J. Tabar, 07 July 2004
Case Study – St. Mark’s Parish and Father Sturdy
From
James A. Coriden, An Introduction To Canon
Law (New York: Paulist Press, 1991)
Bishop Murphy requested that Fr. Gentle, the pastor St. Mark’s for ten years, move to another parish. Fr. Gentle did not excel in handling financial matters (income was slipping, church buildings were not well maintained and the school closed under his watch), though was good in relating to people. He was instrumental in promoting a sense of community through solid liturgical experiences and lay participation in parish administration. He worked with the elected parish council which became the effective leadership organ of the parish.
Bishop Murphy replaced Fr. Gentle with Fr. Sturdy even though he had received complaints regarding Fr. Sturdy in his last two assignments. The bishop had few choices and felt the finances and physical state of the parish needed attention. He urged Fr. Sturdy to work in collaboration with the people.
Fr. Sturdy was young, vigorous, a bit of a loner and a little on the rigid side. Upon arriving, he fired two employees (janitor and housekeeper), replaced them with new ones and changed the locks on all the doors. He made an assessment of needed repairs and began to talk to people about raising funds to pay for repairs. He presented his plan to the parish council which did not care for it. They then proposed their own plan. Fr. Sturdy gradually pulled away from the council; he stopped calling regular meeting, consulted them less and less and finally postponed election of new members.
The council appealed to the bishop, but the chancellor wrote back that the pastor is in charge of the parish and that the council has only an advisory role.
Fr. Sturdy further economized by not replacing the liturgical coordinator when she resigned and cut the music budget in half. The detrimental effects on the liturgy resulted in a drop in Mass attendance, however a new tithing program Fr. Sturdy put in place caused collections to increase even with the drop in attendance.
Fr. Sturdy began to complain at deanery meetings about neighboring pastors enrolling his parishioners and retaining St. Mark’s envelopes placed in their collection baskets (demanding their return). His complaints were based on the presumption that parishes are territorial and that all must observe these boundaries for pastoral care to be provided in an orderly fashion. Fr. Sturdy took his complaint to the bishop when a nearby pastor accepted into their RCIA program three people who lived in St. Mark’s parish.
Question 1: The responsibilities of a Pastor are many and varied. He is responsible for the “pastoral care of the community committed to him…he carries out the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing, also with the cooperation of other presbyters or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of the Christian faithful, according to the norm of law.” (519) In his role as Minister of the Word he “is obliged to make provision so that the word of God is proclaimed in its entirety to those living in the parish…also to those who have ceased the practice of their religion.” (528 §1) In his role as Minister of Sanctification “he is to work so that the Christian faithful are nourished through the devout celebration of the sacraments and, in a special way, that they frequently approach the sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and penance…and take part consciously and actively in the sacred liturgy.” (528 §2) He is to “strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care” (529 §1), to “recognize and promote the proper part which the lay members of the Christian faithful have in the mission of the Church by fostering their associations for the purposes of religion” (529 §2) and work “so that the faithful have concern for parochial communion.” (529 §2)
The Pastor alone represents the parish in all juridic affairs and is responsible for administration of the temporal goods of the parish (532). This includes, but is not limited to, making sure that all goods are safeguarded against loss or damage (1284 §1 1°), observing canon law, civil law and social teaching of the Church “so that no damage comes to the Church from the non-observance of civil laws” especially in the employment of workers. (1284 §1 3° and 1286 1°)
Question 2: There are two types of parish councils; finance and pastoral. Both are reflections, but not replicas of their diocesan counterparts. Every parish, as a juridic person (515 §3) is required, by universal law, to have a finance council “to assist the administrator in fulfilling his or her function” (1280) for “the law of the Church does not favor financial administration by a single individual acting alone…particularly when the administrator, such as a pastor, is called upon to fulfill many other responsibilities.” (Beal, New Commentary, p 1481). This council is to be governed by both universal law and norms issued by the diocesan bishop. Members are selected from the Christian faithful in accord with diocesan norms to assist the pastor in the administration of the goods of the parish. (537).
