Parish and fabrique: an introduction

One of the ways that the province of Quebec is rather unique in the world is that its civil law includes a special statute on the governance of Roman Catholic parishes. It is a throwback to the old French colonial regime, when the king of France had a special responsibility for the protection and promotion of the Catholic faith. Quebec has not been a French colony for centuries, of course, and the current cultural climate definitely favours a separation of Church and State. That being said, this law is still on the books and still serves to provide the legal structure for Roman Catholic parishes in Quebec.

Catholics growing up in Quebec are sometimes surprised to discover that there is no corresponding statute in other jurisdictions. On the other hand, Catholics coming to Quebec are usually quite surprise to discover the degree of legal “interference” that exists in the internal management of the Roman Catholic Church. This is especially true of priests and lay persons involved in parish leadership, who (if they come from elsewhere in North America) are often used to the model of a “corporation sole”. In this model, an episcopal corporation (headed by the diocesan bishop) actually owns all the parishes of a diocese: the subdivision of the diocese into parishes is handled internally within that overall legal structure (much as how a company might be divided into operating divisions that are not themselves separate corporations). A individual coming from this sort of environment often does not understand how to legally administer a parish within the Quebec context.

The purpose of this article is to try and clear up any such confusion, with an eye especially to helping people understand the practical ecclesiology of Roman Catholic parishes in Quebec.

Concept #1: groups and organizations

Human beings are social animals. They form communities. Some of these exist on the level of human nature itself, such as the family (the basic unit of society) or the State. The key characteristic of the State is that the people generally accord it the legitimate right to use coercion to enforce social policy. In other words, the State has the right to not only make laws but to enforce them. The State is obliged, however, to only use this power to promote the common good: if it fails to do so, the people (whether in whole or in part) will generally rebel in some form and replace the current state structure with another.

In addition to the family and the State there are many other forms of human community. Sometimes these are mere groups, gathered together for some purpose but without any clear structure. Some groups, however, do possess a level of organization, and are therefore themselves called “organizations”. The key aspect of an organization is that it is a group (i.e. is possesses a purpose) with a form of internal government (i.e. a leadership structure of some kind, along with a set of policies or traditions that govern its existence and action).

Concept #2: trusts and corporations

One of the realities regarding organizations is that they continue to exist even if the members change. A seniors club, for example, may continue to exist long after the original members have died or moved on, thanks to the influx of new members over time. Because the organization has an existence that transcends the individual members, it often also possesses its own assets as a kind of patrimony dedicated to the carrying out of the purpose of the organization. For example, the seniors club mentioned above may own its own clubhouse where the members meet. The clubhouse is part of the patrimony of the club.

A key difficulty that often arises in the management of an organization, however, is this: who actually legally owns the assets involved? What if a power struggle erupts within the organization, for example, with one group wanting to sell certain assets and another group wanting to retain them? Who actually “owns” these assets, and therefore gets the right to decide? One obvious answer is that no one actually owns the assets, in that they are owned by the organization as a whole. While this may be true in theory, however, because the organization may not have any legal recognition of its existence, it is not possible for “the organization” to go to court and defend its rights.

The difficulty mentioned above gets worse when we consider the debts of an organization. If the seniors club borrowed money to buy the clubhouse, for example, and then stops paying its debts, whom will the bank sue in order to get its money back? Once again, in theory “the organization” as a whole is responsible, but if it is not legally recognized then technically there is no one to actually sue. In such cases the leadership of the organization becomes personally responsible for the debts and other liabilities. On one level this seems only natural – after all, if a group of people is responsible for incurring a debt, they should be responsible for paying it back. But what if the debt was incurred by a previous administration? Or what if the debt arises out of something unforeseen, such as an accident on the property of the clubhouse? Is it really fair that the new administrators be held responsible for these things? Indeed, the fact that they would be is often a powerful disincentive for people to become involved in organizations.

Society, of course, has an interest in fostering and promoting organizations, so it has developed a couple of legal mechanisms to deal with these issues: trusts, and corporations.

A “trust” is founded on the basis of a legally recognized “trust document” of some kind. This document describes the assets to be managed and the purpose for which the trust is created. The document also describes who the leaders of the trust are, and how they are to be replaced. These leaders are called “trustees”, and the notion behind their appointment is that they are trustworthy to manage assets that are not their own for the purposes given. Once a trust is founded its assets are recognized to constitute a separate patrimony, and legal powers are given to the trustees to defend that patrimony in accordance with the purpose of the trust.

