Diocese of Scranton adds collection to boost priests' benefits

by laura legere (staff writer)
Published: June 23, 2009

Font size: [A] [A] [A]

The Diocese of Scranton announced this weekend the start of a new monthly collection to help pay for the retirement, education and health care costs of priests.

In flyers tucked into parish bulletins on Father's Day, the diocese outlined the widening gap between the rising costs of clergy care and education and the insufficient funds available to pay for those programs.

Bishop Joseph F. Martino said a second collection to be held at Masses on the first weekend of every month will be used to cover what he called the "enormous" costs of training and care, which are currently not fully met by ordinary diocesan revenues.

In the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the diocese is $1.8 million short of the $8.6 million needed to pay for clergy care and education, according to diocesan figures. Parish assessments and funds raised through the diocesan annual appeal contributed $6.8 million for those programs.

Bishop Martino said the new monthly collection "seems to be the most effective and understandable way to meet our obligations to the clergy" rather than increasing the assessments paid by parishes throughout the diocese.

According to diocesan figures for the 2008-09 fiscal year:

- The diocese had to pay $1.1 million for "clergy support and medical assistance" above the $2.9 million parishes contributed to cover health insurance premiums for active priests. Diocese spokesman William Genello said he could not specify what accounted for those costs because they pertain to "medical or other personal issues," but he said "the diocese is obligated to provide necessary care for priests who might be dealing with a variety of personal issues." He also said the costs have exceeded the amount budgeted for them.

- Costs to run the Villa St. Joseph retirement home for priests exceeded the funds parishes contributed to operate it by $38,000.

- Health care costs for retired priests were more than double the $696,000 parishes contributed for those expenses.

- Seminary and clergy education cost $263,000, but the diocese projects education expenses "will increase significantly" in the next fiscal year. Mr. Genello said a number of priests will be engaged in advanced studies this year, in part because priests must be trained in specific areas, like Canon Law, as older priests with those specialities retire.

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

Ads by Yahoo!

Fr. Dave Bechtel:

Thank you for the clarification. I have edited and re-edited my responses before posting here in an effort to be understood -- the written word isn't the best form for commmunicating clearly and without distortion. Just ask Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!

I agree that YOU must remain hopeful, patient and understanding for our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. It is your vocation, your calling and your life. I will pray for their reconciliation but, as a lay person, I will not stand for their distortions -- I love my friends who are fundamentalists, but I do not allow them to speak ill of my faith in front of me. Like everyone with cognitive dissonance, we have a uneasy, but real, peace between us.

Since The Times has "buried" this thread, and I thought it was difficult to find today, we may be at the end of our interesting dialogue. I appreciate your responses, that you are willing to stand with your own name, and that you are willing to take on all "comers." During this next year, as parish after parish closes, The Times will cover each painful moment. One of those parishes was started by my grandfather (yes, for real; you can even find it on the official site.) I will weep. But I will blame neither the Church not the people; neither the Bishop nor the parishioners. I ask that you remember, as you respond to other people on other threads, not to blame the faithful either.

Thanks for the discussion -- perhaps we'll meet on another thread!

Report

Mrs. Progressive Mom, 07/01/2009 17:03

Gave up on responding on Galileo and Bruno (and the rest of the things I brought up)?

I guess Fr. Bechtel just ignores things when he starts to get in over his head? That's a form of intellectual dishonesty all in of itself.

By the way, in his attitude of "NO COMPROMISE" the Father evidently neglects the fact that the Catholic Church HAS compromised when it comes to being complicit in the murder of mothers in high-risk pregnancies. They make a conscious choice to do nothing and just let her die - and thus, they COMPROMISE the Christian value of "thou shalt not kill".

Again, a myopic view of the situation and a perfect example of how they randomly and capriciously pick and choose how to promote supposed Christian values.

