take their offeratory back. This was still being done in the back of the church when Malitz, Hospodar and the 2 armed guards watched. It's clear they took a collection to not tip anyone off. If they had I'm sure media would have been called ASAP and given them time to be there at the end of the DL.

Keep track of everthing and send it to the media. Keep storming Rome and Washington DC. Just keep doing it.

CDL

In this instance, I think we might be prematurely barking at the wrong tree, . . . er hierarch.

The local bishop is directly and primarily responsible for the well-being of his see. Having "failed" in the Passaic Eparchy, the next step is to have the ear of the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, and with the participation of the Council of Hierarchs, if necessary.

This problem is "internal" and "local" to the particular Ruthenian Church, as a sui juris Church in the Catholic Communion! You don't need the Apostolic Nuncio nor the Oriental Congregation nor the Pope to solve every problem of particular Churches.

If ever it becomes a question on the juridical status of the Ruthenian Church as a whole or her very own existence in the U.S., then Rome steps in. Otherwise, the buck should stop at the desk of His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Basil Schott.

Amado

I've heard this same scenario from a couple of other people/parishes who, having received no satisfactory response from their hierarch, wrote to the archbishop in Pittsburgh. They were told the same thing. It's internal to their dioceses and he had no right to butt in.

My question...is the "office" of metropolitan merely a figurehead in our "sui juris" church? Does Pittsburgh only have authority in Pittsburgh and is only a "first among equals" when it comes to the four dioceses as a whole with no authority outside of his own diocese?

I would love to know the answer to that as well. It appears that +Basil is "a first among equals" and therefore a figurehead with no authority outside of the Pittsburgh Eparchy.

Archbishop Basil Schott is THE chief heirarch of the Ruthenian Church sui juris and he was vested subsequently with the pallium of a Metropolitan in order to exercise his authority and powers throughout the Metropolitanate.

He is both the Archbishop of his principal/Cathedral See in Pittsburgh and the Metropolitan of the entire United States.

Fr. Deacon Lance, is this correct?

Amado

The CCEO outlines the power of a Metropolitan very clearly and they do not involve his intervention into the lawful decisions of an eparch in his own eparchy. A Bishop is competent to erect or suppress parishes. We may not like the decision or the way he carries it out but he has the right to do as he sees fit. I would also add financial solvency is only one factor that is considered. A parish can be completely solvent and still be closed. I witnessed this in the Latin Diocese of Pittsburgh. Closures were made with an eye to the future demographics of an area and the priest shortage. The relevant canons are below:


Canon 159

In the metropolitan Church sui iuris over which he presides, beyond those things which are attributed to him by common law or particular law established by the Roman Pontiff, the metropolitan
is competent:

(1) to ordain and enthrone bishops of the same
Church within the time determined by law;

(2) to convoke the council of hierarchs according to the norm of law, to prepare useful questions to be discussed in it, to preside, transfer, postpone, suspend or dissolve it;

(3) to erect a metropolitan tribunal;

(4) to oversee that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are accurately observed;

(5) to conduct canonical visitations in eparchies, if the eparchial bishop neglected to do it;

(6) to appoint an administrator of an eparchy in the case mentioned in can. 221, n. 4;

(7) to appoint or confirm him who was legitimately proposed or elected to office, if the eparchial bishop, not detained by a just impediment, omitted to do so within the time established by law and also to appoint the eparchial finance officer if the eparchial bishop, having been warned, neglected to appoint him;

(8) to communicate the acts of the Roman Pontiff to the eparchial bishops and others to whom they pertain,unless the Apostolic See directly provides for it, and see to the faithful execution of the prescriptions which are contained in these acts.


Canon 280

2. It is the competency of the eparchial bishop to erect, modify and suppress parishes after
consulting the presbyteral council.

Amadeus,

Metropolitan Basil was not invested with the pallium. That particular Latinization fell by the wayside,at least with the Pittsburgh Metropolia, after the debacle that occured with Metropolitan Judson of blessed memory. See my post above for an Eastern Catholic metropolitan's powers.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This is very saddening. I am just now coming to the Byzantine Church, which I think is absolutely beautiful and to see this happen is very disheartening.