A “corporation” takes this notion one step further. The word “corporation” comes from the Latin word “corpus”, meaning “body”. Just as a human body is composed of many parts which nevertheless work together despite their diversity, an organization is composed of many persons who each (in theory) contribute to the overall good of the organization as a whole. For an organization to be “incorporated” means that a particular legal jurisdiction gives a parallel status of “personhood” to the organization, recognizing that the organization is greater than the sum of its parts. And because this organization is now recognized as a legal person, it possesses a number of legal powers, such as the right to enter into contracts, to own assets, to borrow money, and so on. Of course, this new “virtual reality” person does not possess a brain to think with, for example, or hands with which to sign cheques, so it also has trusted people to manage its affairs. The title given to these persons is sometimes also “trustees”, but other titles also exist, such as “governor” or “director”. This last title is actually the most common.

On a conceptual level, a trust and a corporation may seem to be the same thing, and in many ways they resemble each other. The key difference, apart from how they are managed legally in the different jurisdictions of the world, is in emphasis. A trust exists to manage assets in accordance with a purpose; an organization exists to promote a purpose and is given the powers it needs to get and use assets. Trusts, therefore, often have a temporary existence and may not even have any living members (for example, the executor of a will is acting as a trustee of the deceased person). Corporations, on the other hand, have a perpetual existence by definition – they only cease to exist if the same jurisdiction that gave them existence then revokes it. They also almost always have members, as the whole reason for their existence is to “incorporate” those members into a single “body”.


Concept #3: corporations, jurisdictions…and parishes

Legal recognition as a corporation can only be given by a sovereign entity, such as a country or a province. This is because a corporation is given a number of rights, such as the right to defend itself in court, and therefore only the same body that runs the court system can offer incorporation to organizations. The technical name for the actual paper certifying the creation of a corporation is something like “letters patent” or “articles of incorporation”. In older times these letters patent were often signed by the king himself, and even today they must be issued by a sovereign entity or someone delegated by it.

What happens, however, when a corporation wants to do business in a territory different from the one controlled by the original sovereign entity? For example, suppose a Canadian corporation wants to do business in France. It is recognized as a legal person in Canada, and so can go to court to defend its rights in Canada, but can it do so in France? In fact, the government of France must also recognize this corporation in order for the corporation to have legal rights. Usually an existing corporation simply needs to register itself within the new jurisdiction – it does not actually have to be “re-incorporated” within that jurisdiction. There are exceptions, though. In some countries, every kind of corporation needs to have a locally incorporated version. In other countries, only certain kinds of corporations need to follow this requirement.

When it comes to the Catholic Church, there is a long-standing recognition that the Church is a sovereign entity. After all, the Holy See predates the vast majority of modern states, and the Catholic Church does possess its own internal court system for the settling of disputes. Catholic canon law even includes clauses related to the creation of what are called “juridical persons”: some of these are aggregates of goods (i.e. they are like trusts) while others are aggregates of persons (they are like corporations). Once a juridical person has been canonically created it possess certain rights within canon law as well. And one example of a juridical person within canon law is a parish, which is an aggregate of persons called “parishioners”.

While the Church possesses the right to erect ecclesiastical juridical persons (thanks to the sovereignty conferred upon it by God), this does not however mean that these “corporations” are automatically recognized elsewhere in other jurisdictions. In some cases the Holy See signs a treaty with a country (called a “concordat”) thanks to which civil legal recognition is automatically given to ecclesiastical corporations. In most cases, though, the particular church organization has to go through the same sort of local registration process any other foreign corporation must do. Again, the laws vary from place to place, but the following are typical scenarios:

• The ecclesiastical corporation remains incorporated only within canon law, and all the assets are actually owned by the corporation of the diocesan bishop (the “corporation sole” model often found in North America).
• The ecclesiastical corporation remains incorporated only within canon law, but a trust is established to govern the property. This is rarely done in North America, although ironically the Quebec model for parishes most closely resembles this approach (in that a civil corporation, the fabrique, acts like a trustee for the ecclesiastical corporation).
• The organization has only a civil incorporation, but applies to the Church for recognition (much like the above example where the Canadian corporation applies to France for recognition). This model is most typically used for associations of lay faithful, not for public ecclesiastical institutions (like parishes).
• The ecclesiastical corporation gets incorporated a second time within the local jurisdiction; it therefore has a kind of “double incorporation”, once within canon law, and once within civil law.

Quebec is a very special civil jurisdiction with regards to the way it recognizes ecclesiastical corporations. There are at least three separate laws dealing with how Roman Catholic organizations are specifically handled:

