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

It was sold through a real estate agent. If I remember correctly the church and hall sold for $1 million.

Somebody got low-balled. Bad enough alienating Church property, but to do so at a discount?

Just an FYI to those reading this thread. The subject of Holy Trinity in Bridgeport arose recently because a couple of questions about it were posed in a prayer thread. The queries were moved to this thread because it offered answers to some of those, without reinventing the entire topic. However, readers should keep in mind that the events on which this thread is based (and the majority of the posts to it) date back to the years 2005 through 2008.

Many years,

Neil

Shows how "short sighted" some people are...some would say...the eparchy got out just before the market crashed...which is true...but at what cost...since then, I believe within the last 2 years...Bishop William was approached with a proposal for purchasing property at St. John's in Trumbull...As I understand it they were offered approximately $10 million...and would allow St. John's to remain there...As I also understand it, his grace turned it down due to the rucus caused by those who came before him...looking for a "quick buck" & "to hell" with the community of HT...the eparchy is at a greater loss financially and spiritually for the actions it took.

There are 21 parishes in New Jersey. None are very healthy. About 7 or 8 are being kept open only until land values rise again. Most of these 7 or 8 parishes get less than 20 people on Sundays. The story is the same in New York and Connecticut and eastern Pennsylvania.

One of the challenges the Ruthenian Church--and several others--face is the changing demography of the United States. For better or for worse, the original ethnic settlement of the Eastern Christians--Greek, Russians, Rusyn, Ukrainians, and Middle Eastern--was in the Northeast, Pennsylvania, and the "Old Northwest"--areas now collectively known as the Rust Belt. These states have been losing population for more than two decades; the only people remaining are those too old to move, or lacking the motivation to shift to greener pastures. With cities like Detroit and Cleveland now barely half as large as they were in 1990, and down close to two thirds from their peak population in the 1970s, it's unreasonable to expect that the Church can maintain all of the parishes it had, say, in the 1950s. Moreover, many of those parishes were built during a period of great optimism, in the expectation that the people would "grow into" their buildings. But now, these large, beautiful, elaborate (and above all, large) temples have turned into white elephants for most dioceses. Barely affordable when built, they now run at a loss, and there is no real hope of growing their congregations to the point of being self-sustaining.

The only real hope is a combination of rationalization and consolidation (no matter how much it hurts) combined with a concerted effort to reach out beyond ethnic borders, not just to disaffected or discontented Roman Catholics, but also to Protestants, Jews, Muslims and the unchurched. That's going to take a real adjustment of both vision and expectations.

In the meanwhile, the Churches would be well advised to put their limited resources behind those parishes that are growing, and to encourage even further growth there. But they also have to face facts, and not throw good money after bad by trying to maintain three or four parishes on an establishment that can barely sustain one.

Your statements about Northeast Pennsylvania are insulting.
Please keep your inaccurate observations of NE PA to yourself.
The "Rust Belt" my dupa.

Pavloosh,

Stuart is correct in his observations. In 1930 the population of Scranton was 143,000. In 2010 it was 76,000. I am familiar with your parish. In the 1970s, when I was young and lived in Scranton I remember your parish being overflowing for the Divine Services on the major holy days. Now it is not. [My home parish, just across the river from yours, is the same, though with less people on a Sunday.] The time is coming (and past, in some places) when parish mergers will need to occur for anyone to survive. There is nothing insulting about the truth.

John

John,

I agree completely. During my entire period as a Byzantine Catholic, and I will remain such until the union of the two other churches, many of us have been pleading with the bishops to make strategic unions. They won't do it. They just won't do it.

Dan,

If I might add to my point, there is absolutely no reason for there not to be a thriving Church in any city or town.

In geographic areas where there have been large population losses over many years, merging of parishes and even downsizing of buildings is often practical, and even necessary for survival. Some do need to close.

