God's House and His People

A Letter to the Clergy, Religious and Laity of the Diocese of Pittsburgh

To the Clergy, Religious and Laity of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

Across the six counties of this diocese, all of us have shared in the difficult—at times painful—but necessary task of addressing how well we utilize the temporal goods of the Church for its spiritual and pastoral mission and ministry. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his recent apostolic exhortation The Church in America reminds us: "The parish is a privileged place where the faithful concretely experience the Church. Today in America as elsewhere in the world the parish is facing certain difficulties in fulfilling its mission. The parish needs to be constantly renewed on the basis of the principle that ‘the parish must continue to be above all a Eucharistic community’" (41).

The Holy Father’s words remind us that the Church’s primary mission is neither real estate nor preservation of beautiful church buildings. Our task is to do the work of Jesus, and to prepare future generations to carry on that work. We cannot burden those future generations with the care of buildings when limited resources need to be used for the central mission, the pastoral care of the faithful. To keep open and maintain every building that has served the Church historically would be an impossible task, a task contrary to our ultimate mission.

It is difficult to lose a church building, where so many special moments, experiences and sacramental celebrations have created fond memories. In a sense, the church building has become for many people an extension of their home. When hard decisions about closing a building have to be made, parish involvement in the assessment and in subsequent planning is essential. While this approach sometimes brings conflicts to the surface, it is better for the future of the parish that all views be heard and dealt with in an atmosphere of respect and collaboration rather than leaving unvoiced disagreements that can affect all future attempts at harmony.

There are many factors that can lead a faith community to determine that a church building can no longer stay open. Shifting demographics, dwindling membership, parish reorganization, and a need to ensure that there are the necessary ministries to serve the whole parish family—all of these—must be evaluated in light of the financial resources available. Above all, however, is the realization that what needs to be preserved is not a building, no matter how beautiful or historical it might be, but rather the living faith—past, present and future.

Since material from a number of interested parties has been disseminated and considerable media attention has been directed at the future of St. Nicholas church, I thought it would be helpful to provide some useful information. In this letter, I want to share with you:

1. some of the background and process that has led to the recommendation by the pastor of St. Nicholas Parish, the Reverend Gabriel Badurina, T.O.R., that the church building be sold to PennDOT;
2. the breadth of the consultation process that has influenced my decision;
3. collaboration with heritage groups, and finally
4. a brief reflection on how we as members of the Church are expected to respond even when we face difficult and emotionally-charged situations.

After developing various designs for the road and considering various competing historical interests, PennDOT informed our diocese in December, 1999, that the St. Nicholas church building on the North Side could not remain where it is. They limited us to two options. We would either have to sell the building to them with the distinct possibility that it would be demolished or the building would have to be relocated at their expense to another site. We were asked to state our preference without full assurance that it would be the course of action taken after PennDOT's long process of approval needed from state and federal agencies.

It must be emphasized that the existence of St. Nicholas Parish has never been threatened. This has never been a matter of discussion or debate. It will continue to serve Catholics of Croatian descent.

We added a third possibility that would authorize the parish to sell the building to someone or some group who would preserve this building for its historical significance but not to function as a church. This possibility was never considered to be viable by members of the parish task force during the consultative process.

If the option to sell the building to PennDOT for eventual demolition were to be accepted, all of the proceeds from the sale would go to St. Nicholas Parish to allow it to continue its primary purpose, which is the worship of God and the spiritual and pastoral care of the faithful.

Were the second option—to move the church—selected, there are a number of other complicating factors. Since the church would be moved adjacent to a historically designated area, automatically all of the negative factors involved in the historic designation of a church could become issues. Historic designation removes, in part, the authority of the Church over her own buildings and, in effect, requires that the freewill offerings of the faithful be used not at the discretion of pastors and the faithful but rather to sustain the exterior of a building even if there are no longer Catholic faithful using the church.

Were the church to be moved, in all probability, additional family homes in the area where the church would be placed would have to be preempted and destroyed requiring additional families to move from the area.

There is also the legitimate concern about public reaction to such a move, its cost to taxpayers, and other implications for the area.

A process of consultation was begun in the parish to help inform the pastor, Father Gabriel, as to what option would best serve the care of souls. A twelve-member parish task force was formed. It was composed of the members of the parish finance council and parish pastoral council. The task force also included parish staff, pastors from the two neighboring parishes within whose territories the two St. Nicholas church buildings are located, and a representative of the diocese, all of whom participated with voice but not vote.

