<%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="65001"%> Parish Constitution ARCC
ARCC Banner
Home Join ARCC Donate Facebook Table of Contents
DHTML JavaScript Menu By Milonic.com

Who we are

What we do

Contact us




Followed by Dialogue and Action-Decisions

(November 2005)


Sponsored by


In the beginning of the fourth century, the Catholic Church underwent a momentous shift from an “illegitimate” oppressed group of scattered communities to a protected “legitimate” religion, and before the end of that century it had become the all-powerful only legitimate State Religion of the Roman Empire! It became an arm of the Empire. In 303 A.D. when Emperor Diocletian retired to his palace in Split, present-day Croatia, he had just concluded the most devastating of all the Roman persecutions of Christianity. No one had an inkling that within ten years the Copernican turn would have begun.

In the beginning of the twenty-first century the Catholic Church is also teetering on the edge of a similarly momentous shift. All the world today is either solidly on the path of democracy, or is struggling to get on that path. This is also true of the Catholic Church. The current clergy sex scandals are in reality church governance scandals, and they have only begun! Much more is in the offing, with church closings, diocesan bankruptcies, and corresponding lay resistance, and growing revolt. And not just in America, but around the world!

All responsible Catholics need to come together to dialogue and decide how best to proceed so as to maximize creative developments and minimize destructive moves–right now! and in the near and middle future.

This panel of three Catholic scholars has together spent more than a total of a century studying, reflecting on, praying about, and acting on the central issues of the structures, patterns, and theology of the governance of the Catholic Church. They are all members of the Board of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, which has been working on these issues for 25 years. They will share their visions of what next steps need to be taken at this momentous point in world and Christian history–and then invite your dialogue and decisions on what concrete actions to take.

Leonard Swidler



President Herbert Hoover, late in his term, as America plunged ever deeper into the Great Depression, told the story of the small boy who asked his mother is she recalled the lovely vase that she said had been handed down in their family from generation to generation. Yes, she said, a worried look on her face. Well, her son said, this generation dropped it!

I fear that we are in a similar situation to President Hoover. Heirs as American Catholics to the remarkable array of institutions and the tremendous reservoir of wisdom and religious and moral authority constructed by our far from wealthy or powerful forebears, we are in very great danger of standing by while the vase drops. We gather to ask whether we can have a more democratic church, one in which basic rights are respected, decisions, doctrinal and moral as well as practical, arise from competent pastoral care and widespread consultation, and in which all of us can actually share responsibility for the life and work of our church? On that question depends the very future of Catholicism in the United States.

This is not the first time around. My friends and I cared deeply about renewal and reform in our Catholic church. We prayed and studied and joined organizations and wrote letters. We took heart from Vatican II, from the 1976 Call to Action Conference, from the pastoral letters on racism, war and economic justice in the 1980s, from the awakening of Latinos and the commitment of new immigrants and the amazing generosity of Catholic women. The Holy Spirit has been alive and renewal has happened, is happening, in our American church.

But reform was another matter. A Vatican II report card might mark renewal with B+, but reform, in our very best dioceses, would only get C+, in too many places a well deserved F. At the end of the 1976 Call to Action Conference, the American Catholic church’s first and only national convention, John Cardinal Dearden said that we had begun “a new way of doing the work of the church in the United States.” If we had carried out Dearden’s vision, if we had built shared responsibility in parish and diocesan pastoral councils, if we had formed self-confident associations of diocesan priests, religious and lay people, if Catholic academic, medical, social service and ministerial professionals had acted responsibly, the scandals of clerical sexual abuse would have ended between 1984 and 1993. Files would have been opened, new systems of accountability established, pastoral priorities reordered, and priesthood reformed. Criminals would have gone to jail and incompetent administrators would have been turned out of office.

That did not happen. The moderate, realistic, non-ideological reforms of Dearden’s new way, reforms giving shape to those near cliches, “the people of God,” “we are the church,” those reforms actually for awhile were in place in a great variety of parishes, dioceses and institutions. After all, while Catholic church reform has its deep and mysterious dimensions, the basics are not rocket science: we know how to insure transparency, accountability and shared responsibility in ways which support the mission of the church, strengthen, not weaken, the authority of pastors, and insure the integrity of the community of faith. We know how to do it, but it didn’t happen. What was lacking among us was not knowledge or imagination but will and skill, commitment, organization, strategy and tactics, and finally power. Our failure was not theological or spiritual but political.

