Saint
John's Seminary
Board of Trustees Special Meeting
23 May 2007
Response of Rector to Proposal
Several
days ago, Cardinal Sean met with me to explain the broad lines of the proposal that is now offered to the Board of
Trustees. He explained its overall motivation thus: "This is designed to assure the
financial stability and viability of the seminary and of the archdiocese
"
I do not consider myself competent to speak about the
financial stability and viability of the archdiocese, but T
do consider myself
competent to speak about those of St. John's Seminary,
m d that is my intention today. I do not intend to speak against the Cardinal,
but I do intend to speak against the proposal that is being submitted for our vote.
There are three points to
be considered in voting for this proposal.
• The proposal is mistaken
in judging that the seminary is not fiscally stable and viable
and it is mistaken in
judging that the seminary needs financial assistance.
· It is mistaken in its expectation that the terms
of the proposal will assist the
seminary. On the contrary,
and this is the third point:
· The terms of the proposal will, in my judgment,
bring about the demise of the seminary.
I
The fiscal stability and viability of the seminary
In the first place, the
proposal assumes that the seminary is not fiscally stable and viable. T would
point out, however, that for two years now, since the end of liY05, the seminary has received no appropriation
from RCAB, yet is alive and well. During the 8 March' 2005 trustee meeting, one member of the Budget and Finance
committee observed that " these are the strongest financials in
the history of the seminary." Up until FY05, the seminary would receive an
annual appropriation from the Archbishop in the amount of its operating
deficit. The Archbishop, in acting in this fashion, observed the requirement of
Canon Law, which states: "The diocesan bishop must ensure that the building
and maintenance of the seminary, the support
of the students, the remuneration of the teachers and the other nerds of the seminary are provided
for" (can. 263). An implication of carrying out his lawful duty in this way was that the seminary never developed fiscal
independence; it never began to
accumulate an endowment. This lack has come to have
weighty importance in current fiscal situations and judgments.
Unlike Blessed John X~:III Seminary, St. John's
was not allowed to conduct its own advancement program and
plans to hire a Director of Advancement were sacrificed in order to
"balance the budget."
Recalling several items from
recent history will help clarify our understanding of the current fiscal status of the
seminary.
In 1997, an archdiocesan
fund-raising campaign was begun. by the Cardinal in the name of the
archdiocese to pay for improvements in the combined building of St. John's Hall
and Bishop Peterson Hall The eventual cost of the remodeling came to exceed $23
million. in 1999, when the number of sexual abuse claims against RCAB was
increasing seriously, the archdiocese found itself in serious fiscal distress.
RCAB abandoned responsibility for the fund-raising and then passed
responsibility for it to the seminary. In April 1999, the land (6.5 ac=es) and buildings facing on
Commonwealth. Avenue were, on the request of the Cardinal, transferred from the seminary to
RCAB, and a payment of $2.9 million was made. The transaction was motivated
because the laud and buildings were in jeopardy of seizure if the seminary were
to become bankrupt. The proceeds from the sale were placed in a restricted
custodial account because the land sold was part of the collateral for the
construction loan. Effective 1 January 2001, the seminary entered into a
contract with Boston College (BC) to lease St. Clement's Hall for 4-0 years.
The rental fee would be paid immediately: $15 million. From this, $13 million was restricted and
later used as partial
payment for the renovations.
At that time, BC
owned its first piece of the property of St. John's Seminary.
In 2004, RCAB was under heavy
pressure to pay additional sex abuse claims, and was without the resources to
do so. RCAB approached both John XXTTT Seminary in Weston and St. John's
Seminary for assistance. The approach was totally rebuffed by the trustees of
John XXlil. As the trustees will recall, the corporate members of the Board of
St. John's, following the favorable vote of the trustees, responded
benevolently and ceded title to several seminary assets to RCAB who subsequently added some of
its own assets, and
these were sold to BC for $85 million. Of the 48 acre package of land
and buildings sold to BC, about two thirds we assets from the seminary. Thus assets of approximately $56 million were
transferred from the seminary to RCAB so that it could pay its claimants. At
that time, the Cardinal pledged that $30 million would be given to the seminary
so that an endowment could be begun. As it happened, RCAB received a smaller
payment from .its insurance companies than it expected, such that it could hive
the seminary only $21 million and a promissory note for $4.8 million (that will
come due in 2011).
thus, $56 million was transferred
from the seminary to RCAB, and $21 trillion with a promissory note for $4.8 million were returned to
the seminary. This represents a net loss to the seminary of $30.2 million, and this in favor of
RCAB. Thus the question must be asked whether the financial instability is that
of the seminary or of RCA B.