Universal law regarding parish pastoral councils and diocesan counterparts may give further insight into the function of finance councils in the absence of specific diocesan norms. Parish councils are not required by universal law, but may be established for all parishes in a diocese by the diocesan bishop under norms determined by him. They are established to assist “in fostering pastoral activity.” They are presided over by the pastor and are consultative in nature. (536 §1 and §2) Both diocesan finance and pastoral councils have a broader scope and thus a great deal more power than their parish counterparts. The selection of members, however, may be of some help in making a determination in the extant case. Diocesan finance councils consist of “at least three members of the Christian faithful truly expert in financial affairs and civil law, outstanding in integrity, and appointed by the bishop.” (492) Diocesan pastoral councils consist of “members of the Christian faithful who are in full communion with the Catholic Church…especially the laity- who are designated in a manner determined by the diocesan bishop.” (512 §1)
Question 3 (a): Did Fr. Gentle fulfill his responsibilities? He seems to have fulfilled his responsibilities in his teaching and sanctifying roles in his establishment of good liturgical practices. He certainly knows his flock and has fostered a sense of community by encouraging lay participation in administration of the parish. He would appear to have failed in two areas; in the care of the temporal goods of the church and in the establishment of a proper role of the laity in the administrative function. The first failure is obvious; the church buildings are falling apart, income is not keeping pace with expectations. Fr. Gentle is simply not administering his tangible assets very well. The second failure is not quite as obvious, but it is there. He has allowed the laity too much power in permitting it to become “the effective leadership organ of the parish.” (Coriden 214) This is the role of pastor and cannot be given over to the laity. The canonical imperative is that the laity participate, not govern; that function is reserved to the Pastor.
Another possible failure on the part of Fr. Gentle relates to the required establishment of a finance council. The case does not specify what type of council Fr. Gentle has established, but it does not seem to be a finance council. It is the fact that the members are elected that makes me suspect this possibility. A finance council, by its very nature, required those who have expertise in the field. Usually those with expertise are appointed rather than elected. The selection of members for the different diocesan councils tends to support this position.
Question 3 (b): Did Fr. Sturdy fulfill his responsibilities? It would appear that he is well on his way to succeeding in fulfilling his duties to carefully administer the temporal goods of the parish; but is he really doing so? He is certainly failing in all the other areas in which Fr. Gentle succeeded. He cannot be fulfilling his teaching and sanctifying roles well if no one is attending Mass. He has not demonstrated any pastoral capabilities either. In just a short while he has managed to alienate not only the parish council (no matter of what type), but parishioners are beginning to flee as well. They are turning elsewhere for their spiritual fulfillment. Can he really sustain higher collections for long, even with his new tithing program, if parishioners do not attend Mass? I think not. His success in financial matters will likely be short lived if he continues along this path.
Fr. Sturdy’s actions upon his arrival seem a bit extreme, but in changing the locks he is supported by the canonical directive to protect the goods of the parish against loss or damage. The canons do not, however, necessarily support his firing of the janitor and housekeeper. If he did not do this in accord with civil laws he has opened the Church to potential litigation. Further, it would seem he did not adhere to Church teaching on social justice in the immediate and possibly unwarranted terminated of these two employees. Additional facts would be needed to make a definitive determination on this issue however.
Question 4: Are Fr. Sturdy’s complaints supported by canon law? Parishes are generally territorial (518). Domicile and quasi-domicile are acquired by residence within the territory of a parish or diocese (102) and it is through domicile and quasi-domicle that one acquires one’s pastor. (107) Certain functions are entrusted to a pastor such as administering baptism, confirmation in danger of death, anointing of the sick, assistance at marriages, and performance of funeral rites. (530) These functions cannot be denied in by the proper pastor of the Christian faithful, but they can be administered by other pastors if all parties agree. Fr. Sturdy does have to give his consent to the enrollment in another parish (including enrollment in an RCIA program) of those who reside in his parish, but he cannot control where his parishioners attend Mass, nor where they contribute their treasure. He has no claim on the St. Mark’s envelopes that appear in other collection baskets.
I, as Bishop Murphy, have gotten myself into this mess by removing a well-love, but somewhat financially inept pastor, and replacing him with what I knew (based on past complaints) to be a truly risky choice. Hindsight tells me I would have been better off trying to shore up Fr. Gentle’s financial weaknesses with a strong financial council than replacing him. To return him to the position would further disrupt the stability of the parish, not to mention make me look a little silly. Having made the determination that Fr. Sturdy has not yet given me ‘grave cause’ sufficient to remove him as pastor (712), the best course to take at this point it to sit down with Fr. Sturdy and very bluntly go over the situation with him, try to help form him into a better pastor. He may be performing to the letter of the law, but is certainly not complying with the spirit of Vatican II which lies behind it.