So: what we must talk about if we are still serious about changing the church, is ecclesiastical politics. People have many different ideas about changing the church. Politics is the process of sorting out those ideas and making choices among them. We have been through a period when serious political conflicts took place within the Church. Some called them Catholic culture wars. In some ways those wars are over and the conservatives have won. Pope Benedict XVI will probably look for a new generation of leaders for the US church who will be as loyal to Rome as the last group but with some minimum level of competence. Even that degree of improvement will not be easy.

The Holy Spirit is at work in the church, but the Spirit works though people. Some people have worked very hard to slow the process of renewal, strengthen the church's central offices, reverse its ecumenical and interfaith initiatives and moderate its ministries of service to development and peace. The struggle for the future is not over. In the universal church of the future there will be winners and losers, as there were at Vatican I and Vatican II and Medellin. As we have learned in our own American Catholic politics in recent years, some people are organized and they often gain ground, others, not as well organized, are predictably disappointed.

A footnote here would be that we probably often trusted the powerful men’s religious orders to take care of our political concerns in Rome and across the world. Their political strength has now waned and American Catholics interested in church reform find themselves standing, side by side with women religious, on the outside of the Vatican walls. Gazing down at them are the grinning faces of restorationists with little support back home but seemingly welcome in all those Vatican offices that don’t answer reformers phone calls.

Similarly, as the last election cycle showed, we are not doing well in domestic religious politics. What happens to our country will have as much to do with the future of our American church as what happens in Rome. Our American people’s radical freedom, their restless quest for community, their ever accelerating religious and spiritual diversity, their retreat from civic responsibility, their temptations to narcissism and the abuse of power, their heroic and paradoxical dedication to their country and its highest ideals, all these qualities touch us because we share them. We are American insiders, not outsiders, all of us. When we say American society and culture will help shape our Catholic future we do not mean that we are passive playthings of cultural forces beyond our control. No, rich or poor, immigrants or natives, sub-cultural ethnics or confused hybrids, we are active participants in shaping a common life that is no less real because we so often deny responsibility for it. What we Catholics do to our America, not just what our America does to us, will make a great difference in the future of our church.

If I had time today I would underscore the point: our decisions about our Americanness will help determine our church’s future. The shape and form, the piety and practice, of our community of faith will turn in part, in large part, on how we make up our minds about this land, our land, and this people, our people. If we continue to echo the counter cultural language of the Catholic right, of Cardinal Francis George for example, we will, I fear, continue to lose out in the politics of church and country.

But the big factor that will shape our future will be our own decisions about our church. Like our immigrant grandparents we have to ask how will we provide pastoral care for this ever changing church? New immigrant arrive, Latinos struggle for self-determination through the encuentro process, religious orders spend their limited resources caring for their aging members, and middle class Catholics become more evangelical, more congregational, more detached from the organizational life of the institutional church. Reform bishops are replaced by cautious, Roman oriented men. The bright, visionary young men appointed auxiliaries and bishops of small dioceses when Belgian Jean Jadot served as the Vatican’s American representative have grown old in those jobs. New tests were imposed for promotion to senior positions, ideological, not pastoral tests. Ask why all this happens and you will discover more politics.

After Dearden’s Call to Action Joseph Bernardin, by no means a dedicated reformer, struggled to maintain Vatican II momentum but priests organizations all but disappeared, religious orders lost their clout, and the burgeoning cadres of deacons, pastoral assistants and DREs never got organized. With their help pastoral, educational and social ministries continued, but the common life of the American church shriveled. Rather than contest the ground, pastoral leaders adopted the congregational option: we have a good parish and don’t need to go to meetings. In the period since January 2002, when scandal exploded in Boston, most Catholics, including those who work for the church, have wrung their hands and done nothing much. Few joined Voice of the Faithful or sent them a check, fewer organized in support of the work of the National Review Board. Instead everyone awaited Vatican direction, and even reform voice settled for the politics of monarchy, exemplified by a Commonweal cover of a large ear and the banner: “Are the Bishops Listening?”