In geographic areas where the original ethnic peoples have moved away (say, from the inner city to the suburbs), new temples should be established. Unfortunately this has not happened in most places, due to the belief that setting up a new parish would draw people from a dying parish. This, of course, is usually true but it is also true that people who move a good distance away from the "old church" tend not to be active parishioners, and the next generation raises their children in another church that is much closer to home. [They are not to be faulted for this as it is perfectly reasonable.]

Another lost opportunity is the "old church" in the inner city. When the original ethnic parishioners moved to the suburbs other people moved into the parish should have welcomed the newcomers by being hospitable to their ethnicity. Consider, for example, the possibility of incredible Byzantine worship in a Black neighborhood if you could convert a few Gospel singers and encourage them to compose new liturgical chant that they will love as much as we love ours. The same approach could work with Hispanics, Asians and probably all of the new ethnic groups.

In the end, though, the largest reason for the decline of the parishes are problems regarding worship. Many Byzantines (bishops, clergy and laity) did not recognize the jewel they had, and they were so envious of another jewel (the Roman Catholic one) that they neglected the jewel that adorned their own House. That self-loathing, together with some really bad decisions by Rome, set the current path. A new direction can be set (to save what remains and to build again), but not until the jewel that is hidden (our own liturgy and theology) is rediscovered, polished, and celebrated. It is something I pray for daily.

John

John:
My comment had nothing to do with parish dwindling numbers. It was directed to StuartK labeling Northeastern Pennsylvania as the "Rust Belt" and suggesting it is populated predominantly by old people while the youth flee. I call that insulting, don't you?
Paul aka Pavloosh

Paul,

Stuart's comment is accurate. "Rust Belt" is a term that has been in general use for many years now, and includes those states which once had a high concentration of jobs in manufacturing but have come on hard economic times. It ranges roughly from Pennsylvania and upstate New York to parts of Illinois.

Regarding the young population fleeing (leaving an older population) it is very true. Northeast Pennsylvania has a very high concentration of elderly people when compared to other parts of the country. About 20 years ago Scranton/Lackawanna was ranked in the top 10 'most elderly cities' (I think about 6 or 7 with Florida cities making up the remaining top ten - now other cities are also aging but Scranton is still in the top hundred, depending on how you count). Young people do leave in high numbers - the U.S. Census and other surveys has confirmed this over the years. [Things are improving, but only slowly.]

Not sure what is insulting about the truth. [The reasons why this situation exists are varied and really another discussion.]

John

Paul:

Christ is in our midst!!

I have to agree with John. The whole half of Western PA is even more apt to have less young people than your area. The towns and cities have been hemmorhaging young people since the mid-1960s. My hometown (in the northern tier of Western PA) is less than half of what it was when I was growing up. The bulk of the people are retired and over 65. The place lost its major employer in 1959 and people travel long distances to work. The place where I live now suffered a major blow some years ago when the railroad shop closed and was dismantled. Both my children moved far away to get their education and find good careers.

The industrial northern part fo the U.S. has been called "the rust belt" for quite some time--probably as long as the southern U.S. has been called "the sun belt."

Pennsylvania follows Florida as the state with the second highest concentration of retired and elderly people. The remark wasn't meant to get under your skin. It is what it is.

Bob

Where I live in California is a world away from Bridgeport CT (except for my beloved Bridgeport Milling Machines) so please help me with the question.

Why couldn't enough former parishioners step-up and buy the Holy Trinity facility? Things may be bad now but they won't be forever. A non-profit 501 (c)3 corporation could have been formed. While possibly unlikely, maybe the Eparchy might have even carried the paper or at the very least sold it for even less than $1M to a serious Catholic group who was serious about preserving it for Catholic posterity

Some level of income from renting the rectory and parish hall could have been used to mitigate the mortage and the building maintenance. I just don't understand...

Thanks.

I don't know about the caliber of pastors in this 21 parishes but they faithful need to hit the bricks and begin to evangelize. Tough to shut down a parish when it's choke-full of faithful. Sometimes the apathy is chilling.