Report

Jeff, 07/01/2009 15:22

Mrs Progressive Mom,

I did not know if I was writting to the same person previously, now I do. Let me rephrase: Both your posts were reasonable. I am not sure why you took offense when I then said "That being said" becasue I did not intend anything nasty by it. I simply used that phrase to indicate a change in point. In fact perhaps what I MEANT by the phrase is better said "Consider the following points:"

In other words: "Your other post was reasonable, Consider:......"

Actually BOTH your posts were reasonable. I am extremely happy to see your devotion to the Eucharist and the Catholic Faith. I am also happy to see your knowledge of the fact the Fundamentalists distort our teaching and attack the Eucharist. However my personal way of dealing with that is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Though I was always Catholic, I was raised both Catholic and Protestant; I can understand how they think, and the catagories in which they think. When you look at the Catholic Faith from their perspective, you can understand a little why they think as they do. A little patience and understanding goes a long way.

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 22:47

Fr. Dave Bechtel --

Yup--same Progressive Mom; sometimes I remember to add the Mrs.

On "the system is as it is. It is not going to change." I think we would both agree that the Catholic system, in my lifetime anyway, has changed dramatically. Not in its doctrine, but in non-dogmatic issues and the role of the laity. The system does indeed change and it changes because we work within it for change. I grew up in a church that wouldn't allow me on the altar...I couldn't enter the doors without covering my head. Now, we have a church that, in the spirit of John Paul II, welcomes children of all ages to joyfully, loudly proclaim the Lord within the walls of the church, singing, dancing and shouting. I love it and celebrate along with those teen girls who can now participate in ways I never could.

The Holy Spirit is with the church, even when it refutes and punishes Galileo (as in the previous example) and when it reverses that refutation. The Holy Spirit is with the church as it changes. I believe that changes within the church are the work of the Holy Spirit with the assistance of the entire Catholic community. Sometimes, I worry that the clergy do not remember that the laity -- all the laity -- are part of that community. (The snark in me wants to add...if the laity have to deal with the clergy that are less than admirable, we should expect no less than that the clergy put up with us!)

If there is a different way of doing things in my diocese and my mother discusses these methods as a possibility for Scranton, does that make her less Catholic? Should it mean that others can question the depth of her faith? I think not. That's my point. While some posters here at The Times have been too quick with ad hominem attacks on the church and the clergy, others have been far too quick to question the faith of those who dare disagree with the leadership on worldly matters.

You are right: we can deal with it and work with it or work against it and make things worse. Or we can take the third path: we can work with it and continue to work for the involvement we believe that the faithful -- clergy included -- should have in this discussion of our church's worldly matters.

By the way, ... as for your opening:

"Progressive Mom,
I don't know if you are the same Progressive Mom who commented about the Eucharist, but your other post was reasonable.

That being said, ...."

In most places online, for most posts, I would never have read your reply beyond the phrase "but your other post was reasonable." It was a bit nasty, and "that being said" indicates that you meant it to be nasty.
Why? You never said what was unreasonable about my post: all I asked for was a seat at the table for the laity, a voice for the people who pay the bills, inclusion in the community in th real sense of the word.
When you start with "your other post sounded reasonable"...gosh, you leave me the choice of feeling disrespected and somewhat bashed, or feeling that I'm talking to someone who wants to put me in my place. Either way, you are fairly close to my "internets" fence: I don't talk to people who want to bash, be nasty or treat me like an unruly child.

I think we just decided to agree that we disagree.

As for your references to right-wing commentators: You mention that they are entertainers; I don't think I should include references to Michael Moore and Brother Wease in a discussion about the present and future of my Church, although they both have something to say about it and are entertainers. Nor do I think I should look to the evangelical church as a prime example of anything: I have read enough of their lying of our Popes, distorting our history, maligning our doctrine and attempting to discredit our theology so I have no place for them as a model for anything. Period. That they are pro-life is incidental to me; they hate Catholics, disparage our Pope and his lineage and deride our Eucharist.

