ARTICLES

Bait and Switch

Diocese Middle-Woman Thumbs Nose at Laity

By Robert Kumpel

In the July/August 2001 edition of News Notes, a story entitled "More Genuflect" documented how parishioners compromised with the diocese to keep the tabernacle central and visible in the renovation of St. Mary's Church in Escondido. The agreement has since been revoked by the diocese. In a letter dated September 17, Mary Ann Fallon, director of liturgy and spirituality for the diocese of San Diego, instructed St. Mary's pastor, Father Peter Navarra, that the the church renovation is "clearly in violation of diocesan policy." The violation, according to Fallon, is that "the altar is completely overpowered by the tabernacle."

Attached to the letter was a copy of Bishop Brom's 1999 statement to San Diego priests. In the letter, Fallon reminded Navarra that the first two sentences of Brom's instruction clearly state that: a. The altar of sacrifice should be the primary focal point in every church; b. The priority of the Eucharist celebrated is recognized over the Eucharist reserved; c. Eucharistic devotion should be seen as flowing from and back to the Mass, while never in competition with it. Fallon goes on to say that Brom's statement is substantiated by "Church law, including that of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Built of Living Stones."

If that was not troubling enough, Fallon rebuked Navarra for "serious misrepresentation" between the parish and diocese during the review process of the renovation and offered him three options: 1. Install wooden slats in the middle of the reredos following the design of the existing slats above the icons. 2. Install an opaque or semi-transparent screen to soften the visibility of the tabernacle. 3. Completely enclose the reredos so that the crucifix alone is seen against it.

The renovation's liturgical consultant, Father Stephanos Pedrano, a Benedictine from Oceanside's Prince of Peace abbey, did not take kindly to Fallon's accusations. Father Pedrano says that those who worked on renovation brought measurements, drawings, and scale models of the church's new design to the diocese for approval. "There was no misrepresentation. The drawings and models were accurate and honest."

When asked by telephone about her accusations, Fallon said that she had already discussed the matter with Father Navarra, then asked, "Are you a parishioner?" When asked if it was she or the bishop who was behind the letter, she ended the conversation saying, "I have no comment for you."

Bishop Brom's office had the director of multicultural affairs, Rod Valdivia, respond to phone calls. Although the office was already told in advance that this was for a News Notes story, Valdivia asked who was inquiring about the renovation orders and replied, "I don't know if you're aware, but it's the policy of the diocese not to speak to News Notes."

One local priest, who asked to remain anonymous, is not surprised by the letter. "That's Mary Ann Fallon's interpretation of the bishop's statement. One of the silliest things that ever happened is that the bishops had to write a document on the real presence in the Eucharist, and this is one of the reasons why. This priest (Father Navarra) has sacred orders and he has been gifted by the Lord with understanding of these things. If this is what he and his community wants, then it's just fine. However, if Bishop Brom chooses to listen to her (Fallon), then he'll have to take it up with his priest.

"If I were Father Peter, I wouldn't put up a screen to soften it, I would put up some glass so that it's completely quiet in the Blessed Sacrament chapel. One should see the tabernacle clearly, and that is in no way in competition with the altar. The problem doesn't exist except in Mary Ann Fallon's mind and the people who have trained her. If you go to Mass at that church, your focus is on Father Peter and the Mass. When Mass is not going on, and you go into that church, which has been very nicely done, you kneel down, and you don't focus on the altar because there's no sacrifice going on.

"Mary Ann Fallon is whining here because her power, her authority, and will are not being followed. This should be a personal relationship between the bishop and priest, leaving out the middlewoman. I would tell Bishop Brom that it's absolutely fine the way it is. But Father Peter is a nice man, a gentle man. He's the kind of man that they might try to push around, yet he's not extremely traditional at all. He probably had to fight like hell just to get the tabernacle in there, and now, after the fact, they are trying to obscure it. If the bishop is going to do that (force the tabernacle from visibility), the priest should then say, 'Well, then you'll have to find someone else to remodel the parish because I'm not going to bother with it.' Peter needs to take this up with the bishop and let him know that the argument is artificial. He (the bishop) uses some classic lines, but they're set-up lines."

Dick Faulkner, the renovation's project manager, was subdued when asked about the renovation. "We're already working on it. I've seen the letter. None of us wants to change anything. We'd prefer to keep it as it is. We're going to change some colors and things that will, hopefully, make the tabernacle less visible. We're not moving the tabernacle, and we're not putting up any screen."