• The Roman Catholic Bishops Act (RSQ, chapter E-17) permits the creation of a corporation for each diocesan bishop, so that when the bishop is replaced as head of the diocese the corporation continues under the leadership of the new bishop; it also allows the diocesan bishop to himself incorporate new organizations, which then have automatic legal recognition as well.
• The Religious Corporations Act (RSQ, chapter C-71) generally governs corporations for religious orders. They have their own law because traditionally they possess a certain independence within canon law vis-à-vis the diocesan bishop, and so it would not be appropriate for them to be incorporated (and therefore governed) by the bishops as would be the case were they to be incorporated under the first law mentioned above. Because of this independent structure it is also possible for a non-Catholic group to seek incorporation under this law as well, although in practical terms most choose to simply get incorporated under the non-profit section of the regular law governing Quebec corporations (as it is more flexible).
• The Act Respecting Fabriques (RSQ, chapter F-1) is a special law meant to govern the most common form of ecclesiastical corporation: the parish. In canon law, a parish comes under the jurisdiction of a bishop but also possesses a certain independence of action. There are many stories of bishops who tried to boss around (or even dissolve) a parish and who found themselves having to defend their actions before a Roman ecclesiastical tribunal. Quebec recognizes this distinction by having its own parallel law specifically for parishes.

There are also many private laws on the books regulating specific Church institutions, but this is beyond the scope of this article. With regard to parishes, the typical legal situation in Quebec works as follows:

1. The diocesan bishop decides to create a new parish. He issues an ecclesiastical decree to that effect, and the parish is constituted under canon law.
2. This new parish is a legal person under canon law, but still has no right to represent itself under civil law (as this is a separate jurisdiction). The bishop therefore registers the existence of this new ecclesiastical corporation with the Quebec government.
3. The Quebec government, rather than simply extending recognition of this ecclesiastical corporation, instead creates a separate civil corporation called a “fabrique”. The fabrique acts like a trustee on behalf of the parish, owning and managing all its assets for the sake of the purposes of the parish.

In short, under the Quebec system two separate but related corporations actually come into existence. The parish comes into existence by the bishops decree but does not have any civil recognition within the province of Quebec, and so cannot own property or defend its rights in civil court. The fabrique comes into existence once this episcopal decree is deposited with the government (specifically, the Enterprise Registrar) and so therefore does have these powers, but the law that governs it restricts the use of those powers to the promotion of the purpose of the underlying parish.

Parish and fabrique compared

	PARISH	FABRIQUE
Originating jurisdiction:	Roman Catholic Church	Province of Quebec
Name:	Parish of Saint Brendan	Fabrique of the parish of Saint Brendan
Purpose:	The purpose is religious: strictly speaking it is undefined in canon law, but generally it is to engage in divine worship and acts of charity in accordance with the gospel.	The purpose is strictly temporal: to acquire, possess, hold and administer property for the practice of the Roman Catholic religion in the parish for which it is constituted.
Membership:	Hundreds, possibly thousands of people: the Catholics that live within its territorial bounds (sometimes also limited by ethnic or ritual criteria), also known as parishioners.	Seven or eight people: the pastor, six churchwardens elected from among the parishioners, and possibly an additional person appointed by the bishop to act as chairman.
Leadership:	The pastor, aided by the pastoral council and finance council (constituted according to the directives of the bishop). The pastoral council is a consultative body only, and sometimes does not even exist: the pastor usually has final say in pastoral matters. The finance council must exist, and where it does not two or three other persons are designated to assist the pastor in governing the temporal matters of the parish. The pastor often also has final say, but must consult for certain matters according to the directives of the diocesan bishop. (Note that, in Quebec, given that parishes each have a corresponding fabrique, they do not usually have a finance council: these duties are delegated to the fabrique.)	The pastor is the automatic chairman if no external chairman has been appointed by the bishop. The chairman (pastor or not) has no special powers apart from the right to call and chair meetings of the fabrique. Only the fabrique as a whole may make decisions. A vice-chairman may also be appointed by the bishop, but only from among the current churchwardens; the vice-chair does not have the power to call meetings of the fabrique, but may preside over duly called meetings in the case the regular chairman is absent. A fabrique cannot hold a legal meeting without either the chairman or vice-chairman present.

Common issues

The parish-fabrique system as found in Quebec is meant to solve a particular problem, i.e. how a non-Quebec corporation (the parish) is legally allowed to own expensive properties, take out insurance, etc. The Quebec solution is to create a parallel civil corporation (the fabrique) to handle these temporal duties for the parish. In most cases, the system works well, but problems can arise due to the particular power relationships between the main stakeholders, i.e. the bishop, the pastor, and the churchwardens.

While the bishop has the legal right to prevent the fabrique from undertaking certain actions (e.g. going to court, undertaking major renovations, undertaking risky investments), he is also very limited in what he can compel the fabrique to do. This applies as well to the pastor: even if the churchwardens are people of goodwill, there can sometimes be considerable resistance to necessary (but costly) pastoral initiatives. The pastor, after all, only has one vote in seven (or eight).

And what if the churchwardens are not people of goodwill? Because the fabrique controls all the assets (including the money), if a clique of parishioners gets control of a fabrique they can make life a nightmare for the pastor (or even the diocesan bishop). Stories abound of churchwardens each having a key to the parish rectory, for example, coming and going as they please, or of churchwardens refusing to make necessary repairs to the residence of the priests.