In the political vacuums that resulted from continuing disappointments, opposition to Roman interventions weakened, and Catholics became divided and polarized. The Dearden-Bernardin were scuttled or sabotaged: this November as it elects a new General Secretary Dearden’s national episcopal conference is on the brink of its final retreat to an informal gathering of bishops whose major task is to implement Roman directives. The Bishops’ periodic political responsibility statements, like 2004’s “Faithful Citizenship” are pushed aside by the new seamless garment of pro-life issues (now oddly including gay marriage) and Bernardin’s wider consistent ethic which had room for war and poverty is shunted aside. When Bernardin suggested a Common Ground Initiative so factions might talk to each other, Cardinals Law, O’Connor and Hickey responded that the only thing needed for unity was the catechism, with occasional guidance from the Holy See. In that climate divisions deepened, pressing pastoral problems were ignored, and, while none of us were looking, our church experienced some yet undetermined degree of corruption. If that word seems too strong just read the recent Grand Jury reports from Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

Nothing better expressed the change that had taken place in American church politics than labeling the Common Ground Initiative as a liberal project. Allies of Bernardin, the quintessential moderate (called by friends “old down the middle Joe”) found themselves regarded as liberals in Rome and even in some sectors of the Bishops’ Conference. As one insider put it, the far right had become the right, the right was now the center, the center was now the left, and the left was off the charts. It sounded funny at the time but no longer. What is means is that at almost every level pastoral experience is ignored and the pastoral voice is simply not heard. That point, I expect, will be at the heart of our own assessment and recommitment. Of course its not all politics, but changing the church is a political challenge.

Learning from the recent past, I would urge you, as you think about CTA’s–and all the Catholic reform organizations’–future strategies, to think about some of these ideas:

1. Help our people to ask in the church the political questions they would ask in any other pubic forum. Who is in charge and how did they get there? What is the relationship between power and authority? Are we depending on the good will of an individual bishop or pastor or are we building systems that express shares values and common objectives? There are many more such questions. One occasion would be the visitation to the local seminary.

2. Encourage people to say yes to all invitation to genuine shared responsibility and reach out to those who do so. Get to know the people serving on the USCCB’s National Advisory Council, for example. Track down your local anti sex abuse board and ask what they are up to lately, especially what has happened to the reform suggestions issues by the National Review Board in February 2004. Catholics do need to work together and there is no special virtue in opposition. When our parish or diocese tries to find structures of decision-making that mirror the Body of Christ, when there is a chance to make parish and diocesan pastoral councils more effective, when boards of Catholic agencies doing good work need help, we of course should say yes.

3. But say yes as well to independent associations like the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, Call to Action, Future Church, Voice of the Faithful. Structures of shared responsibility will work better if there are independent associations asking hard questions; priest forum as well as presbyteral councils. We know all too well that there are such things as premature, incomplete and phony collaborations. Parish and diocesan pastoral councils, especially in the northeast, too often were premature or incomplete experiments in shared responsibility. They will improve when priests, pastoral staffs (the non-clerical staffs of deacons, women religious and trained lay professionals have no voice at all), and lay people are better organized and understand their distinct vocations. And we need to dream up new forms of organization among ourselves, ways of drawing people into public action on behalf of our church.

4. Talk to organizers. If we seek lay participation and shared responsibility, we have available in the interfaith parishes, linked to a long experience of organizing and to organizations across the country, a body of expertise in building lay leadership and genuine partnerships among priests, religious and lay people. Let them help.

5. To steal a phrase from Catholic social teaching, make a preferential, but not exclusive, option for the laity. Think lay. Ask what each decision, proposal, interpretation means from the point of view of ordinary lay men and women. Pastoral care in our kind of society requires dialogue, communication, relationships of mutual trust and understanding. It will come when we learn to read our daily experience in light of our faith, and our faith in light of our daily experience. It won’t come by simply yelling in the bishop’s ear. So think lay.

Finally, it’s all about people. This church is a voluntary organization, as our children keep proving to us. It works through persuasion, not coercion, whatever our friends abroad might think. Persuasion has its own discipline, not least a liking for people. No one persuades people one does not respect or like. Many of our problems in the past have come about because we did not trust each other. Restoring or preserving trust begins with simple encounters, like the one on ones that begin the interfaith organizing process. Much of church politics is about networking and modest but strategic organizing. And in the future as in the past movements can help, so keep your eyes on ARCC, CTA, Future Church, VOTF.... and pray for new apostles to minister to the still vibrant idealism of the young. Cardinal Dearden said that in a free society like ours the church is “a community of faith and friendship.” Changing the church probably begins there, getting to know each other well enough to work together to make our church, to make us, the presence of Christ.