You can be a devoted Catholic and a Republican, and I appreciate that you think others can do otherwise. When, as a priest (and I give you credit for posting under your full name), you use partisan references while making a sincere Catholic point, you seem to exclude the possibility that others can be good Catholics and be non-Republicans. No, you don't explicitly say that; but your title can speak volumes. Keeping out the references to O'Reilly et al takes away that misunderstanding while maintaining the integrity of your points. It is not that you can't be a Republican and a Catholic; it is that too many Republican-Catholics seem to think you can't be a "good" Catholic and anything except Republican. Your references seem to echo that and I apologize for calling you on this if that was not your intent. To me, that's the way it came across.

Report

Mrs. Progressive Mom, reasonable or not?, 06/30/2009 16:31

Progressive Mom,

I don't know if you are the same Progressive Mom who commented about the Eucharist, but your other post was reasonable.

That being said, our Bishop's pastoral skills can be argued. We can argue whether he should do what he needs to do in this way or the other way. However, that gets us nowhere becasue he is doing what he is doing the way he is doing it. At this point we can either live with that fact and try to build up the Church and evangelize. The Bible says we are to obey our leaders and does not make an exception for when we think they are not good pastors. Or we can work against the system, and hence ourselves in the end. That is all I am saying. The system is as it is. It is not going to change. Hence, we have a choice: deal with it and work with it, or work against it and make things worse.

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 13:09

Progressive Mom,

Let me just say how pleased I am you liked my comment on the Eucharist. I meant every word of it. Indeed, without the Eucharist, to whom shall we go? Where would we go? There would be no Church to speak of. That is exactely the message I preached on Corpus Christi Sunday.

The poster who says and believes this is the same poster who used O'Reilly, Hessein, and Falwell. First, what problem do you have with O'Reilly? He is an entertainer. That is his job, to entertain. I note that I had to oppertunity to meet him at Fox News. He seemed nice. Second, the Hussein comment is not relavent becasue I admitted my bad example. Third, I was using Falwell as an example for what I was talking about. That is all. I was making no judgment on Falwell as a person, or somehow holding him up as an example. I do admire the Fundamentalists, however, becasue as a whole they put Catholics to shame in the election. They as a group over whelmingly voted pro-life, Catholics as a whole pro-abortion. This fact was not lost on many Fundamentalist ministers who were quick to point this out.

This fact may keep them from exploring the possibility of converting to Catholocism and accepting the Eucharist. Catholics must keep in mind the example they set, (as I do too- which is why I admitted my Hussein comment was wrong.)

My question to you: Many people seem to think that being a Liberal Democrat is compatable with Catholocism. Many people at the same time seem to think that being a Republican Conservative is NOT compatable with Catholocism. Though I am sure you could easily deduce where I fall in my own political affiliation through my posts, the reality is that neither party most fully reflects Catholic Teaching. Republicans are weak on some issues that Democrats are stronger on and visa-versa.

If you can explain why someone like me who is devoted to the Eucharist cannot at the same time like Fox News, or use Jerry Falwell as an example. Why can't a person have a Conservative Republican affiliation yet be devoted to the Eucharist, if a person can be a Liberal Democrat and be devoted to the Eucharist?

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 13:02

BS:

If the schools go, I have no idea. One would presume there would be no reason to tax the parishes by 25%. However as that is not the situation we find ourselves in, and as the bishop certainly does not wish to close the schools, it is not good to speculate. If it happens, then we can ask these very good and legetimate questions. As it does not seem likely that the school system would be shut down anytime soon, (barring unforseen circumstances) I don't see the use in discussing this.

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 12:39

Fr Dave Bechtel -

Thank you for giving me the "point" on Hussein. Now, can you remove all references to right wing political commentators (O'Reilly, ie) and all evangelicals with political causes (Fawell, et al) ? You know that using those references brings a political persuasion into a religious discussion and it muddies your points.

