PRFOC

The Parish Reconfiguration Fund Oversight Committee's Final Report

Commentary on the Final Report

Charter of PRFOC

PRFOC - An Antiphon

The Litany of the PROFC Report

A Commentary on the Final Report of the Boston PRFOC (Parish Reconfiguration Fund Oversight Committee)

By Robert M. Kelly

"…the issue before the church in the United States is not precisely to restore confidence in our time; that sounds too much like public relations. The issue is to have structures and leadership in the church that warrant this confidence…"

- Michael J. Buckley, S.J.(1)

The archdiocese of Boston, one of four dioceses in Massachusetts, has long been in the national spotlight. It leapt into prominence about five years ago after the Boston Globe's Pulitzer-Prize winning coverage of sexual scandal within clerical ranks. Catholic for Catholic, Boston is nearly eight times the size of the Springfield diocese, though the parish ratio is much lower. Springfield counts 130 parishes or missions while Boston has about 295.

This article examines recent announcements and media coverage in the archdiocese after the final report of a lay oversight committee (http://www.westernmasscatholics.org/docs/PRFOCFinalReport.pdf) on Nov. 11, 2007. The committee monitored the financial implications of parish reconfiguration over the past three years.

In addition to the PRFOC report, we look at:

- the "Arise" program for the Boston archdiocese prepared by Renew, International.

- the "Best Practices Award" given to the Boston archdiocese by the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management.

A church observer in Boston has said that the PRFOC report, though long, and laced with thoughtful criticism of the diocese, "landed with a quiet thud" and that is as good a description as any. It was little discussed at the time, and seems to be fading. It's odd that in Boston, the cradle of the Voice of the Faithful, there should be so little bounce from a report issued by David Castaldi, head of the committee, one of the founders of the VOTF.

A partial explanation is that the report was immediately hailed by diocesan officials as a stamp of approval for their financial methods. It was far from that, as we shall see. Nevertheless, the PR blitz engineered by the diocese to puff up the positive findings of the report and to downplay or ignore the negatives shows that the diocese has learned from past PR blunders. This is part of a larger pattern whereby the diocese has become much more proactive about shaping the image of lay Catholics to themselves and others.

For example, diocesan web sites seem to consider reform-minded members of the laity radioactive. A search for "votf" on <www.thebostonpilot.com> yields "no results found". Over on <www.rcab.org>, the same search brings up some creaky articles from 2002-2004. These web sites portray the VOTF as a novelty of the first phase of the sexual abuse scandal and deny that it plays any role in church politics.

In Springfield, the only references to VOTF in the Catholic Observer (diocesan newspaper) in the past year occurred on May 25, when Fr. Bill Pomerleau filed a report under "Voice of the Faithful Facing Financial, Membership Crises".

After staring at the PRFOC report for a while I wondered: if the bulk were reduced, and the ornate and diplomatic language cut, what would it look like? What was at the core? I decided to strip it down. After some cutting, what remained looked to me like a litany. While my pruning hook was still sharp, I decided to reduce it further. What resulted then looked more like an antiphon, or a responsorial psalm.

The links to those documents are here for the Litany of 950 words, and here for the Antiphon of about 250 words. This chipping away at a well-written document was done in the interests of clarity and creativity, and because I believe that we need new ways of looking at lay/clergy relations. And naturally I don't mean to imply an endorsement for these versions from David Castaldi or the other committee members, who had no role in this editing.

_____

As to where the PRFOC fits in the narrative thread of Boston church politics, we recall that after Cardinal Law was replaced by then-Archbishop Sean O'Malley in 2003, the new man embarked on a vigorous plan to alter parishes, seeking to reduce the total by about 20%. He was only partially successful. While Boston had 357 parishes in 2003, it now counts 295.

Of these, about a dozen are still considered "open", but they live in a twilight zone, having contested their suppression through civil or canonical courts. About a half-dozen of these have paid a further cost, for in order to survive they've had to staff 24-hour vigils, 7 days a week, for over three years.

Partially as a response to the protesting parishes, the PRFOC was created by O'Malley in 2004. The charter of the committee ( http://www.rcab.org/Pilot/2004/ps041203/charterofreconfiguration.html) was negotiated by O'Malley and former chancellor Castaldi, who in addition to his affiliation with VOTF is a former chancellor of the archdiocese.