Beginning in March and through August of this year, the task force met six times to discuss which option would best serve the present and future needs of the parish. Two town hall meetings were also conducted to which all members of the parish were invited to express their views. Over 200 parishioners attended each of those meetings.

At its final meeting, after the parish consultation had been completed, the parish task force was unable to reach consensus. Six members recommended that the church building be relocated, five members recommended that the building be sold to PennDOT, and one member indicated that he could accept either recommendation but preferred to move the church.

Throughout this process, all involved prayed to be open to the direction of the Holy Spirit. In his letter to me, Father Badurina indicated that after "reflecting carefully and prayerfully on all the information presented and arguments advocating either option...the selling of the church to PennDOT seems to be more recommended by the majority of parishioners, it is financially wiser and strengthening the desired parish unity. To move the church would place an unrealistic fiscal burden on decreasing present and next generation of parishioners."

1. the unity of the parish would be better served in one location;
2. the sacramental needs of the parish can be met through the other church building in Millvale which, because of its artistic and historical merit, is already on the National Historic Register;
3. to move the building would place an unrealistic burden on the future of the parish as the number of parishioners and financial resources continue to decline, and
4. it would not be fiscally responsible to move the building.

Next, I consulted in separate meetings with both the priest council and diocesan pastoral council. After reflection and discussion of the results of the parish consultation and the recommendation of Father Badurina to me, both councils concurred unanimously with his recommendation in the firm belief that there was no other viable option.

The discussion and decision concerning St. Nicholas church is not unique to that building alone nor to the American-Croatian faithful members of the parish. For a number of years—in the late ‘80s and the beginning of the last decade—the Diocese of Pittsburgh was involved in a diocesan-wide Parish Reorganization/Revitalization Project. We have all learned much from those years and why it was necessary in the first place. Since some of those factors are operative in the decision to close St. Nicholas church, I think it is helpful to review them.

Over the past several decades, the population of southwestern Pennsylvania has decreased dramatically. This has happened for reasons well known to all of us. Hardest hit have been urban centers that once flourished in the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s. People have chosen to move elsewhere. Many live in the suburbs and some have left the area altogether. This has profoundly affected parish life and the viability of numerous parishes.

In all of this discussion, it is also necessary to remember that on the same road a short distance beyond the St. Nicholas church in question is another St. Nicholas Croatian church that belongs to the same parish. St. Nicholas church in Millvale, which dates from the same time as the church building on the North Side, has long been recognized for its cultural and artistic heritage and will continue to provide spiritual, pastoral and sacramental care to the Croatian-Catholic community that comes to the area to worship.

It has also been suggested that some of the religious art at St. Nicholas church be shipped to Croatia and given to those dioceses for use in parishes that are rebuilding churches destroyed in the recent fighting. Recently, the Lithuanian community set a beautiful example of ethnic solidarity by sending some of the religious artwork from St. Casimir church on the South Side which was closed during the reorganization to Lithuania where, with the fall of the Iron Curtain, an effort is underway to rebuild, restore, and refurnish Catholic churches. The diocese would be a willing partner in such an effort to show our communion with the Croatian Catholic faithful both in Croatia and in this country.

We need now to look at how we as Catholics engage in discourse and how we live out our commitment as members of the Church. Our actions must show us to be a people of profound respect for the truth and a family of faith committed to expressing our thoughts, opinions, positions—always in love. We must also consider how one responds to decisions made for the good of the Church.

The faith of this diocesan Church is strong. Its unity bears testimony to our ability to make difficult but necessary decisions and, above all, to our commitment to work quietly, calmly, peacefully and lovingly together in building and extending the Church of God. That Church is not built with stones and mortar, but in the love and faith of its people. We recognize and show forth God in his Church, the living Body of Christ, manifest richly in her sacraments, her teachings, her ministry and in her people.

In providing this information, which I hope you will find helpful, I also ask for your prayers for everyone involved in this difficult but necessary decision so that the way we respond will manifest clearly the face of Christ—a face reflected in the unity, faith and love of all of us who make up the Body of Christ.

With every good wish and asking God’s blessings on you, I am

Faithfully in Christ,

Donald W. Wuerl
Bishop of Pittsburgh
November 27, 2000