I don't post often, but I read the Times every day. In one thread, you said something like "I am a Catholic because of the Eucharist." Honestly, it brought tears to my eyes. I am a Catholic in large part because of the Eucharist, and I knew exactly what you meant.

Unfortunately, I get a very different picture of you when you start using O'Reilly, Falwell and Hussein.

I like the poster with the comment on the Eucharist a lot more.

Report

Mrs. Progressive Mom, 06/30/2009 11:07

Fr. Dave Bechtel,

I'm not in Scranton anymore so I can't comment directly on Called to Holiness. However, I do think you and I have different definitions of transparency and involvement.

I never implied that a not for profit is a democracy or should offer anyone a vote. I'm not implying that the schools and parishes slated for closing can or should remain open. I am saying that the process appears to be isolated, insular and arrogant -- or it's just so quiet that no one knows about it.

My diocese, too, is closing schools and parishes, but our process has been completely different. There was a full year of meetings BEFORE the decisions were made. Parishes/schools were shown financial projections and told exactly what they would have to do to be viable; one school found funding and will remain open. The diocese offered financial advisors to review reports and discuss options.

When hard decisions were made by the Bishop, he visited the affected parishes. Taking his cue from Jesus, he listened to the sorrow and anger. ( In the words of my kids: He suited up and showed up. And it made a huge difference. ) He asked unaffected schools to personally reach out to parents in closing schools (and they did). He gave press interviews, answered questions, went on television. (And he's no young man.)

People were hurt and some were angry. But very few blamed the Bishop or the church.

That's involvement and transparency. Offering post-facto financial reports is not transparency and it certainly isn't involvement. Gosh, there were annual financial reports at my Scranton parish back in the 1960's.

Let's just take the current situation: with an almost $2mil shortfall, did the Diocese discuss this new collection with parish counsels -- I'm assuming Scranton churches have these -- prior to instituting the collection? Did it perform projections on how the parishes might be affected: how many parishioners will take some of their parish contribution and put in this envelope? What will parishes do if that begins to happen?

With such a large shortfall, what is the Diocese doing in looking for large corporate or individual contributions and has it shared that info with the churches? And what about next year: does the Diocese project that the faithful will have to come up with almost $2 mill each year...and for how long?

I'm not looking for the answers to these questions, but the people of the parishes might feel better about this new collection, and other decisions, if they were given the answers; if there was more transparency and involvement.

These aren't questions of faith and, when they are asked, people's FAITH shouldn't be questioned! Yet that's what I see happening on these boards. You and others immediately attack how "Catholic" someone is. Even the notion that "you loose, not us" .... honestly, that is so offensive to me, a practicing, volunteering, money-giving, involved, active and -- yes -- worried-about-the-future-of-my-church Catholic that I don't know where to begin. I don't think you meant it the way it comes across, but behind that phrase lies a total disconnect with the everyday faithful. It's almost a little kid yelling "nyah-nyah" to someone who has hurt his feelings. It's a response that comes not from the head or the heart, but from a deep feeling that you and your church are being picked on again, and you just can't stand it.

I understand that: but the church and its leaders are going to have to learn to peel off those people who are just attacking it from those of us who truly love it, but don't want to be treated like the organization's servants.

We want to be the Lord's servants. And the Lord was really good about listening to people and answering their questions.

Sandy said it better (and shorter!): "Listening to what is upsetting everyone and reacting to it is KEY to turning parish problems around. Taking the "I know best" attitude gets no one, anywhere."

Report

Mrs. Progressive Mom, 06/30/2009 11:02

Father Bechtel,

I appreciate your passion for your faith and speaking up here. And, although I don't agree with everything, I can appreciate your courage to post. At the risk of being critical, I see you borrowed one of my borrowed quotes... but it is actually, when you point the finger at someone else, there are THREE more pointing back at you (not five as you mentioned). It's a great quote and oh so very applicable, I'm sure in everyone's case, including yours and mine.