An easily accessible account of the parish closings and the uproar that followed was written for the National Catholic Reporter by Jeff Guntzel. It appeared on August 26, 2005.(http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/082605/082605a.php)

By the time of the NCR article, the PRFOC was well underway reviewing the financial aspects of parish reconfiguration. Chairman Castaldi told Mr. Guntzel that "… Boston is unusual but not unique…" Castaldi predicted that other dioceses will have to “…go to school on Boston…”

It is in that "school" spirit that this commentary examines the final report to see what lessons this latest chapter in the Boston saga might offer the Springfield diocese and others. An account of the report appeared in the Boston Globe on 11/16/07. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/16/hub_diocese_releases_reports_criticizing_its_parish_closings)

_____________

One of the conclusions of the PRFOC report was that Cardinal O'Malley deserved praise for his forthright publishing of financial data that had long been hidden. For example, it said:

"In April 2006 and again in 2007, the Boston Archdiocese published the most complete financial disclosure of any diocese in the United States. Included in the report [the Financial Transparency Project] was information concerning the funding source for sex abuse settlements and associated costs. The PRFOC commended Cardinal O’Malley for this outstanding initiative."

Nor was this the only positive outcome. The report saw a "new policy of openness" after the replacement of two chancery officials. The Rev. Richard Erickson was brought in to replace Bishop Richard Lennon (now bishop of the Cleveland diocese) as vicar general, while Richard McDonough succeeded David Smith as chancellor.

On 11/16/07, shortly after the publication of the report, McDonough was interviewed by the Boston Pilot (the archdiocesan newspaper). He thanked them for "…great work and the support for the practices that we've used as the result of configuration…"

When asked to explain $12 million that was transferred as "support services for parishes" and injected into the central funds budget, McDonough stated:

"The charter of the committee envisioned that these funds would be used to support parishes. Throughout the [central funds] budget there are clear departments that work to serve parishes. I really don’t see any conflict with the charter in the use of those funds in prior years. That’s not the practice today and we don’t envision using that practice going forward, but I have no criticism of the way that was handled at that time because it is consistent with the charter".

Another question was "…how do you see your role and the role of the central administration in the healing process with those who may have lost confidence in the way the Church handled its finances?"

He answered: "One of our priorities is to rebuild the trust in the Church of those who both as the result of the abuse crisis and the reconfiguration process felt excluded. What Cardinal Seán is trying to do is, by virtue of providing full information, let people feel as though they are well informed and, when appropriate, part of the process. I think the reconfiguration committee is a perfect example of this philosophy of bringing folks in to be a part of the process and be fully informed."

We will return to these statements by McDonough later.

Only a week later an op-ed in the Boston Globe heaped more praise on the Archdiocese. In "Silver Lining For Struggling Dioceses", Thomas Healey, treasurer of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, a non-profit set up to improve church management, lauded the Financial Transparency Project of the archdiocese. Healey said that the "…unprecedented commitment to openness…" showed the archdiocese's determination to put an end to the secrecy of the past. It was little wonder, then, that for this initiative the NLRCM awarded the archdiocese its first annual "Best Practice Award".

In the unprecedented volume of the financial disclosures in Boston, Healey found hope, and evidence of "…a new managerial mindset taking hold around the country as parish and diocesan leaders recognize that excellence in temporal affairs can lead to a church that's better equipped to fulfill its spiritual mission".

ARISE

Around the same time as the appearance of the PRFOC Final Report, the Boston Pilot newspaper carried stories about the upcoming bicentennial celebration of the archdiocese in 2008, and a new parish renewal program, called ARISE. It would be natural for a casual reader to associate the completed and supposedly successful mission of the PRFOC and the success of the Financial Transparency Project to this hopeful new initiative.

In announcing the ARISE program in the Pilot on Aug. 17, Rev. Erickson stated that the three-year program from Renew, headquartered in Plainfield, NJ, had been customized to meet the archdiocese's needs.

According to Erickson, the renewal effort is designed to "… inspire Catholics who are not currently active to return to the Church…the heart of the program will be the creation of small groups. The groups will meet weekly for six weeks to read and reflect upon Scripture…the objective is empowerment. The program will challenge us to ask: How do I encounter God in my everyday life? How can I join with others to deepen and share my faith? And then, how do I connect that faith with action?"

