www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Parishes being run into the ground in the Eparchy of Passaic

In all fairness, many of these incidents have been reported to the proper civil and ecclesiastical authorities with the result being the outpouring of emotions here over the LACK of response from those avenues of redress regarding such injustices.

Then you have five options: nothing, non-Christian, the Protestants, the RCs, or the Orthodox.

About the Orthodox option, you wrote:


And Etnik had this to say in reply:


I agree with that. I am in the process of joining the Orthodox Church for other reasons. The welcome is real and so is God's love. I'm not trying to push you into the Orthodox Church; go where God calls you. Instead, I want you to know that there is nothing to fear in the Orthodox Church along the lines you mentioned.

May God bless you, Meg, and all the others who have been so badly treated.

-- John

Paper proof to present to civil authorities we do not have since we absolutely no access to anything financial or otherwise. The ecclesiastical authorities do not respond to our letters. In other words, the parishioners have been cut off. All we get are negative messages in the Sunday bulletin regarding finances and such. These are not "just emotional rants" from the members.

May God grant you a good life during which you never have to experience similar pain, confusion, frustration and unkind treatment, the likes of which we and others in this Eparchy have been experiencing.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Deacon John...

There have been some very serious accusations made because their have been some very serious issues that have arisen and continue to arise...the problem is their is no "proper ecclesiastical authority" to deal with since the Bishop is the diocese...no one can, or will do anything...Think about it...if that wasn't true than Cardinal Law from Boston would have been removed...during those scandals...however, he ended up needing to be "coaxed" into leaving by offering him a basicila in Rome...civil authorities won't work as well due to the seperation of church and state and civil authorities are hesitant to act...also, since the Church won't release this financial information...there is nothing to go to the civil authorities with...

I wish it were so...that's why this becomes the forum for getting this information out...there is no formal recourse...

Chris

Regarding the closing of Parishes, Rome has declared the following clarifications of canon law regarding their assets:

Vatican City, 3rd March 2006

Congregation for the Clergy
Prot. N. 20060481
The Most Rev. William Skylstad
President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth Street NE
Washington DC 20017-1194
U.S.A.

Your Excellency,

This Congregation deems it opportune to write to you regarding the closure of parishes in the dioceses of the United States, since in recent times certain dioceses have wrongly applied canon 123 CIC and stating that a parish has been "suppressed" when in reality it has been merged or amalgamated.

A parish is more than a public juridical person. Canon 369 defines the diocese as a "portion of the people of God which is entrusted to the bishop to be nurtured by him". Similarly, "A parish is a certain community of Christ's faithful, stably established within a particular Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest as its proper pastor (cf. can. 515)."

In this light, then, only with great difficulty, can one say that a parish becomes extinct. A parish is extinguished by the law itself only if no Catholic community any longer exists in its territory, or if no pastoral activity has taken place for a hundred years (can. 120 #1). When a parish is "suppressed" by competent authority in reality the still existing community of Christ's faithful is actually "merged" into the neighboring community of Christ's faithful and constitutes a larger community, and the territory of the extinguished parish is added to the other, forming a larger territorial unit. While the parish church and the physical parish plant may be closed and the name of a particular parish extinguished, the spiritual needs of the portion of the Faithful which once constituted that parish, must continue to be provided for in accord with their rights in law.

In the case where the portion of the Christian Faithful is reallocated among pre-existing or newly created parishes, the corresponding patrimony and obligations of the closed parishes must follow the Faithful in an equitable and proportionate fashion in accord with the corresponding responsibilities and pastoral duties assumed by the parishes ad quem. The wishes of any existing founders and benefactors must be respected, as must any acquired rights as expressed in canon 121 or 122.

Often when a bishop calls his action a "suppression" it is in reality a merger of two communities of Christ's faithful. Thus canon 121 applies: "When aggregates of persons or of things which are public juridic persons, are so joined that from them one aggregate is constituted which also possesses juridic personality, this new juridic person obtains the patrimonial goods and rights proper to the previous aggregates...." The "suppression" of a parish is in most cases then a "unio extinctiva". If a parish is divided between more than one existing parish then can. 122 would apply.

Thus the goods and liabilities should go with the amalgamated juridic person, and not to the diocese. This would also seem to be more consonant with the requirement that the wishes of the founders, benefactors and those who have acquired rights be safeguarded, In most cases "suppressions" are in reality a "unio extinctiva" or "amalgamation" or "merger" and as such the goods and obligations do not pass to the higher juridic person, but should pertain to the public juridic person which remains or emerges from the extinctive union. The goods and liabilities should go to the surviving public juridic person, that is the enlarged parish community.