But I do believe that not listening to parish members can be detrimental to the church. It is the people that keep the physical churches alive, and it's not coincidence that parish attendance and support has declined in light of recent administrative decisions. Taking the attitude that the Bishop knows what is best is not helping the situation at hand right now.

Report

Sandy, 06/30/2009 10:42

Interesting to see the Bishop and the Diocese living in luxury while the parishes suffer. They can't share the wealth?

So with the schools closing, where will that 25% go? Will it continue to leave the parish?

Report

B S, 06/30/2009 10:30

The facts of Galileo's persecution by the Inquisition and spending the entirety of his life under house arrest are a matter of record by the hands of the Inquisitors themseves, those are not open for discussion or debate.

The only place where there is any potential divergence is in discussion of what actual grounds the Inquisition persecuted him under. One spin is that it was for heresies unrelated to heliocentrism. However, it must be pointed out that Galileo was an astronomer and scientist, not a theologian nor a member of the clergy, therefore whatever views he may have allegedly have had on religion really have no more relevance than whatever views the baker or butcher may have had - still leaving his persecution indefensible. Further, the Giordano Bruno case (again, persecuted for belief in heliocentrism) illustrates the far more obvious parallel and substantiation that this truth of the earth revolving around the sun was indeed the heresy.

Report

Jeff, 06/30/2009 10:26

Harvey,

No, not at all. That is the whole problem. You keep telling yourself that, and giving yourself false hope. Bishop Martino is staying on as Jerry Falwell would say "for the duration." Secondly even IF (and that is a big if) he was moved, it would not be done until he could complete the restructuring of the Diocese. Do you think Rome is stupid? Do you think they are going to send a new bishop in who has to complete the process?

When I said "You loose not us" I mean this:

Essencially 35% of the parish offerings are taken for the schools (25%) and the day to day running of the Diocese (10%) The rest stays in the parish. When people do not contribute becasue they are mad, the parish cannot pay all it's bills. What then happens is that most pastors will pay the essencil bills and leave the rest unless of until they have the money to pay them. Usually that means the School assessments and or Diocesean Assessments don't get paid. It also means that the Church begins to get run down becasue the pastor does not have the money to fix and maintain it as needed. It is for this reason many churches are hundreds of thousands in debt and have no way at this point to pay it. But the debt has to be paid, or the schools can't run, nor the Diocese. Even if you made the case "Who cares about the diocese" the schools still have to be paid, and that is where the bulk of many parish debts are owed.

So sir, if you want your parish to be like that- that is what I mean. You loose, not us. If parishes can no longer sustain themselves there is no choice but to close them. Again, you loose, not us. (Though we do in the end becasue priests don't like it when parishes have to close, etc.) However parishes are not only closing for financial reasons, they are closing becasue we don't have enough priests, and also becasue of population shifts.

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 07:53

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the Galleio case. I have read what I have read on the subject, and aparently you have read what you have read. Both out sides are accusing the other of revisionist history, so I fail to see how this discussion can move forward.

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 07:38

Altar Boy,

While I agree that the priests who molested children took advantage of weak and younger boys and that is terrible, I fail to see what that has to do with the parish closings and school closings. In fact as a result of the scandal, donations did not drop that much, or if they did drop they have rebounded almost to pre-2002 levels. At least that is what statistics are saying. Pre-2002 the Diocese was having the same problems it is having right now. Everyone knew that it was going to come to this. The scandal has not caused this, as the problems existed long before 2002.

The main difference lies in the administrations take on the situation. Bishop Timlin did not want to close parishes or schools becasue he beleived things would get better. Bishop Martino however has realized that it is going to get worse before it gets better and hence the Diocese cannot keep putting it's pervebial finger in the dike. A radical renovation and restructuring of the dike must be done to ensure our future. That is what our bishop is doing.