O'Malley wrote in his blog on 10/12/07 that "…we are hopeful that this process can help to bring about spiritual renewal in observance of our bicentennial. Arise is a way of inviting people to adult faith formation, prayer and reconnecting with their local faith communities…"

But, there were others in the diocese who connected the mission of Arise more directly to the fallout from recent events. On Oct. 5, Fr. Arthur Coyle, a diocesan official, observed in the Pilot that the program is much needed in Boston "…especially with what we've been through in the last five years…", alluding to the clergy abuse scandal and parish reconfiguration. And, the coordinators of the program asserted in the Pilot that RENEW is a proven formula - it will create unity in the archdiocese. According to their web site, RENEW often acts as a sort of spiritual SWAT team, swooping in on church hot spots as needed.

Indeed, a look inside the workbooks of the program shows that the theme of recovering from scandal is well-addressed. The samples are available at the Renew, International web site <www.renew.org>. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the module on "Healing the Body of Christ" (Week 2, A Church of Saints and Sinners).

Focus of the Session

From the beginning of his public life, Jesus invited sinners to walk in his company. In the history of the Church, whenever human weakness or selfishness caused scandal, the Holy Spirit inspired great women and men to respond, challenge and remind us to live a life worthy of Christ’s calling. A call to holiness and a flourishing of spiritual renewal ensued.

Scandal has been part of the Church’s history—scandals that involved both leadership and great numbers of people. Yet the darkest of times brought about some of the finest pages of our history. God raised up great saints such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Ignatius of Loyola. They are profound examples of the power of God’s grace to renew lives and the body of the Church. As large numbers of people turned their lives to spiritual renewal, the Church became a light to the world.

_____________

In a remarkable echo of the op-ed piece by Healey, the workbooks suggest that there must be a silver lining to the scandals in Boston ("…the darkest of times brought about some of the finest pages of our history…"). It takes a peculiar cast of mind to celebrate the appearance of Saints such as Francis, Catherine and Dominic and find in their goodness a connection to recovering from scandal. Are they part of the sublimation of scandal? The celebration, even, of scandal?

The message to the laity is unambiguous: the Holy Spirit is poised to come to the rescue; the scandals themselves are not the final determinant, but it is the response of the laity to the scandals that is key: the workbooks assert that it was through broad-based spiritual renewals that the Church overcame scandal and became, once again, a force for good: "…as large numbers of people turned their lives to spiritual renewal, the Church became a light to the world…"

It is here that some of the common threads of "reform" begin to come together. Reform is explicitly understood in the Arise workbooks to proceed from internal, personal transformation and radiate outward to influence the rest of the world. Reform is not something that occurs to church structure, but rather to those that the church governs. When Erickson talks of "empowerment" and "action" for the parishioners of Boston, it is this very specific type of reform and action that he has in mind. And from them the "reform" is expected to spread to others; to non-faithful Catholics, and even to non-Catholics, in evangelizing mode, in classic command hierarchy fashion, all of this reform taking place without ever leaving a mark on church governance.

After the announcements in November there was little else about "Arise" in the Pilot. But one wonders if the Catholics of Boston understand the implications of the program. For example, although initially tied by O'Malley to the bicentennial, the Renew web site shows a full schedule of events in Boston through January of 2011. And, the program is imminent. Leadership sessions for pastors and staff in each region of the diocese were launched as of February 11.

The "Arise" program is far more extensive - and expensive - than first appears. If the attempts at encouraging parish participation are even modestly successful, it is likely to have a major impact on the archdiocese for a very long time.

Since the program will cost $1800 per parish, and since the contract is for three years, the total invested for the parishes will be in the neighborhood of $1.5 million dollars.

That's not a small number, especially since any money invested will come from the parishes, with the archdiocese supporting needy parishes. But, more important than the dollar investment may be the psychological investment. The archdiocese appears to be encouraging each parish to buy into the program of renewal, literally, so that, at the end of the day, the parishes will "own" their own renewal of trust in the archdiocese.

One might argue that the renewal of trust and faith in Christ is never a bad thing. How could it be? But against this we must place the track record of the archdiocese. They have been clear about their aims, as stated by vicar general Erickson. His vision of "empowerment" and "action" as quoted above offers a very specific and limited role for the laity.

