Parish Division . . .

ecs 220 · #1 May 20, '04, 7:41 am

Our Parish has recently been swept up in Renovation Fever.

The physical facility is a bit run down: plaster in obvious need of repair, and place needs paint, carpet, and a general sprucing up. Our pastor and an associate seem bent on a complete makeover, however, and wish to raise a couple of million dollars for a remodel; this would include, among other things, removing the Tabernacle from its traditional central place of honor to a more out-of-the-way location, as well as such possible bells-and-whistles as TV monitors, circular seating arrangment, and a new high-tech organ (there's nothing wrong with the old, low-tech one). The parish is clearly divided, but our pastor is plowing ahead, claiming that the changes are "mandated by Vatican II (?)".

I know it's only bricks and mortar, but as you might well conclude, I personally consider this to be a sinful waste of money -- especially when there are so many needy right here in our community. I do recognize, though, that I could very well be wrong (and while I consider the expenditure to be "sinful", I do not apply that word to those people who support it).

Am I obligated to financially contribute? This happened once before in the parish I grew up in and, 20 years after the "modernization", the church was restored to its original (and beautiful) appearance.

Defensor Fidei · #2 May 20, '04, 7:44 am

And why not get yourself on the building committee?

-Ted

cmom · #3 May 20, '04, 7:45 am

Tell him you want a copy of where it is mandated by Vatican II.
Its not and he knows it.
He has a case of stone disease.

You are not obligated to contribute to stupidity.

Regenhund · #4 May 20, '04, 8:19 am

I can sympathize. We in the Diocese of Rochester had a similer situation, only it was the Cathedral and the biggest pusher was the Bishop! A very active group fought it for several years, even attempting to get the cathedral declared a landmark. In the end, the taberbacle got moved. Very sad.

The only good thing was that the cathedral became slightly more handicap accessable, but it was never really a big problem to begin with.

Tabitha773 · #5 May 20, '04, 9:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecs 220

Our Parish has recently been swept up in Renovation Fever.

The physical facility is a bit run down: plaster in obvious need of repair, and place needs paint, carpet, and a general sprucing up. Our pastor and an associate seem bent on a complete makeover, however, and wish to raise a couple of million dollars for a remodel; this would include, among other things, removing the Tabernacle from its traditional central place of honor to a more out-of-the-way location, as well as such possible bells-and-whistles as TV monitors, circular seating arrangment, and a new high-tech organ (there's nothing wrong with the old, low-tech one). The parish is clearly divided, but our pastor is plowing ahead, claiming that the changes are "mandated by Vatican II (?)".

I know it's only bricks and mortar, but as you might well conclude, I personally consider this to be a sinful waste of money -- especially when there are so many needy right here in our community. I do recognize, though, that I could very well be wrong (and while I consider the expenditure to be "sinful", I do not apply that word to those people who support it).

Am I obligated to financially contribute? This happened once before in the parish I grew up in and, 20 years after the "modernization", the church was restored to its original (and beautiful) appearance.

May I ask what area of the country your parish is located in? Do you know these things because the parish has been informed or do you have a close association with someone who knows the plans (for sure)?
Is there, or is there likely to be in the next several decades, someone who will know how to play the organ you have there? In other words, my old/former parish had an organ but the organist died. No one knows how to play it, and I know they are paid well each time they play, generally. It's possible the committee is looking ahead, but of course also possible for other motives.

I restore statues and have been involved in whatever fixing up needs doing. Those who do such things cost a fortune although you didn't mention that in your list. Is that part of the plan too?

Circular seating: if that is possible, it's not a bad idea, as long as it's conducive to the physical layout of your parish. I've had to sit in the back of our present parish which is a newer one and does have that incline - and still the tall folks block the view of anything on the altar. For me, this is a temporary situation but for those who are handicapped and sit anywhere toward the rear of the church that stinks. I come from New England and the parishes I know there (many) could not possibly do that without knocking down walls; that is illogical and ridiculously expensive.
I wouldn't give them a dime for something dumb, but would support something that blesses others.

ecs 220 · #6 May 20, '04, 9:49 am

Tabitha773: May I ask what area of the country your parish is located in?

West Coast.

Do you know these things because the parish has been informed or do you have a close association with someone who knows the plans (for sure)?

The parish has been informed, and I have personally spoken with our priests.

Is there, or is there likely to be in the next several decades, someone who will know how to play the organ you have there?

The layout (ranks, voices, pedals, etc.) is pretty standard on the old model; the high-tech version is basically a (really expensive) sythesizer.

I restore statues ... Is that part of the plan too?

Statuary is in fairly good shape.

Circular seating: if that is possible, it's not a bad idea, as long as it's conducive to the physical layout of your parish...[/quote]

The current seating layout is cruciform, the altar portion of the sancuary extended outward per actual Vatican II recommendations. Those serving on the Building Committee are in lock-step with the plan. Frankly my past experience with renovation (in my childhood parish) was so painful (people openly wept when they saw what had been done to the church building's interior), I've distanced myself from the process. One may justifiably respond that I therefore have no right to grouse, but disagreements have been merely dismissed anyway: the "ballots" parishoners were handed contained no "No" vote; merely boxes for checking the amount of personal/financial involvement one wished to express.

Wolseley · #7 May 20, '04, 10:17 am

Buy him a copy of the following book and suggest he read it thoroughly before he does anything further:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

I personally feel that rather than "renovating" churches and making them "new", they should be "resenexating" them and making them all resemble Gothic cathedrals.