H
The proposal will
not assist, but impede, the functioning and growth of the seminary
That the authors of the proposal know little about a
seminary, whether its intrinsic nature, or its role within the particular
Church, or its governance is an inescapable conclusion. Nor have they ever
solicited the recommendations or judgment about the proposal from those who do,
including trustees (who are responsible for the seminary) and sending bishops
(who should be included i.n policy decisions). The proposal ages that in order to assure the "financial
stability and
viability of the seminary" further alienation of property as necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. k the expert evaluation of the Apostolic Visitation. team
which visited us as part of the nationwide
evaluation of seminades, their report clearly states: "Neighboring Boston
College has purchased large tracts of former archdiocesan land near St. John's.
In order to insure the integrity of the seminary, the Visitors recommended that
no more property should be sold." Their report refers specifically to
"the Seminary's excellent library." Granted the proposal refers only
to the We of the library building, but plans for the preservation and
relocation of the collection have never been introduced
at is dear to me is that if
the authors knew the nature of a seminary and its relation to the life of the particular Church, they would
know that the seminary is often referred to as the heart of the particular
Church - numerous times in this way by Pope John Paul IT. If they realized the
impact and difference
made by sound theological and pastoral formation, they would begin
to understand something of the difference between St. John's Seminary and the
neighboring WJST and BC.
It strikes me as extremely ironic
that the proposal should come at this point in time. As the current rector
concludes his term of office and a new rector assumes that role in governance,
the leadership will be at a grave disadvantage to deal with changes to the
seminary as it has developed over the past four years. It is even more ironic in that the Cardinal has
recently received a draft of the post-Apostolic Visitation letter from the Vatican's Congregation for
Catholic Education. From the Visitation carried out in St.
John's in February 2006, its fi dings are singularly positive and laudatory.
Its opening paragraph speaks
of St. John's as an "excellent seminary." The trustees will recall
that T read significant portions of that draft at our Match meeting. I have not seen the draft
of the letter sent to the Cardinal regarding WJST, but T would he surprised if
it did not raise several serious points needing remediation.
Collaboration with WJST or BC is
not i.n the interest of St. John's. We exist to form in the faith candidates for the
priesthood who will be good shepherds and fathers of the flock entrusted to their care
and we have done that well. The Visitation
report has determined that "the doctrine on the priesthood presented by the seminary is solidly based on the Church's Magisterium; this is evident in all course syllabi. The pastoral and
spiritual programs, too, reflect a sound doctrine of the priesthood. Faculty
and staff readily accept this teaching." In contrast, WJST exists in the model of a research
university where opinions of every kind are propagated without adequate identification of the binding articles of faith. A sign
of this is found in the
fact that several
professors of WJST are currently under investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One was recently transferred from WJST to BC
possibly because Weston, being an ecclesiastical faculty, must present the names of professors to receive the nibil obstat from the Congregation for Catholic Education, a process that
includes the submission of the curriculum
vitae and
publications to the CDF. BC professors, on the other hand, would come under the scrutiny of CDF only if
serious complaints were
made about them, since it is a Catholic university, not an
ecclesiastical faculty. Several professors at WJST are self-professed gays or
lesbians. Collaboration with such an
institution is not good policy for St. John's Seminary, in which the
Visitaton judge that there is an "excellent" moral
theology program. If we are urged to reduce
expenses by mutual collaboration, this would induce asphyxiation., with the
remedy worse than the affliction Of there
were an affliction that needed to be remedied).
The Visitation report notes that "The seminary has
had a troublesome recent history: moral integrity and
fidelity to the Magisteriutn were both wanting. A new stage in the seminary's
fife began. with the appointment of Bp. Lennon as rector in 1999.. . [and they]
have done a remarkable job reforming St. John's." It
will not assist SJS to be in such proximity and "control"
of incompatible entities such as BC and WJST.
The
Visitation team also reported that "The prayerful atmosphere of St. John's
Seminary is one of its most outstanding and
noticeable qualities... there is a strong emphasis on fostering asa
authentic priestly spirituality in all areas of formation." Already, as a
result of the sale of seminary assets to. BC
in 2004, the negative impact on the environment of the seminary has been
observed. Based on the increase of vehicular and pedestrian traffic outside
chapel, residences, and classrooms, of people entering the seminary to use its
facilities and using its remaining grounds as a public park, based on
these already intrusive changes, it is evident that the impact of further sale
of property would be more detrimental and burdensome to long established
practices necessary for maintaining an atmosphere of prayer. For SJS to continue its path of development and
growth, it must also be able to accommodate guest; attending events such as the
lectures of Cardinals Dulles and Stafford and the annual Lessons and Carols
which introduce the public and potential benefactors to SJS, gatherings of
presbyteral alumni which the
Cardinal has applauded and encouraged, or
the many retreats and meetings of Vocation Directors and potential vocations
whose increasing numbers have also been reported to the Board in the past two years.