In a complementary way, when McDonough says that "… one of our priorities is to rebuild the trust in the Church…", people need to understand the aims. We are not talking about belief in Christ here. In the context of what has happened in Boston, it can mean nothing other than a desire to rebuild the laity's trust in the administration of the archdiocese.

____________

NLRCM

When we turn to the "Best Practices" award of the NLRCM, we find that although the organization has lofty goals, one of them is not church reform. The award was given to Boston for financial accomplishments - not moral or structural ones. And the accomplishment cited - telling the truth - left me a little cold. An award to clerical office holders for telling the truth? This is the "Best" that we expect them to do?

In his op-ed Mr. Healey got a little excited because Boston has started using real business methods for financial reporting: "… One of the tools used for this objective review is a management discussion and analysis, the same reporting vehicle used in 10K reports for public companies…" I had to pause and wonder. Why does this comparison of the archdiocese to a well-regulated public company not fill me with hope? I almost started searching for "forward-looking statements" as to how the archdiocese is expected to perform over the next five years. Mr. Healey sounded positively bullish.

Some study of the NLRCM's web site proves that they see themselves as foot-soldiers in the service of the bishops (albeit armed with MBA's rather than broadswords). If anything, they seek to enhance and solidify the power of the bishops, rather than to redistribute it. The NLRCM limits itself to the "temporal" realm.

It is clear that in this tradition they follow the pre-Vatican II division of clergy/laity, temporal/spiritual, this world/other world, etc. that is so familiar to older Catholics. The NLRCM is all about managing power in better ways, and not about changes in power.

This may come as a disappointment to people who seek a better church and not just a better managed church. But there's more to it than that. Their brief, bristling with references to canon law and Vatican documents, argues that lay people are called, and indeed, "have an obligation" to offer their gifts and talents to the clergy. That starts to sound a little different, almost like a command. But what about the decision-making abilities of the laity? What about the balance of power, or the dignity and equality of the lay state? On the NLRCM web site, these things never come up.

If the idea of serving Christ as a policy wonk does not ring quite true, it must be remembered that this updated lay calling follows a more familiar ideal: lay service of an authoritarian and unchanging church structure.

Let no one doubt that NLRCM seeks to preserve the status quo of church structure. For example, one of their main priorities is to "Oversee the development of a long-term strategy designed to help the Church regain trust and credibility in the United States." Once again, as in the Renew program contracted by the archdiocese of Boston, the emphasis is on rebuilding trust, rather than on creating structures that deserve trust.

_______________

THE PRFOC, AGAIN

Let us now return to an assessment of the PRFOC's supposedly "successful" mission. Those who have read the Litany and Antiphon realize by now that I consider their accomplishments few and far between. When we turn to how they judged their own mission, a few sentences in the closing section are key:

"… the PRFOC was disappointed that acceptance of its advisory role in the archdiocesan decision-making process never really emerged because it was restricted to receiving information largely after the fact and because the Finance Council is the canonically-empowered body in financial matters. Its ability to make recommendations regarding operational improvements as contemplated by its charter was similarly limited. At best, the PRFOC’s purview was largely restricted to an after-the-fact audit function."

Let's see how this conclusion - the engaged laity serving the corporation as a sort of late-arriving CPA - matches the brave beginnings of the committee. At first, they were to assess and make recommendations in three areas:

1. the integrity of the process used to handle reconfiguration assets and liabilities

2. the financial reporting of this information to Catholics in the Archdiocese

3. operational improvements

It is clear that the committee found problems in the integrity of the process.

It is equally clear that they found problems with the reporting methods used by the chancery to inform fellow Catholics.

It is also true that they found problems with operations.

So, they found problems in all three areas of review. And were they able to solve these problems? The report makes clear (and the Litany and the Antiphon more so) that they were not. A corollary to this result is that the comments of McDonough denying that these problems existed, and suggesting alternate interpretations, even up to the present day, must be seen for what they are: desperate and unseemly attempts at spin.

So, was the PRFOC able to play a role in the decision-making process? Decidedly not. Were they able to at least make recommendations? Limited success, at best. In all of these aims it appears that they were a failure. And yet, as I shall soon argue, I think their overall failure is qualified by one outstanding success. In fact, I believe that I may have found one of those elusive "silver linings" that we keep hearing about.