In conclusion, this Congregation notes that the erroneous use of can. 123 in the dioceses of the United States is not uncommon and therefore asks Your Excellency to bring this matter to the attention of the individual bishop members of the Episcopal Conference.
I take this opportunity to renew my sentiments of esteem and with every best wish, I remain,

Yours sincerely in Christ,

/s/ Dario Card. Castrillon-H.

/s/ Csaba Ternyak

Potsy,
This may be all well and good for the Roman Catholic 'supressions' which usually DO involve a merger of a few local parishes. The problem with the Ruthenians is that there is no merger. It appears Fr Untereiner was assigned to close the place. The eparchy is so small that there is no parish within reasonable travelling distance to merger Smithtown with. A merger of the multiple small parishes in the Wilkes Barre/Scranton/Hazleton etc area would make more sense in terms of people, but their property isn't worth squat in comparison to Long Island.

It occurred to me that the BCC is on a contraction course. Downsize and eliminate the eparchy of Passaic by selling off the most lucrative properties, set up a pension fund for the clergy who are the "in" group, petition for the suppression of the eparchy iteslf, and then have the remainder served by the Metropolitan.

??????

BOB

You know Bob, thinking about this, why not? Does a church this small really need THREE bishops? If there were some real growth and a plan going on here I'd say maybe. Lets face it. There is nothing one bishop can't handle here, if maintenance is the biggest issue. CEO's of small companies deal with more than this.

sam:

Stepping back one step more--to get a look at the REALLY BIG PICTURE--this type of "plan" had to be hatched at a higher level than Passaic. A bishop in the Catholic Church has to have permission from Rome to do REALLY, REALLY big sales of property. For a $1 million dollar deal, Rome has to give permission. How much are we realizing from the suppression of these parishes? Think of the ones a couple years ago in Connecticut; then Long Island; then add it all together . . .

Like I told the used car salesman who thought he was going to "hook" me--as I looked in a mirror on the side of the car I wanted "I only look this stupid, but don't count on looks."

You have the smallest sui juris Byzantine Church. Would it be that devastating to be "downsized" to a single archeparchy or maybe two--one for the far west. Or even appoint an auxilliary to oversee the west coast and administer the vast bulk from Pittsburgh.

In Christ,

BOB

Good idea -- that should save us enough money to print new books featuring the Full Ruthenian Recension. (sorry, I just couldn't resist!)

A couple of points:

It has been insinuated that the Metropolitan is improperly failing to intervene. The truth is he can do nothing. Canon law does not allow him to intervene as the suppression of parishes is completely at the discretion of the eparchial bishop after consulting with his prebyteral council. So please stop blaming the Metropolitan.

Despite what is often suggested here, officially changing sui iuris Church is important and necessary. If you don't do it, no matter how long you attend a parish of a Church you are not canonically a member of that Church and have no canonical claims against it. If you attend a parish for 3-5 years it is time to change.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"Would it be that devastating to be "downsized" to a single archeparchy"

Yes , we would be downgraded in status and be even more dependent on Rome than we are now. We could probably combine Pittsburgh and Parma and go down to three but considering we cover the entire US I don't think 4 eparchies are extreme.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Actually, Fr Deacon Lance IS correct! The Metropolitan is only a first among equals and cannot supersede a canonical diocesan bishop in his own diocese. Canonically, your options are few. The only reason a bishop can be brought under review by his peers is for openly teaching heresy or for apostasy. I don't know with the BCC if the Pope can step in, but I know in the Orthodox Church, the buck stops with the bishop.

Alexandr

I would have to agree with Bob. We don't need 4 bishops, no matter how much of the country we encompass. The western diocese is very small and the eastern ones are getting smaller by the day. Perhaps when Pataki is finally gone, maybe they'll realign the diocese' which would make logical sense at this point. With the funds netted from all the big ticket closures, such as Lake Worth, and LI, if that happens, and the smaller ones, such as Bridgeport, Brooklyn, South Hadley, etc., it should be an easy transition. It's just so poor that this is not done with any pastoral sensitivity on the part of the diocesan officials.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
All well and good...important and necessary. However, when you are canonically a member of a Church and that Church is shut down, to what Church do the diaspora belong if there are no other Byzantine, of any rite, churches in your area? Does anyone consider the souls that are left behind?