As well, the churchwardens do not always understand that they have no power on an individual basis, but only as a group when voting on something (or when specifically delegated to carry out something that has been voted on). A certain arrogance sometimes sets in: a lay chairman, for example, may begin to think he is “President of the Parish” and the pastor is his employee (therefore turning the fabrique into a congregationalist parish, in fact if not in theory).

Pastors also do not always understand the possibility of these power dynamics. As already stated, things usually work out well, but in cases of tension or conflict a pastor who tries to “throw his weight around” can find himself in trouble quite quickly. Rather than being diplomatic he may act in an even-more authoritative manner, which is then felt as bullying (thereby increasing resistance even more). Sometimes the pastor instead begins to act secretively, hoping to by-pass the fabrique, but this then breeds more suspicion. Often the pastor, feeling terribly frustrated by the hampering of his pastoral drive by potential delays, appeals to the bishop for him to “do something”, not understanding that in many cases there is little that the bishop can do except hope that the obstructionist churchwardens do not get re-elected at the next annual meeting of the parishioners.

While it may seem that this system creates more headaches than necessary, this is only true if the natural tensions between these power centres grow into mistrust. And the fabrique system is not without its benefits: one key advantage of the Quebec model over that of the “corporation sole” (i.e. the one used in the rest of North America) is that the assets of the parishes are protected. In the recent sex-abuse cases that have rocked several North American dioceses, many innocent parishes have seen their assets threatened by lawsuits because all those assets are actually legally owned by the diocese. Some diocesan bishops in the USA have attempted to argue that, since the parishes are separate entities in canon law, their assets should not be seized should a lawsuit go badly against the diocese; these arguments have not worked up until now, simply because those ecclesiastical corporations do not have civil recognition (as explained above). There is greater central control in the “corporation sole” model, of course, but at the cost of greater joint liability. The same economic situation simply cannot happen in Quebec, however, because each parish has its own civil corporation for the ownership and management of those assets (i.e. the patrimony is kept separate). We have less centralised control, but the parishes are better protected from the poor decisions of their neighbours (or their bishop!)


Some practical advice: things a pastor needs to know about managing a fabrique

To help keep things running smoothly, a pastor should keep in mind the following:

1. A fabrique can only make legal decisions at a legal meeting of the churchwardens. For a fabrique meeting to be legally valid, the churchwardens need to be given proper advance notice (i.e. they get the notice on Monday for a meeting on Friday, with Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday being the three clear days typically required). This advance notice also needs to mention the business that will be discussed at the meeting – no new items may be added at the meeting itself except for information purposes only. While many fabriques set out a schedule of meetings for the entire year to allow the churchwardens the chance to reserve the dates in their agendas, a formal notice of meeting must still be sent for each individual fabrique meeting.
2. For a fabrique meeting to be legal it must be presided by the chairman or vice-chairman.
3. A fabrique may only make decisions according to the powers given to it by the Fabrique Act. Many of these decisions require the approval of the bishop before they can be implemented; others also require approval by a meeting of the parishioners.
4. If churchwardens put into practice any decisions that were made at a meeting that was not legally valid, or any decisions that required the approval of the bishop and/or parishioners but for which this approval was not obtained, those churchwardens (including the pastor) become personally liable for the financial consequences of that decision. For example, if a fabrique signs a renovations contract without prior diocesan approval, and problems arise, the churchwardens can be personally sued by the other company (instead of just the fabrique being sued).
5. The items discussed at a fabrique meeting should be limited to the acquisition and management of the property required for the activities of the parish. This is, after all, the legal purpose of the fabrique. The actual spiritual life and direction of the parish is for the parish itself, as a separate entity, to look after.

Pastoral leadership of a Roman Catholic parish in Quebec is a tricky thing. A pastor must be a leader, but must exercise this leadership with patience and diplomacy. The churchwardens have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the parish, and the pastor should recognize and respect this fact and help them as best he can in this duty. Transparency and tidy administration are critical to avoiding distrust, and pay off in the long run. In short, just as the parish and fabrique are partner corporations, the pastor and his churchwardens are also partners.

Celebrating mass on TV

I had an unique opportunity this morning: I celebrated mass at Saint Joseph's Oratory at 8:30 am -- a mass that was televised by Salt and Light TV.

While I've celebrated mass many times (obviously), I've never done so for TV before. You have to be very present to the celebration, particularly given that there are important time constraints involved (i.e. you need to keep to the time slot given to you). In our case we have 30 minutes, and I managed to keep it to 32 up to the final blessings. It is a good discipline, especially for the homily. Next time I'll keep it to the actual 30.

I'll be honest, I was dreading to do this at first. I'm not much of a performer. Still, it was good to this, and in my homily I even addressed the television audience directly, giving people some spiritual "homework". Heck, it was fun, and I'm looking forward to doing it again.