Let's look again at the response of chancellor McDonough to a question posed in the Pilot on 11/28/07, and keep his response in mind during the following discussion:

"One of our priorities is to rebuild the trust in the Church of those who both as the result of the abuse crisis and the reconfiguration process felt excluded. What Cardinal Seán is trying to do is, by virtue of providing full information, let people feel as though they are well informed and, when appropriate, part of the process. I think the reconfiguration committee is a perfect example of this philosophy of bringing folks in to be a part of the process and be fully informed."

Earlier in the interview, when asked to explain $12 million that was transferred as "support services for parishes" and injected into the central funds budget, McDonough stated:

"The charter of the committee envisioned that these funds would be used to support parishes. Throughout the [central funds] budget there are clear departments that work to serve parishes. I really don’t see any conflict with the charter in the use of those funds in prior years. That’s not the practice today and we don’t envision using that practice going forward, but I have no criticism of the way that was handled at that time because it is consistent with the charter".

McDonough refers three times to the charter (!) while defending the use of the $12 million, and says that "…the charter… envisioned that these funds would be used to support parishes." But the charter says nothing of the kind. The charter says that the committee should "…assess the extent to which the disposition of proceeds conforms to the commitment to use the Parish Reconfiguration Fund only to help parishes with past, present, and future obligations and programs…" And, in fact, later on, the PRFOC did find problems with the disposition of these proceeds.

When McDonough states that "…the charter envisioned that these funds would be used to support parishes…", he is deliberately confusing the aims of the archdiocese with the aims of the committee. It is the archdiocese (not the committee) which had a list of proposals to spend money under a "Purposes" section. And, it was the committee's job to assess these proposals. It could only have been the archdiocese that was "envisioning" how to spend money.

Furthermore, the final reason that McDonough gives for legitimizing the $12 million transfer ("…because it is consistent with the charter…") is false. It could not be otherwise, because the wish list of the archdiocese predated the charter, was not dependent on it, and in any case is clearly inconsistent with it. The wish list is an apple, and the charter is an orange.

McDonough's remarks must be seen for what they are. They are lies which attempt to use the wording of the charter to provide cover for the archdiocese, and they do this by imputing the aims of the archdiocese to the mission of the committee.

There was a further development in January.

In late January, an email to the priests of the archdiocese(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/01/18/e_mail_sent_to_boston_archdiocese_priests)from McDonough was made public by the Globe. In the last few lines of this email, McDonough stated:

"The majority of the assets realized by the Reconfiguration Fund over this period have been for the benefit of our parishes… Additionally, within the Archdiocese, there are several agencies and departments that provide for program assistance and support to parishes. Approximately $12 million was used to support the mission of these areas."

We recall that in November McDonough excused the use of this money by saying that …"that’s not the practice today and we don’t envision using that practice going forward…"

Once again, in January, he seems to be deliberately fudging the line of accountability for these funds. The use of funds that he justified in November by ascribing to the mission of the PRFOC, he now seeks to justify in January by tying it to the mission of the parishes, even though it is clear in the context that the money went to the central agencies.

But was the use of the 12 million justified back in the day when it happened? Not according to the PRFOC. How then could it be any more justified in November, after the final report, much less so in January, by which time Mr. McDonough has found ever more intricate ways to explain and justify the use of the funds?

SUMMARY

I started this essay by quoting Fr. Buckley to the effect that working on the laity to restore their confidence in church office holders is somewhat beside the point. Instead, he puts the emphasis where it should be, on a trustworthy structure. We now consider why this is so important.

A proposed "reform of the heart" which is exclusively spiritual and confined to the laity will be a useless exercise, because this reform would occur without leaving a mark upon the structure of the church. This cannot be allowed to happen, because the preservation of the status quo will inevitably lead to more of the same: more enabling, more secrecy, more crime. The laity can not and must not permit a surface "reformation" to substitute for real lay empowerment.

However, the events in Boston suggest just how difficult it will be for the laity to keep a clear purpose while asserting power. The bishops do not want change, and they have found powerful allies. Boston may be just the first example of how these forces will engage in a full-court press to reassert Episcopal rights and privileges.

