LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 1999
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
MARCH 2000

---

ST THOMAS MORE NOT A PARISH

I just finished reading the article Elder Care Alliance by Eric Reslock. I always find it amusing when reading an article on a subject I know something about and find in it all sorts of errors and mis-representations. Here are a few I found in this article:

a) St. Thomas More is not a parish. It is a chaplaincy for San Francisco State College.

b) It was not closed because of the earthquake (which was in 1989 not 1994), but because of low attendance.

c) Only students and faculty at SFSC are "parishioners" at this chapel. Others may attend the services, but they cannot be listed as parishioners, since there is no parish here. Even the students and faculty are not parishioners of this chapel, this is the same as a chaplaincy for a hospital(when you go to the hospital you are under the care of the priest-chaplain).

d) The property belongs to the archdiocese and always has. Parishes do not own their own property. All property is owned by the archdiocese.

e) The property is not meant to be a parish, therefore the size of the parking lot does not have to accommodate commuters to this chapel. It only needs spaces for the students/faculty who attend. Also, the commuters have their own parishes in which their homes are located. They should be supporting those parishes and building up the community among their own neighbors.

f) The so-called boundaries listed for the so-called parish do not exist. These areas are under the care of real parishes. The former boundaries have been suppressed.

g) The church and parish have not been re-opened. It is now a chapel and chaplaincy.

h) In Switzerland, the salaries of the clergy are paid for by the government. And the individual churches are controlled by the parish priest because of the influence of the Protestants who wanted to take control of Church property away from Catholic bishops to make it easier for congregations to leave the Catholic Church and join the Protestant Church. This is also the reason that the Church property in the USA is in the hands of the bishops, so that the individual parish boards cannot take the property and form independent Churches or join the Protestant Churches (such was the case in the early days of the USA).

i) The archbishop made his decision based on diocesan needs that were discerned by hundreds of meetings with Catholic laity and clergy. He did not do this alone or without consultation. And the persons who are representing themselves as "parishioners" of St. Thomas have no special right to hinder or protest against this use of diocesan property. I have just as much right as any of them, since I belong to the diocese and contribute to the support of the diocese.

j) In the archbishop's letter, he states that these people are "former parishioners" and he asks for their full cooperation in this good work sponsored by and for the diocese's laity and clergy.

k) There are no elderly going to the parish as stated in the article, since there is no parish. The archdiocese has opened a variety of such elderly care places and we as a diocese will need more as our population ages. And certainly the clergy, myself included, will need a place to go. Most clergy do not have family to move in with. And by the time we are 75 years old most of our siblings are dead. And we have no children to care for us. The diocese has an obligation to help us.

l) The second diocesan ministry at this site is the Catholic School. Again, this is not a parish school (there is no parish). The school supports the diocesan plan for use of this property. And this official ministry at the site quite plainly states that the so-called "Friends" are none such. This was the best part of the whole article because it shows that the group being interviewed by Reslock does not even represent the actual Catholic groups that are on the site. Even the normally anti-Catholic local government agencies did not give these "Friends" the time of day. Nor did the local anti-Catholic media (e.g. Examiner or Chronicle). If there was a "real" story here these vultures would have been flying over head.

m) There really should not be funerals at St. Thomas More since it is not a parish and chapels normally do not have permission to hold funerals. So I do not know what all the talk about "daytime funerals" using the schoolyard is all about. Obviously, the planning commission considered all these objections. And found them wanting -- end of story.

n) "Bring the re-closure of St. Thomas More church". If there is another ministry (care of the elderly including retired priests), it would seem that there is more reason to keep the chapel open. And a few of the priests could be involved in the school and chapel.

o) "Once they take the parking away, it's going to decrease attendance." Good, these people should be going to their own parishes and supporting their own neighborhoods as the archbishop's secretary stated. Then again, I suppose that their real pastors may be glad these troublemakers are not around.

p) "Next step: close the parish." The parish was closed in 1994 and never re-opened -- fact.

This article needs a re-write and then maybe it will be right....

-- Priest from the Diocese of San Francisco,
name withheld on request


TRUTH ON THE RADIO III

In reply to Stephanie Choury "Truth on the Radio III" (Feb. 2000 Faith). I feel Father Fessio told the facts. If she is a member of the R.C. Church at this time, she may have to go along with the pope. [But] the Catechism allows ample room for the death penalty indeed! One wonders if the pope had all the facts in the Missouri pardon. The man who received the reprieve murdered three people: The man who sold drugs with him (age 63), the man's wife (age 62), their 19 year old grandson, who was confined to a wheelchair. Does a triple murderer deserve the death penalty or what?

A. Cooney
Oakland, CA

TOP