Vatican II From Below:
A Ten-Step Program to a Democratic Parish


In the wake of the clergy sex scandal and the hundreds of millions of dollars already paid out (and no end in sight!), and three dioceses in bankruptcy, many Catholics are asking themselves: Whatever happened to the Vatican II promise of a collegial Church (in plain English: democratic Church)? Many national Pastoral Councils of the 1970s (e.g., Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands….) moved in that direction–including our own astonishing American “Call To Action” in 1976, participated in by hundreds of thousands of American Catholics–only to be laid waste during the Romanizing pontificate of John Paul II. The response bubbling up is: Leadership from above cannot be looked for; Vatican II reform and renewal must come from below, from the laity, religious, and priests. Here is a Ten-Step Program from below.

Step 1. Prepare the Minds of the Laity To Take Responsibility
We must first recognize that this is a very uneven struggle against a structure that places almost all the power in one set of hands, the bishop’s. Hence, to begin this democratic church movement from below we need to have a pastor and some parish laity of a Vatican II mentality. Then “Father Goodpastor” and the lay leaders need to devise a program to raise the consciousness of the parish to realize that all the members must share the responsibility of making their parish a mature Catholic community. This might take anywhere from six days to six years, and could include many sermons, lecture series, gradual development of parish structures, and many other creative methods. The goal is to get, if not all, at least the great majority of the parish to follow the lead of the pope and all the bishops of the world in Vatican II (1962-65):

All [not just the bishops or priests, but “all,” that is, the laity] are led to... wherever necessary, undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform.... Catholics’...primary duty [emphasis added] is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be renewed and done in the Catholic household itself.... Christ summons the Church, as it goes its pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which it always has need. (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism)

Step 2. Discuss and Deliberate among All the Parish the Making of the Constitution
Although there obviously must be a smaller cadre of parishioners (meaning pastor and laity) who take the lead in organizing this movement, the whole of the parish must be seriously engaged in coming together to discuss, deliberate, and ultimately decide what exactly a parish Constitution is and what their own Constitution should contain. (Guidance on how to go about this task can be found at http://www.arcc catholic rights.net/resources.htm.) This must be the decision of funda- mentally the whole parish community, for all will have to live by that decision. The effectiveness, and the length of time needed, clearly will be heavily influenced by the quality of Step 1.

Step 3. The Name “Constitution”

Some may shy away from the term “Constitution,” thinking perhaps that it is too “profane,” too “secular.” It need only be remembered that the highest authority in the structure of the Catholic Church–the Pope and all the bishops gathered together in an Ecumenical Council–has used precisely that term for its most important documents, e.g., Vatican Council II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” and that Pope Paul VI called for and set up a Commission to develop a Constitution for the Church (Lex Fundamentalis Ecclesiae). Moreover, this Constitution is the document that will constitute, that is, will give form to, the parish community for as long as it exists. By-laws (or the like) is much too transitory a term to name this literally “fundamental” reality which will shape the parish=s existence and actions.

Step 4. What Should and Should Not Be in a Constitution
It is important to bear in mind that a Constitution is to outline the vital, the formative, elements of the governance of a community, in this case, the Parish. It needs to avoid details beyond the essential, and concentrate on the critical structures of governance. Only a brief pro- logue should refer to the underlying spirit of the Constitution, being careful not to be too specific theologically, for every theology, no matter how brilliant, sensitive, and Gospel-centered, is only one way to articulate what it means to be a follower of Jesus, and therefore necessarily does not include other articulations. It must include a clear statement of the rights and responsibilities of all parties of the Parish, including such principles as transparency, accountability, representativeness, due process of law, decision-making procedures, terms of office, separation and balance of powers.
Above all, it is absolutely essential that the Constitution be written. There is nothing like having to choose the words to write down–especially words that you are going to have to live by– to help clarify thinking. Further, when future disagreements arise, as they inevitably will, it is vital to have written documents to refer to. This will especially be the case when a new pastor arrives. A written Constitution is absolutely vital! I cannot emphasize this enough. Many Catholics have had wonderful parishes in the past so long as “Father Goodpastor” was the pastor, only to see it dismantled when he was replaced by “Monsignor O’Hooligan.” A written Constitution may not be a sufficient cause of a continued Vatican II democratic parish, but it is a necessary cause of one (more about that below).