The common threads that unite the "ARISE" program and the NLRCM group are many. They are well-endowed. That some lay group is "bishop-approved" may be a warning label for those whose highest value is truly disinterested lay participation. Perhaps most important for their purposes, they have the imprimatur of the bishops. In this climate, the fact that some lay group is "canonically-approved" may become the equivalent of a warning label to those who value truly disinterested lay participation.

All sides agree that when there's been a breach of trust such that the laity no longer trust the clergy, then reform is necessary. The only question is - how will the reform proceed? To those in power, the starting point is to project the reform downward, to be applied to those under them - the governed. To those not in power, the response is to project the reform upwards - toward the structure, but only as an empty protest.

But there may be a third alternative - what if the laity were to begin to act as if they really were equal to the clergy, as we profess? What if we asserted this dignity, and equality? What would this do to the balance of power in the church?

Under those conditions, there would no need to choose between a misdirected "reform of the heart" and an empty protest. The laity, then, must work to create these conditions.

_____

Lesson Section: I think there are many lessons that one might take from the PRFOC experience. The following are only some of the most important.

Lesson One:

… parishes that did not formally contest their closures, and obediently surrendered their churches and assets, did not enjoy the same benefits as contesting parishes.

Lesson: a parish that faces closure must appeal. In the absence of an appeal it is probable that the assets of the parish will disappear into the corporate body of the diocese, to be used for purposes unknown.

Lesson Two:

…chancery officials had asked the pastors of both the obedient and the appealing parishes to surrender the assets voluntarily to the Archdiocese. The pastors complied. Following this, the PRFOC requested that equity be restored to the process by applying the Congregation's ruling (that the assets of the closed parishes should go to the receiving parishes) to all parishes, those who were obedient as well as those who appealed the suppressions. The Archdiocese refused. Therefore, apparently, the assets of obedient parishes did not go to receiving parishes…

Lesson: The Archdiocese, through its manipulation of the pastors, was able to continue exercising absolute power to dispose of parish property, barring appeals to Rome, or civil suits. This is not a lesson conducive to better relations with the laity. And yet it is a strategy that is likely to be repeated in other dioceses grappling with similar problems.

Lesson Three:

...None of the results of these negotiations [secret sessions conducted by chancery staff with pastors of the receiving parishes and…members of parish finance and pastoral councils] was disclosed to the PRFOC at the time...

Lesson: Chancery officials were willing and even eager to go behind the back of the oversight committee. Please take note, all bargaining and oversight units created to help Bishops negotiate with parishioners.

Lesson Four:

…Furthermore, the PRFOC registered an objection that the archdiocese was publicly using the PRFOC as a shield while privately denying it access to pertinent financial information…

Lesson: Chancery officials will almost invariably "spin" news and information to serve their own ends rather than the ends of the entire church.

Lesson Five:

…… the PRFOC was disappointed that acceptance of its advisory role in the archdiocesan decision-making process never really emerged because it was restricted to receiving information largely after the fact and because the Finance Council is the canonically-empowered body in financial matters….

Lesson: The PRFOC was doomed from the start because it had no decision-making power. Thus it could not enforce its advisory nature upon the diocese, let alone participate in decisions directly. In church governance, for the laity, the Finance Committee matters. Practically nothing else does.

Lesson Six:

…partially as a response to the protesting parishes, the PRFOC was created by O'Malley in 2004. The charter of the committee was negotiated by O'Malley and former chancellor Castaldi…

Lesson: Finally, we come to a true silver lining. It is likely that none of this - not the final PRFOC, not the Financial Transparency Project, and not the "Best Practices Award", would have come into existence if it were not for the negotiation that David Castaldi and O'Malley engaged in three years ago. It has been said that one cannot negotiate unless one can compel negotiation. It would be interesting to know how Castaldi was able to negotiate with O'Malley, and why he was able to hold him to a commitment to publish the results of the PRFOC.

But, it is clear that it is this negotiation which is most important. Even though the PRFOC was itself a noble failure, it was only the negotiation creating the PRFOC which allowed the truth of that failure to shine through - unequivocally, and completely. Without the negotiation, it is likely that none of the inside twists and turns of the three-year battle would have seen the light of day

-- the end --

(1) From "Resources and Reform from the First Millennium" in Common Calling: The Laity & Governance of the Catholic Church, edited by Stephen Pope, 2004, Georgetown University Press.

Top