Deacon Ken Finn, also a St. Mary parishioner, dismisses any notion that Father Navarra misrepresented the plans. "Father Peter has been, in my observation, a very strict follower of Bishop Brom. I find it very hard to believe that there was any act on his part to misrepresent anybody. Everyone in the parish was very, very pleased with the renovation after spending a million and a half dollars. It brought a whole faction of the parish back -- a lot of parishioners who used to be here and left for various reasons. Father Peter has really acted in the interest of his flock.

"In my 24 years of being ordained, I have never heard of a tabernacle competing with an altar or disrupting a congregation during the celebration of Mass. It's not competing. It's behind the altar, and it's far enough back. It's not disrupting or disturbing. I've never read anyplace where a tabernacle was so disruptive that they've had to take it out."

Mark Wheeler, a St. Mary parishioner for four years, says that if anyone is guilty of misrepresentation, it is the diocese. "The money for the renovation was raised on the premise that we would put the tabernacle back in the center of the church. The fundraising slogan was 'Let's Put Jesus Back In The Center of Our Parish and the Center of Our Church.' That's the line they used to raise approximately a million dollars from parishioners."

Wheeler, a former apologist for Catholic Answers, says that the original renovation plan included moving the tabernacle from visibility. "There was a select group of people on the renovation committee. They set up a committee, and if someone is against the 'progressivist renovation' plan, this person finds themselves unwanted and pressured off the committee, which happened here. What we did was, another friend of mine found out that the renovation committee was meeting with Father Ken Del Priore, who was the liturgical liason for the diocese. My friend and I crashed the meeting and sat in the back. Father tried to argue that canon law mandated that the tabernacle not be visible, which it does not. He cited the Cæremoniale Episcoporum, a document that says the tabernacle can be placed in another chapel, but that's for cathedrals, where you have a lot of visitors and tourists.

"There were supposed to be several open meetings at the parish where they were going to explain and people could give their opinions and ask questions. There was a finance council meeting, which up until then had been monthly and open to everyone. A number of people, including myself, showed up, and this was the hot topic for the whole meeting: We wanted Our Lord in the tabernacle visible, and it got into quite a active meeting, to say the least. After that, the finance council never met, and the proposed 'workshops' that were supposed to be open to parishioners never took place.

"We polled parishioners, calling them on the phone, and the numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of having a traditional design. In the previous News Notes article, all these people were taking credit for the renovation. Dick (Faulkner) was in on this renovation committee, and he didn't seem to want the tabernacle in the middle. He said, 'Well, Father Del Priore is the expert.' Father Peter wouldn't help us, and he (Faulkner) credits Father Peter. Father Peter says the credit goes to the bishop, and those of us who were here fighting it were on the floor laughing. And now the diocese has this letter saying, 'No way.'

"In the initial meeting, we suggested having an opening where the tabernacle could be seen, and Father Del Priore said, 'No, no, no. We have to close it off because the bishop does not want that visible.' So we tried to control our anger and educate some of the parishioners who didn't know anything about it. They were being shown excerpts from Eucharistum Mysterium, which was issued in 1967! They were told, 'Well, this is what the Church says, that the tabernacle should be in a separate chapel.' So we told them that this document is outdated. It has since been abrogated and superseded by ten papal documents, the new code of canon law, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"At that meeting, I told them, 'The tabernacle is only important because of who's in it, and that's Christ, Our Lord. If you substitute the word "Jesus" for "tabernacle" you come up with some interesting things.' And with Fallon's letter you can come up with some interesting things, too. Where she says 'the tabernacle overpowers the altar', substitute 'Jesus Christ, Our Lord, overpowers the altar.' It's stupid. I think they've lost belief in the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, and to them it's just a box. If it's just a box with a piece of bread in it, why not put it in some room?"

Wheeler says what happens now depends on how aggressively the diocese will act. "If they close the opening, they know they will have a riot on their hands. There are already a lot of people who have left the parish to go to other parishes because of the way this was handled. There were people who initially pledged a lot of money for the renovation, who, when they found out that the tabernacle might not be visible, did not give the money. If they close that off, there will be even more people, who gave a lot of money, who are going to be very angry. They'll feel like they were sold a bill of goods.