Step 5. Liturgical Installation
Once the long process of consciousness-shaping, dialogue, deliberation, and decision has been lived through and a Constitution is arrived at, a further step is very important. One of the strengths of Catholicism is the tradition of giving every thing important–and even things not so especially important–a liturgy. A Constitution that a parish is going to live by is in fact a very important sacred reality. It is a sacramental, and hence deserves a solemn liturgical ceremony.
The Constitution ought to be printed and framed in a fittingly solemn manner. A liturgy with an appropriate set of prayers, music, and gestures needs to be designed by the parish liturgy committee for the formal installation of the Constitution. It is important that the Pastor, the Parish Council, and other officers of the Parish, as well as as much of the entire Parish as possible be present at the Installation Liturgy. For the initial installation of the Constitution, it would be well to invite the bishop to be present as an observer (his presence will help to forestall his later sending an autocratic priest as Pastor). The Pastor, Parish Council, and other officers, as well as the rest of the Parish members present, ought to make a solemn public pledge to follow the Constitution.

An appropriate day should be chosen for the annual liturgical re-commitment of all to follow the Constitution–perhaps the feast day of the parish’s name. Such a solemn liturgical installation, and its annual re-confirmation, will keep it present in all the parishioners’ consciousness, and go a long way toward ensuring the Constitution’s continuing viability.

Step 6. Live by Constitution
It goes without saying that the Parish must then live by its Constitution. Much will be learned in the very living with the Constitution, including the possibility that appropriate amendments will be found to be important, perhaps even essential. The discipline of so living will also gradually re-shape and mature the thinking and action of all involved, clergy and laity, including the future generations. Regarding the future, if a parish has lived and grown with a Constitution for five or ten years or more, it will very difficult for a future “Monsignor O’Hooligan” to come in (or even to want to!) and dismantle it (again, more about that below).

Step 7. Set Up Non-Profit Ownership
The Spokane diocese bankruptcy decision has declared the parishes to be the property of the bishop, and therefore subject to the millions of dollars of claims levied against the bishop. The Tucson diocese bankruptcy decision has ruled that the parishes may be set up as separate corpora- tions, and therefore not subject to the claims granted against the bishop, but the structure of the parish corporations has not yet been judicially ruled on. The Oregon diocese bankruptcy case has not yet been ruled on. It is certain that these cases will be the subject of further litigation for at least one of them already is in the process of appeal. The ownership structure of the American Catholic Church may well be dramatically different in the future as a result of these judicial proceedings.
Without waiting, however, and regardless what the outcome of this litigation will be, it is vital that American Catholics learn both from our past history of parish ownership (the Trustee System; see Patrick Carey, People, Priests, and Prelates. Ecclesiastical Democracy and the Tensions of Trusteeism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987) and from the world-wide explosion of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Clearly, the ownership of the properties and other assets are the source of power. The adage “follow the money” applies to the Catholic Church as much as other institutions. The ideal parish ownership situation would be as it was at the beginning of this country=s history, ownership by the parish as a corporation (as advocated by the Vatican–see http://www.arcc catholic rights.net/1911_vatican_directive.htm– and allowed by the Tucson Federal Bankruptcy Court).
That may at present be very difficult to bring about, but it would not be difficult for a parish to set up a Non-Profit Organization–a 501(c)(3)–especially for any new donations/expenditures. The Non-Profit Parish Organization could be set up to sponsor social-justice work, youth work, construct buildings, schools, buy a parish hall, send out relief workers, missionaries, students.... All the assets of whatever form purchased through this Non-Profit Organization would belong to the Parish and be disposed according to the founding document, based on the Parish Constitution. If parishioners have a secure say in the disposal of their goods, they, of course, will be much more inclined to donate to this 501(c)(3). More importantly, as the financial value of this Non-Profit Parish Organization grows, it will automatically support the responsible functioning of the Constitution.