But that's me.

Wolseley · #8 May 20, '04, 10:35 am

And by the way---

This:

Quote:

our pastor is plowing ahead, claiming that the changes are "mandated by Vatican II (?)".

is complete balderdash. Vatican II never said one word about gutting a church and making it resemble a cross between a warehouse and a grain silo.

If he tries to foist off this fantasy on you again, demand that he show you the specific conciliar documents, chapter, book, and verse, where it says this.

He will search in vain, because it ain't there.

**Edwin1961** · #9 Aug 23, '04, 6:14 am

It is sas that division takes place when particular people think THEY are right and everyone (including the Pastor) seems wrong to these people.
The parish I am in is having another smaller, dying attendance church, merge with us.
This is the order of our Bishop and those in both parishes who do not want this merge is putting up a big fuss over this.
(This is a Byzantine Parish and our numbers are small to begin with).
I learned yesterday that a Byzantine Parish in Dayton, Ohio is closing on August 31, due to this same reason: bickering and fighting against merges and structure change.

Our Pastor says that our new name:
'Holy Transfiguration' is a perfect symbol of the hope of your two parishes mergine. I.E. to transfigure into a new, vitalized, parish for all to see be attracted towards in the community.
Several people do not want to lose their 'power' in the parish communities, instead of looking at the good of the parish as a whole.

go with God!
Edwin

BLB_Oregon · #10 Aug 23, '04, 2:30 pm

Sounds as if you need a building committee, preferably with knowledgeable members of your finance and liturgy committees on it. Their first order of business probably ought to be to set up some Sunday afternoon meetings to give the parish updates and ask for input. The second order of action might be to decide in advance how they're going to handle it if they get a big ugly fight on their hands.... like just fix the plaster, paint, shampoo the carpet, and wait five years.

When my husband and I built our house, we decided that we were important enough to each other that if the other one really wanted a purple house with pink trim, we'd go for it, for their sake. Remember that a beautiful church is not as important as a beautiful community. Even a botched re-model can be fixed someday. An honest affection for people you love even when you disagree is not so easy to come by.

The poor are a real responsibility and frugal use of church funds is appropriate stewardship. Still, it isn't right to be stingy with the House of God. Try to strike a balance.

BayCityRickL · #11 Aug 24, '04, 7:55 am

Don't contribute a dime if you don't like it.

The nearby parish wants to demolish the defunct Catholic high school and to build a new parish center.

but, they haven't come up with the startup $2 million of the $6 million required. They've even distributed a "guide to giving" to tell you how much to give based on your income.

The design includes eight classrooms on a second floor (no elevator) with the first floor contains about 13 offices, with an additional three clerical spaces and three counseling rooms.

I don't know why they can't counsel anybody in an office space, for example, or why a few of these offices can't be shared. I have no doubt that the sound-proofing will be inadequate to provide confidentiality or simply no assurance of not being disturbed.

Then, there's to be a social room with kitchen and dining area attached, for about 225.

There were only two doors in the plan of the building, and the traffic to the dining room goes right by the "chapel." I figure nobody will really try to use the chapel or simply won't be able to use the chapel due to the poor floor design.

Oh, by the way. The old high school building has stood for just 50 years and has just been neglected. It has metal panels on the exterior and these may have been repainted only once. So, they are rusting in an embarrassing way. In contrast, the church itself is over 100 years old, looks like a cathedral church, and is well-maintained. The rectory is about 60 years old and was built to house a platoon of priests. And, the grade school building is about 80 years old and has the old long staircases up to the first floor of the building.

See? They want to tear down the newest building in their campus -- but not with my nickel.

BayCityRickL · #12 Aug 24, '04, 8:10 am

The parish I attended a few years ago in Illinois in another liberal diocese had ambitions for renovating it's church.

Well, if you were looking for a church there you couldn't find it. See, they were land-locked and had to build schools on top of the church space. So, they have two school buildings and each is on top of a church space. The grade school is on top of the "church" and the gynasium is on top of the "chapel". The chapel is where they have "church" on Sunday.

I was there over ten years and could never figure out what they were talking about.

But, they wanted to renovate the newest building (see my previous post, above) with the "chapel." The chapel resembled a parking structure, except for the furnishings. The building was so well built with concrete to support the gymnasium above. The support columns were at least 2 and 1/2 feet in diameter.

They were going through similar pains trying to finance the effort, but at least there was a sense of priority, that they wanted to enhance the worship area first (in addition to other campus renovations).

Their campaign was so aggressive, they wanted to send out people ( a posse, maybe?) to "contact" the 1/3 of the parishioners who gave very little or nothing to the parish. Maybe I don't have the skill to say, but trust me that they were being transformed almost into vigilantes for this project. Rots of ruck.

cestusdei · #13 Aug 24, '04, 1:21 pm

I would get the book Renovation Manipulation by Michael Rose and follow his advice. There is no reason to destroy a cruciform church to make a theatre in the round. Nor any reason to hide the tabernacle. Much less to turn the church into an empty barn. Catholics used to have excellent taste in art and architecture. Now we have "pizza hut" style churches. Fight even if you don't win. And don't give a dime if they pull the stunts Rose talks about.

Mary1973 · #14 Aug 25, '04, 10:17 am

I thought the diocese had to okay renovations. Call the chancery office and see what they have to say.

Our church was renovated but it is okay except for some paintings that they got rid of. The pastor told me they were "decals" or some such thing. Anyway, when I win the lottery the first thing I am doing is having them re-done!