How to have a welcoming parish

I had an excellent discussion with a brother priest this morning (Sunday, July 16) over breakfast concerning what it means to have a welcoming parish. My experience of doing 5 years of in-depth parish pastoral visits revealed to me that most regular parishioners think their parish is a welcoming parish. My experience also revealed that many of those people, when asked why they think theirs is a welcoming parish, have no idea how to respond. It comes down to a feeling, more than facts. In fact, some gentle probing on my part has left me convinced that most people think their parish is welcoming *as a whole* mainly because they have friends whom they see there on a regular basis. I am certainly not against having friends at church, but to be honest I am not sure this is a sufficient criterion for arriving at this broad conclusion. Now I admit, my study was not scientific in the strict sense, but it was intentional, and included more broad-based observations covering many parishes.

So what did those years of visits teach me? Can "welcome" be measured as a feature of parish life? While I have not developed this (yet) into some sort of "welcome score", from what I can see there are five criteria to measure how welcoming a parish might be. In my experience, a welcoming parish is:

1. Safe
2. Clean
3. Open
4. Friendly
5. Helpful

These are layered criteria, i.e. even if a parish is very friendly, I would not call it welcoming if it isn't safe. Look at it this way: would you let your kids go to the neighbours if, despite those people being very friendly and helpful, their home was neither clean nor safe? If not, even if those people had the honest intention to have their home be a welcoming environment, it just isn't.

So what do these labels mean? I am still working on fleshing them out, but here are a few thoughts.

Safe

Is the physical environment of the parish safe? Is the structure safe, or is their a danger of falling bricks? Are the steps and railings secure? Could someone easily trip on something? Is there exposed asbestos? Is there mould? Are there potholes in the parking lot that people could step in and injure themselves? Are the walking areas salted in winter to avoid people slipping? Are emergency exits properly marked?

What about the human environment? Is the outside area properly lit at night so nothing unsavory can happen in dark and shadowy parts? Is the inside environment safe, e.g. no access to a machinery room for curious kids? Are there first aid kits, fire extinguishers, and even a small defibrillator available? Are staff, including volunteers, trained in a safe environment policy, including what to do in case of emergency? Is there a code of conduct, outlining clear boundaries, including how to deal with unacceptable interpersonal situations like harassment? Is there a clear abuse prevention policy? Is the environment free of common allergens, even including things like availability of low-gluten alternatives for communion, and the use of hypoallergenic incense (which does exist!)

There are ways to do an audit of envirnmental safety. The fire department here in Montreal will inspect buildings. There are people trained as specialists in workplace safety who can help, and might be able to advise for specific related to a parish environment. The parish insurance company can also advise in this regard, as they have a key interest in risk management.

Clean

To better understand this term, think of what we typically do when guests are coming over. We clean up, right? There is a usual amount of clutter that accumulates in our lives that we hardly notice, except when someone new is visiting. Suddenly, we notice, and we do something about it. Well, parishes are often like a second home for people. That's generally a good thing, but it can also mean we don't notice when things are less presentable, and we may not realise how off-putting those things can be for newcomers.

What is the opposite of clean, in this context? At its worst, it means filthy. I've seen some filthy parishes, or at least parishes with filthy areas. That's awful, especially for a house of God. While less extreme, the opposite of clean can mean untidy, messy, cluttered, unkempt, and so on. This starts with the outside environment. I'm not saying every parish needs to win an award for landscaping, but is the lawn at least mowed? If people walk their dogs around the parish, is the animal waste picked up? The inside environment is important too. Are the pews tidied up between masses, picking up the kid's crackers and cheerios, the books put back in place, Kleenex picked up, and so on? Are the bathrooms regularly checked for cleanliness (and stocked with soap, toilet paper, etc.)? Are the kitchens clean? Are the walls clear of cobwebs, the window sills clear of dust and grime, and so on?

In my experience, the best people to get advice from on environmental cleanliness are successful restaurant operators, especially family restaurants. No one wants to eat in a dirty restaurant. At the same time, those people have to deal with all kinds of members of the public, including kids (who are the messiest of us all, dontcha know). They've got lots of experience dealing with all kinds of messes. Another category of people I'd approach for advice are daycare operators. Again, what reasonable parent would leave their kids in a pigsty? So ask your parents what are the daycares with the best reputation for cleanliness, and get their advice.

As a final point, I think it is important to differentiate between cleanliness and opulence. Have you ever gone to someone's house where the environment was clearly designed to not just welcome, but impress? This can be very intimidating, especially for those from humble backgrounds. I think we can all agree we want our churches to be beautiful, but the standard in our tradition is "noble tradition", not opulence.