To
sell Peterson Hall and the library with their contiguous land would destroy the
value of what that property has meant in the history of the archdiocese. It
would simply become Boston College. There is simply not a sufficient amount of
building (or "physical resources" as accrediting bodies put it) in St. John's
Hall to hold that history. The sale of the kitchen and heating plant
will leave St. John's in perpetual dependence on BC. But more than a building,
there needs to be a relationship with the archdiocese. That relationship has
been cultivated in increased use for archdiocesan functions and its office of
Vocations. In recent months, the Seminary capacity was exceeded when Vocation
Directors sponsored a "come and see" weekend, necessitating the use
of additional rooms in Peterson Hall.
Harm
to the credibility and stability of the archdiocese and the seminary will
result from further sale of property and buildings. In fact, the Visitation
Report states that "The seminary, therefore, needs to be supported, so
that its mission continue to flourish." St. John's Seminary is about to be been granted affiliation
with the Pontifical Lateran University of Rome and would become the only
seminary in New England to offer ecclesiastical degrees which will be recognized as representing a high and integral
standard both in North America and throughout Europe. The sale of
properties could seriously endanger that affiliation, which judges the
stability as well as the academic excellence of the institution.
This
proposal, if it advances, will not protect or support the seminary. If the
proposal advances to the point of implementation, my estimate for the survival
of the seminary is a period of three to five years. It is already a common
misconception that SJS "was sold"
to BC. Students at WJST were told thtee weeks ago that they would be moving
to Peterson Hall, and similar communications are on the. WJST webpage.
III
A Vote for the Demise of the Archdiocesan Seminary
I can only sur~zxise that the authors of the proposal
know nothing about the role of St. John's Seminary within New England
- otherwise they could not have proffered this proposal which reverses the most significant achievements of the seminary over the past
five years.
Most
vulnerable is our MAM program which just recently received accreditation and
whose recent five year report and recommendations the trustees clearly support.
Founded syears ago, MAM was judged to be necessary by the
trustees in order to offer a theological and pastoral formation that
would counter that being offered by BC's Institute for Religious Education and
Pastoral Ministry. The proposal before you calls for the relocation of the MAM
program from our campus to Braintree. Will our students find travel to
Braintree on two evenings a week:, during rush hour and after a day's work, burdensome? Will our
faculty, most of whom are resident at
the seminary and greatly stretched by their workloads.,
be able to continue providing high
level teaching? How will students meet with their faculty advisor, their
spiritual director, with the Dean of .Admissions and Records? at
library will be available for their use? How will the ad inistrative staff of
MAM benefit from services of the seminary's business office at such a distance?
Will the accreditation of MAM be prejudiced because professors are no longer
available for students: How can such a move at this time be viewed as helping the program? I believe it will cause a
setback. Even as we have discussed the need to identify additional
sources for scholarships, who among us is so naive as not to recognize that BC
will note the distress attd hardship and be ready to offer to take our students in, even offering them substantial
financial aid? Quickly the MAM program will be swallowed by BC - whose
problematic doctrinal and pastoral formation were the motive for establishing
MAM in the first place - and undoubtedly with the spin of "assisting"
the archdiocese and the seminary.
If
this proposal is approved, neighboring bishops will rightly judge that St.
John's is losing ground. and that, under the terms of the proposal, it has no
realistic possibility of surviving. They
will not likely send their seminarians for formation here and the clearly
rising number of enrolled seminarians on which our financial stability
depends will plummet.
Possible
future faculty members will. not likely be willing to accept an assignment
within an institution whose future is so uncertain. The pressure on St. John's
from having the Weston Jesuit School of Theology literally at its back door,
separated only by a locked door, will quickly intensify. I predict that the
same architects of the current proposal will be quick to point out that the
availability of two professors in two closely situated institutions teaching the same course is an unaffordable
luxury. St. John's will be pressured to economize further to protect its
financial stability and viability, and doctrinal integt-, wi11 be sacrificed.
he proposal before you will have a severe impact on
faculty, not to mention administrative and service positions. The
Cardinal has spoken at every meeting of the Board this year about increasing
collaboration with bishops of the region. 'l: he Board has discussed regional
collaboration while identifying future faculty, members. Accepting the proposal
would be counter to these objectives because no one of qualification will. want
to associate with a dying institution.