"I would like to see Father Peter or someone issue a letter back to Fallon and ask her to explain herself and demonstrate that this is mandated. Whether Fallon knows it or not, she's bluffing. She's got nothing behind her. The bishop could try to get heavy-handed and say, 'I'm the ordinary of this diocese and I decide'. Then we could do what Thomas Aquinas said to do and stand up to him publicly and say, 'No, your excellency. You have no authority to do that.' It's true that the National Council of Catholic Bishops says that the bishop has the final say on architecture and where the tabernacle is placed. But that does not negate what canon law says. It does not negate other documents that popes have issued on architecture. The tabernacle is supposed to be in a prominent position in the church and you can't get around that. Moving the tabernacle out of the church is not going to bring people in."

Dave Romero, a former parishioner at St. Mary's who recently moved to St. Stephen's parish in Valley Center, thinks the diocese trying to remove St. Mary's as an example to other parishes that might wish to stay traditional. "Out here they're going to build a church and the tabernacle is not going to be in the body of the church, but in a separate room, off to the side. From what I understand, that's how this letter came about. The people wanted the tabernacle in the center behind the altar and their reasoning was, 'If St. Mary's can do it, why can't we?' So the people at the diocese said, 'We can't let St. Mary's get away with this, because it's starting to spread. We've got to stamp this out before it gets any bigger.'

"Fallon is either a person with good intentions who is hopelessly misinformed about the orthodox teachings of the Church or she is a modernist out to change the Church by subverting its teachings and authority. It's obviously an untenable position. That stuff about 'serious misrepresentation' is a bunch of crap. I know the people personally that had input in this, and they were in contact with the diocese on numerous occasions and would come back and report to us. They (the diocese) were fully informed. I know Dick Faulkner personally, and before this letter was even written, he was quite enthusiastic that we had found a compromise that was acceptable to everybody. He had every indication from what he relayed in the process to us that this is what they were going to allow. My gut feeling is that this was a planned action, and the diocese knew all along what they were going to do. They were going to misrepresent what they wanted and allow just enough to get the donations to flow. Because we put up more of a stink than other parishes, they had to allow at least the tabernacle to be visible. Once they got as much money as they could out of us, now they're going to shut it off.

Romero wants to know if this is the bishop's personal wish for all his churches or a power grab by Mary Ann Fallon. "I've asked that question about a lot of different issues, because the answer is always, 'This is what the bishop wants.' I make the analogy to God's will: There's His permissive will and His active will and nothing happens without God's will. Well, people sin -- does that mean it's God's will that people sin? Of course not. He permits us to sin, and that's His permissive will, but His active will is that He prefer that we didn't. The same thing applies to the bishop. When people say, 'This is what the bishop wants,' does it mean that the bishop is permitting his renegade theologians and people in authority to have their way, or is this something that he actively seeks and desires and is promoting himself? I've never been able to get an answer to that."

Patrick Bump, another St. Mary's parishioner: "When the plan was initially approved, I was kind of miffed because they ended up not doing what they said they were going to do in the first place. We said there shouldn't even be a separate chapel. The tabernacle should be in the middle against a solid wall at the rear of the sanctuary, fully visible. That's what they promised the parishioners when they started taking money from them. They didn't even do that, and now the diocese is saying that they didn't go far enough! They want to stick Our Lord in a completely separate little room and heaven forbid that we have two sanctuary lamps to indicate the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Talk about liturgical-architectural fascism!"

WHAT DO THE RULES SAY?

In a summary of the changes in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the year 2000, the website for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org) offered this information regarding tabernacle placement, clearly giving permission for the tabernacle to be in the sanctuary and encouraging its prominent visibility: "The section on the place of reservation of the Blessed Sacrament has been adjusted and expanded." (314-317) The section begins by recalling the instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium 54 with the general statement that "the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church which is noble, worthy, conspicuous, well decorated and suitable for prayer." (314) The requirements summarized in the previous Institutio are repeated: that there should be only one tabernacle, which is immovable, solid, unbreakable, locked, and not transparent.

A paragraph on the location of the tabernacle then begins by citing the Eucharisticum Mysterium 55, recalling that "the tabernacle in which the Most Blessed Sacrament is reserved not be on the altar on which Mass is celebrated." (315) This is immediately followed by a reminder that the location of the tabernacle should always be determined "according to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop." (315) Two options for such a location follow: either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in the most suitable form and place, not excluding on an old altar which is no longer used for celebration; or even in another chapel suitable for adoration and the private prayer of the faithful, and which is integrally connected with the church and is conspicuous to the faithful."

TOP