Open

The first element of openness is physical. Starting with the church building, is it usually locked except for services, or can people get in to pray? I know that this can involve security issues, but there are places that manage to overcome those problems. Even if the building is just kept open a bit before and after the usual mass times, it can mean a lot to people needing that sacred space.

Openness also applies to the parish office. What are the hours when it is open to the public? Are those hours convenient for the people, or are they designed more for the staff?

Openness can also mean availability of the facilities. Outside of its own pastoral needs, does the parish rent space for events, or allow community groups (like AA) to use it?

Another aspect of physical openness is accessibility. Can a person with reduced mobility get in? Are there facilities (e.g. bathroom, lift) that they can use?

Openness is also for families, not just individuals. Are their facilities that make the parish family friendly? Is there a crying room, or daycare facilities (such as during mass)? Is there a diaper changing table in the bathroom?

While these elements are about facilities, we need to remember that none of these points actually help people feel comfortable about entering them. Parishes in very public places can also put out a sign letting people know that they can go in, or even just having the doors wide open as an invitation. A good parish website can also help, as people will often go there to get details like mass times. A virtual tour of the parish (which can also be put in pamphlet form for those who actually come to visit) can help people feel like the physical environment is already familiar.

Of course, a parish is about a lot more than facilities. How open are we as a community? A lot of people in challenging situations regularly face the fear of rejection, but Christ has broken down the barriers that isolate us. How welcoming are we to the intellectually handicapped, to the mentally ill, to visible minorities, to people of various cultures, to immigrants, to the divorced, to single parents, and so on? Coming back to Jesus, let's also not forget that he came to seek and save the lost. The greatest marginalization is sin, and Jesus loves sinners. How is confession being made available and promoted as the sacrament of healing that it is?

Friendly

As I mentioned in my introduction, when most people think their parish is welcoming what they really mean is they believe it is friendly -- the only difficulty being that they often only see the reactions of their friends. A truly welcoming parish has to widen the circle.

The key to understanding friendliness is that it is all about human contact. In includes actual walk-ins to the parish office, but extends beyond that to (believe it or not) things like the parish answering machine. How easy is it to get to a human being via the phone menu so many places have? If a message is left, how quickly does someone get a response? We should not underestimate how desperate a family can be in the case of the death of a loved one, for example. Similar questions can be asked regarding contact via Internet, such as via email or a form on the parish website. Of course, the person who does respond to an inquiry has a core responsibility to be a friendly face and voice. Sadly, stories of grumpy parish staff are legion.

Of course, the most important moment of that human contact is on the weekend. That contact starts as people try and get a space in the parking lot: if space is at a premium, is there an attendant to help keep things in order? When people walk through the parish doors, is there someone to greet them? With regards to that greeting, how well trained are people to answer questions and make those arriving feel like part of the family?

Of course, all parish staff, including volunteers, share in this responsibility. While not all need to have answers, all should be approachable and be trained to handle questions. Staff should be easily identified as such, such as via name tags, t-shirts, etc.

In the end, all parishioners share in creating a friendly atmosphere. Apart from exhorting people to smile more, parish leaders can help facilitate this environment. Parish directories and photo albums help people connect names to faces. Social events, if they include personal touches like icebreakers or birthday and marriage anniversary announcements, help build a sense of community. Even an event as simple as a parish bazaar can help make those connections.

It isn't easy to measure just how friendly a parish might be, but in the end we know it when the opposite is the case. Mean, cold, rude, judgmental, cliquey... these are not the attributes of the kind of human contact a parish should offer. Happily, there are resources to help. As banal as it sounds, stores like Walmart have special training for staff to make sure the client experience avoids these negative elements. Beyond the secular world, many Evangelical churches are known for their talent in this area. Here in Montreal we invited a panel of evangelical pastors to speak at a conference on parish vitality, just because we wanted to learn from the best.

Helpful

The ultimate level of welcome is the point of transition to pastoral care. Parishes that are safe and clean at least don't drive people away. A parish that is open at least makes it easier for people to come in. Once a parish is truly friendly, then trust starts to really grow. We should not be surprised, then, if the context of that trust means that people reveal their needs and seek help.  It can be as simple as someone needing jumper cables to get their car started. Certainly it can include offering a listening ear, and offering referrals to services in the community, as required. Beyond this, any vulnerability can be the inspiration of the servant discipleship that is meant to characterize all parishes. Obviously that is a much larger topic, but I think it shows how our mission to "seek and save the lost" gets a lot easier if they are comfortable coming to seek us!

What do we say after hello?

There is a lot of focus in the pastoral literature nowadays on the importance of offering a warm welcome in our parishes. Of course, we need more than that. The bread and butter of parish life is worship and catechism. Still, those things can be offered only for those who are already part of the parish in-group. If we want parishes that are really going to be engines of evangelization, reaching out to the spiritual peripheries, then providing a top-class welcome is mission critical. Even better, it can remove the barriers to parishioners getting involved. After all, not everyone can pass on doctrine, but everyone can invite a friend to join a welcoming worshipping community. All we can do to make that easier for people allows the whole parish to more and more become an embassy for the Kingdom of God.