Step 8. Constitutional Parish Networking
A Constitutional Parish will necessarily be a flourishing parish for it will automatically draw on all the talents of all members–just how flourishing will depend on a combination of the talents of the parishioners (including preeminently those of the pastor and lay leaders), the care with which the Constitution has been planned for and structured, and the wisdom with which the Parish has grown in living it. Consequently the Constitutional Parish will become a magnet for other parishes. (One must also, sadly, reckon with the possibility of a negative envy being generat- ed in some clergy.) However, the Constitutional Parish must, for its own survival, also become an “evangelizing” Constitutional Parish in the literal sense, that is, it needs to spread the “good news” of creating and living by a Parish Constitution so that other parishes will go down the same path.
If there develop two, three, four, or more Constitutional Parishes in a diocese, it is critical that they learn from, and support, each other. They will need to form a network of Constitutional Parishes–including the “evangelizing” work of increasing their number. As their numbers grow, the likelihood of any of them receiving a “Monsignor O’Hooligan” as pastor will proportionately shrink. The Network should be prepared to go to the Bishop and the Diocesan Personnel Committee and lobby for a “Father Goodpastor” successor in their fellow Constitutional Parish.

Step 9. Negotiate with Bishop/Personnel Committee Ahead of Time
However, without waiting for a Network of Constitutional Parishes to develop, the Parish Council (which includes the pastor) should in good time arrange to meet with the Bishop and Diocesan Personnel Committee to negotiate with them ahead of time a serious role for themselves in the choice of the successor of their pastor. They must insist on the retention of their governing Constitution. Clearly they will want to do all this only after they have lived by their Constitution for some time and built a solid reputation in the diocese. The substantial character of the Non-Profit Parish Organization will obviously also have a significant influence here–money talks!

Step 10. Publicize
We know from civil society that freedom of the press is critical to make democracy work. We Catholics also learned that lesson at Vatican Council II when freedom of the press was one of the main engines pulling the Church out of its Medieval and Counter-Reformation mentality into Modernity. Without it, Vatican II would have been as much of a disaster as Lateran Council V (1512-1517), which issued in the Protestant Reformation. As I suggested above with the term “evangelizing”–spreading the good news of a Constitutional Parish–simply as an insurance policy, the Constitutional Parish needs to publicize itself as broadly and creatively as possible (including on the website of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church http://arcc-catholic-rights.net).

As in society in general, a governance structure will be what the governed allow. If most Catholics in an area believe that a shared responsibility governance structure, a democratic Church, is not possible, it will not happen, regardless of what Ecumenical Councils or Popes have said supporting such. The first, and perhaps most challenging, task is to convince large numbers of the Catholic community, in this case, the parish, that a democratic constitution for the parish (indeed, also for the diocese and universal Church) is in keeping with the Gospel and Catholic tradition (for help, see Leonard Swidler, Toward a Catholic Constitution. New York: Crossroad Books, 1996). Then the rest of the nine steps are obvious, though by no means easy.

The critical issue is whether or not a Constitutional Parish can survive beyond its “founding pastor.” As I noted at the beginning, canon law and the reality on the ground stack the chances against it. That is why Step 5 through Step 10 are vital. They are not individual guarantees against the eventual destruction of a Constitutional Parish, but as they are carried out, they will proportionately improve the chances of survival.
Beyond a Constitution for the parish, there is also the need for a Diocesan Constitution, and eventually a Universal Catholic Constitution, as Pope Paul VI called and worked for. This journey to a Diocesan, and especially a Universal, Constitution of the Catholic Church will doubtless be long, arduous, and probably also serpentine. But it is a journey that a growing number of Catholics increasingly feel must be undertaken. Those of us so convinced now have not only the privilege but also the responsibility to push on in the journey, even though we personally may not arrive at the final destination. What is obtainable in the near future, however, at least for some fortunate ones of us living in parishs with a “Father Goodpastor,” are first, a Parish Constitution and secondly, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization.
Now that you know, you are obligated!

Other voices

Another Voice

Questions From a Ewe

Challenges Facing Catholicism
(Bishop Geoffrey Robinson in converation with Dr Ingrid Shafer)

Home ] Up ]
Locations of visitors to this page

Contact Information

, D.P.A., President
(406) 544-5527
Postal address
P.O. Box 6512
Helena, MT 59604-6512


Website design and maintenance:
Ingrid Shafer &
Copyright © 2003-2010,
Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
DHTML JavaScript Menu By Milonic.com