Now I repeat my questions to you: 1) How many vocations have you encouraged to the priesthood or religious life? 2) How many people have you evangelized into your Church? 3) How many people have you invited to Church with you? 4) Have you been financially supporting your church in a meaningful way (which is to say donate what you can legitimately afford given your state in life) or have you been throwing in your weekly dollar or spare change wondering why the Church can't thrive?

Want to answer those questions for me please?

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/30/2009 07:36

To Father Dave, I bet the priests who molested and raped all of those boys didnt think about all of those churches having to be closed when they were having the "time" of their lives. The church existed for them, so they took advantage of young weak boys. Your brothers lost it for everyone, not the perishoners. Now go give us 100 Our fathers, 50 Hail Mary's and 1 Glory be for all over your fellow Priests' sins.

Report

Altar Boy, 06/29/2009 21:48

Sure, Father Bechtel - I suppose for your next routine, you'll also be calling the Holocaust an "urban legend" - as some of your Catholic colleagues do. Not only was Galileo persecuted, but Giordano Bruno was another proponent of heliocentrism - Bruno however suffered an even worse fate than Galileo, he was burned at the stake. There are plenty more forward-thinking individuals who were arrested, tortured, executed - for nothing more than speaking the truth.

And - regarding abortion, to be true to scripture, there should be no "hammering away" against abortion, as specific and distinct from "hammering away" against any other forms of murder - yet you do precisely this, while turning a blind eye and effectively being complicit in murder, when a high-risk pregnancy results in death and you've opposed anything that might have saved her.

INCONSISTENT WITH SCRIPTURE.

Report

Jeff, 06/29/2009 20:53

Father Bechtel...Galileo's case is not urban legend...perhaps this link from the Fordham University (A Catholic University) website might clear up a few things for you...http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html
it's entitled "Modern History Source Book: The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633. And if you happen to read Pope John Paul II's rehabilitation of Galileo in 1992, it doesn't admit that the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of our solar system instead of the sun, it mearely said that the "Church may have misinterpreted Scripture in this matter."

Report

Tom, 06/29/2009 20:25

Progressive Mom,

I will concede the "Hussein" point to you.

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/29/2009 20:16

Progressive Mom,

You are absolutely correct. That is why the bishop DID consult the people through Called to Holiness and Mission. That process was the people's oppertunity to "make their voices heard." That was the people's oppertunity to "cast their vote." However the Church is not a democracy. As a result while the bishop has a duty to consult, (and he did through the process) he does not have a duty to go along with the consensus if he has good reason not to do so. The reality is that sometimes the people just don't want to face reality, and could simply be in denial. In that case, the bishop must make the tough decision and do what is best for them, not necessarily what they WANT.

As for financial transparency, most pastors (except perhaps the older generation) are quite transparent with the finances. Most parishes have a "state of the parish" address each year where the finances are covered and a detailed report mailed. So I fail to see what you want to know that we are not telling you. "Wicki Answers" gives a pretty accurate range of salary for priests. I suggest you read it if you are interested.

Priests that are not "transparent" do not necessarily have something to hide, they just don't talk about "money" becasue they are afraid to do so. They don't want the people saying "Oh there goes Father again, money, money, money." Even giving a state of the parish address once a year constitutes Father talking about money too much for some people. I am sure you can see why a priest would be hesitant to do so.

Why won't the bishop "meet" with "the people?" The decisions have been made at this point. What is there to "talk" about? The time for talk is over. The time to "talk" was Holiness and Mission. Now is the time for implimentation.

As Mr. Bill O'Reilly would say "Why am I wrong?"

Report

Father Dave Bechtel, 06/29/2009 20:05

Diocese of Scranton adds collection to boost priests' benefits

Obama Wants You to Return to School

Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance

Obama Backs Auto Insurance Regulation

151 posted comments

Lackawanna County saves $11,000 so far with $262,000 space study

Coroner: Police report on crash doesn't explain why wreck went unnoticed


Site Web