Preaching on providence

I had the joy of celebrating the opening mass for the general chapter of the Sisters of Providence. What an honour to have been invited! I was just so amazed and delighted to be among these impressive women who have offered so much to God and their neighbour.

My homily was, as you can imagine, on the theme of providence. This is actually a fairly major theme for me in my own spiritual life. As a kid I used to ask myself, "Why am I who I am?" In other words, how was it that I was born into the family I was, in the country and society I was? Why was I born a boy and not a girl, why was my skin/hair/eye colour what it was, why did I have the ancestry I did, etc.?

Of course, it would be easy to say that these sorts of attributes can't be answered with a "why". They simply are what they are. But deep down, I always felt that these things were not just random accidents, or simply the result of some past historical process. And if they weren't, then although I couldn't name it at the time, I was already open in my heart to the idea providence.

I even find the word "providence" fascinating. The root is "pro-videre", i.e. to "see forward". It can mean things like to foresee, to plan for the future, and so on, but basically it means being intentional about knowing the future, and it implies adjusting to meet that future. A good example is a person driving a car: the driver has to "foresee" what is coming, both what he can see, and what he can't but which, through experience, might show up. And of course, the driver needs to steer, brake, accelerate etc. as a function of all that.

Of course, the most important element of driving is knowing where you are going. A driver doesn't just drive, he navigates. "Providence" therefore is not just about reacting well to your environment, it is about having a plan so you can get to your destination.

This is why I think this concept is so important with regards to God. People often experience disappointment with regards to God's providence, thinking that God has not "provided" for them adequately. I can understand this in many cases, especially for people who have been true victims of abuse or neglect and are in the process of reclaiming their strength. But not everyone is in that situation: when a sense of entitlement or a consumerist mentality infects our soul, we lose not just our trust in God's providence, we also lose sight of God's plan.

These are real spiritual diseases. A consumer mentality, when it affects/infests our spiritual life, gradually causes us to objectify others as "suppliers" for our needs and desires. We can even treat God that way. And when we lose sight of God's plan, or worse, the very idea that there even is a plan in the first place, then we implicitly place ourselves as the primary author of that plan for us. It places us at the centre. This is a powerful illusion in this powerful civilization we live in. But when the unexpected does happen, it shocks us in ways we just can't handle.

I believe there are things we can do to keep a sense of God's providence in our life. First of all, we need to see all things as gift. Yes, we may "own" things, but we need to see them as blessings, and not as possessions. And this applies not just to our stuff, but to our relationships. Our job, our school, our family -- all is gift. Of course, when these things are sources of suffering, seeing them as gift is not as easy, but leaving that aside for a future blog post we can at least start with the mundane-to-positive things in our life.

We also need to develop a sense of God's plan. Simply put, human history is bigger than our history. God has been at work for literally billions of years before each of us got here, and history will roll on after we will have died. What is our sense of where we come from, and where we are going? Having a clear sense of these issues helps us to handle whatever might come.

The second point ties to the first. Gifts must be honoured, not exploited. And when we see all things as gift, we enter the plan of love of the giver, who sought to bless us with the gift. In other words, the first attitude prepares and reinforces the second.

It's curious, but I've noticed a lot people reacting very negatively to the idea of providence. It's like they think providence is some naive, fairy tale notion, and that it is important to live in the real world instead. Is it a defence mechanism? Some fear of being disappointed, maybe even by God? It might even be anger, or guilt at feeling angry. It can be really complicated -- but even those feelings can be part of divine providence. After all, if they help a person face something they are running from, or identify a deep-seated need for peace, then God's providence is at work.

The Gospel and animals

So I was walking down the street today (June 27) to get to a lunch appointment when a guy came up to me while I was waiting at a red light. He handed me the above two cards, and then began to berate the Catholic Church for (in his view) not doing enough to protect the animals, despite Jesus having eliminated animal sacrifice.

Such is life when you walk around downtown Montreal in a Roman collar -- similar to a box of chocolates, you just never know what you're gonna get.

Coming back to my mystery interlocutor, after offering me his cards (as well as a piece of his mind) he took off in another direction. The whole exchange was less than 10 seconds, and as the light changed green I thought to myself, "Now I know what to blog about for today!"

So for what its worth, here is a brief summary of what the Catholic Church teaches about animals, vegan diets, etc.:

The message on the cards includes an exhortation to love animals, because (as the card says) God does. I have no problem agreeing with the general thrust of this message, and in fact it is part of official Catholic teaching. However, it must be lived in a balanced way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which acts as a summary of Catholic doctrine, has this to say on the subject:

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

I recognize that there are some who will object to some of these points because they affirm a special place for human beings within the animal kingdom (and indeed, within creation). However, that special status within the overall ecology of our world is definitely part of the Biblical perspective too (a subject for another blog post sometime).

Within the religious practice of the Catholic Church, there is nothing that mandates harm to animals. For example, as the guy who handed me those cards pointed out, the tradition of animal sacrifices found throughout Hebrew history was not carried over to Christianity. On the flip side, our official book of blessings does have prayers for the blessing of animals. I even got asked to bless a dog in a veterinary hospital once (a neat story for another day).

With regards to special diets, we know that many religions require their followers to follow such diets: kosher for Jews, halal for Muslims, various diets within Hinduism, etc. But for Catholics, there is no moral imperative in natural or divine law to eat certain foods or to avoid certain foods. The Torah does state that certain foods should not be eaten as they are ritually unclean, but the common Christian tradition says that Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). The vision of Saint Peter as described in Acts 10:15-16 uses the fact of all foods being clean as analogy to enourage the inclusion of new peoples and cultures in the Church.

While there is no moral imperative in natural or divine law to follow a specific diet, the Church does teach certain diets as part of the spiritual practice of penance. We are asked to avoid eating meat on certain days (Ash Wednesday and the Friday's of Lent, in particular), and to avoid eating more than one full meal on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Of course, this is just a minimum -- we can choose a more restricted diet if we wish. For the last couple of years, for example, I've followed a vegan diet during Lent, and I've gotten a lot out of the practice (a story for another time).

On the flip side, the Bible warns us that the following of a certain diet can also lead to a kind of pridefulness. The film Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has a hilarious take on the subject (sorry for the mild swear at the beginning as the title character defends the honour of Toronto):

I must confess, I did not get any vegan powers myself when I followed that diet during Lent, but that's probably because I took Sundays off :-) And before I hear protests, no that was not cheating. To avoid falling into the pridefulness a religious diet can encourage, the Church actually suggests certain days where we are called to feast, not fast! We even call them "feast days", as opposed to the aforementioned "fast days", and Sunday is the essential feast day, even during Lent.

Coming back to the fellow who printed these cards, he is correct that the original plan of God described in the story of creation in the book of Genesis was, in fact, vegan. More than that, it was fruitarian, an even more strict form of veganism. However, we must remember that the story is highly symbolic in nature, and cannot be taken to be a simple outline of a plan of daily living. After all, Adam and Eve walked around naked too, and yet I don't think God is asking all of us to practice continuous nudism as a form of discipleship -- apart from the purely moral and aesthetic arguments against such a practice, it could get a bit chilly during a Canadian winter! Brrr!

That's enough for now. I've already got enough material for three more blog posts on these and related subjects -- so stay tuned!

News articles on diocesan policy on prevention of abuse

The Journal de Montreal had an article series today on our diocesan policy for the prevention of abuse. They were doing a follow up from an article that came out around this time last year. I'm glad this got front page treatment, as I feel it is important that we emphasize the importance of this issue for our diocesan church. (I'm not a big fan of the headline, as it places far too much emphasis on one element of prevention, but the articles themselves are pretty good.)

• Article: Prise d’empreintes digitales obligatoire pour tous les prêtres

Other articles quickly followed. I was interviewed by the CBC for one of them, and while the headline had the same emphasis, I found the article to be fair.

• Article: Montreal Catholic Church will fingerprint all priests working with children

A further Google search will reveal even more articles. I have not had a chance to read them all, but I've been pleased so far. This issue is too important, and I'm hoping these articles will help us not only advance our pilot project further, but help all community groups, Catholic or not, do what's right.

Congratulations to Edwin and Nora!

Congratulations to Edwin (baby on the left) and Nora (baby on the right), two cousins I had the honour of baptising today. I have known (some of) the families for many years now, and I've had the pleasure to get to meet even more. God bless to all, and welcome to God's family!

Corpus Christi procession 2017

Great video of the procession we had on the feast of Corpus Christ. Thousands of people wound through the streets of downtown Montreal, starting from Mary Queen of the World Cathedral and ending at Saint Patrick's basilica. God was good to us with the weather, too: the temperature was perfect, mild with a light breeze, and the rain held off until exactly the moment we made it back to our starting point. I'm already looking forward to next year.

Prayers on a plane

When you are a priest, you never know when you'll be called upon. There are things you can plan, such as a meeting I had in Toronto on June 13-14. But then there are things that are just surprises from God. On my way back from Toronto I wound up sitting next to a lovely couple from Arizona who were on their way to Wabush in Labrador (quite a trip!). After some typical chit chat they asked me to pray with them for a member of their family who is sick. So the three of us, sharing row 16, leaned in and prayed. It was a lovely (and surprising) moment of ministry. God bless to them in their journeys.