The effect on seminary faculty,
staff, and seminarians of months-long circulation of rumors about the sale of
Bishop Peterson Hall and the seminary's library, and now of submission of this
proposal, has been serious. New faculty are unwilling or extremely reluctant to
accept a position; current faculty speak openly of duplicity and lack of
trust in that no one in authority has spoken to us about the rumors;
seminarians are dispirited by the prospect that they would have to transfer to
another seminary. Some faculty have already been approached by other
institutions, aware of the rumors, who are interested in attracting them.
Part of the proposal indicates the
commitment of BC to assume responsibility for capital expenses for St. John's
Hall, should such he necessary. It is legitimate to reflect on why BC would be
interested in making this contribution to St. John's. One possible motive would
be to help the seminary. A further motive, however, might be the
expectation on BC's part that it is prudent to invest in what will eventually
become theirs. It seems to me that the contribution is motivated by the
confident expectation that St. John's Hall will soon be property of BC. Thus
the progression as in a military campaign. of seizure: a toe-hold is established on the seminary
property by leasing St. Clement's Hall in 2001; a major territorial advance is secured by the
purchase of 48 of the existing 63 acres, with buildings, in 2004; a
strangle-hold would be administered to the seminary by purchase of Bishop
Peterson Hall and our library in 2007; and simply by waiting a few years the
crown jewel, St. John's Seminary, with chapel, would fall into BC's hands.
Within three to five years, the conquest and take-over would be complete.
IV
Conclusion and a positive
plan
Is this proposal designed to
assure the financial stability and viability of the seminary If by "viable"
we mean having the ability to develop and live, the answer can only be No. So, a proposal is made to us to resolve a problem that we do not have, and
the remedy proposed is that we alienate assets which are necessary for the
survival of the seminary,
and this in the name of assuring our financial stability and viability. This
proposal is not rational. It does not
respect recent history or reasonable expectations of fiscal stability and, growth for the next three to
five years.
What is often alleged to be the
problem of the seminary is a budgetary shortfall for la 1'()$ and the need to
strengthen us for the future. But if one considers that the seminary in May is ending academic year 06-07
with 40 students enrolled, and that the seminary in September will open
academic year 07-08 with 60 students enrolled, the increase from tuition alone will wipe out. any
budgetary shortfall that can he foreseen. Further, because the
number
of seminarians who will be ordained in 2008 (four) and 2009 (six) is relatively srr ll, it is evident that
maintaining the level of enrollment at. 60 for two years would not be difficult. (Attached is a page which illustrates
the relation of
income deriving from tuition to
projected budgetary shortfalls.)
Canon
237.1 states: "Where it is possible and expedient, there is to be a
major seminary in each diocese; otherwise,
the students who are preparing for the sacred ministries are to be
entrusted to another seminary, or an interdiocesan seminal is to be
erected."'1'he Visitors wished that the
bishops of the region would once again send their seminarians to St.
John's "in order to boost the current small enrollment." They have done
so. St. John's is the only seminary in Region f for younger men. at we need
to consider is that the increase in vocations
from Boston and from sending bishops is to the
seminary as it is crwrrrntly
configured.
To
quote the report again: ` The Visitots unanimously recommended that St. John's
Seminary be kept open, despite the financial pressure to sell it. They hoped
that Your Eminence would make a strong, clear statement that its fun2re is secure." The fatal flaw of the proposal before you is that it
fails to confider that a seminary is more than properly. The
distinction between the financial state of
the seminary and that of RCAB is blurted, The board's vote on
the proposal cannot be made without knowing whether there is a more
comprehensive, future plaza.. Is there another property? Are we thinking of a
new, better location for St. John's Seminary? Unless there is such a plan
already in the developmental stage for Boston's Axchdiocesan and the region's
seminary, approving this proposal counters everything that is stated in our
mission. Acceptance of this defective proposal represents an outright,
rejection not only of the advice of the Holy See and the support of regional
bishops, but also the expressed intentions of our Cardinal Archbishop which we
have all been privileged to share over the past several years.
The
critical question is not to sell or not sell property. '1he question
is: will we project a whole new archdiocesan seminary? Unless we have a
suitable structure on which we can rely,
even if it means having to leave this historically significant setting, unless
there is a suitable alternative so
that St. John's can continue to provide priestly formation in line with the teaching of the Church, we are giving up on
SJS and this becomes an ill-fated project. As the archdiocese prepares
for its bicentennial there could be nothing but shame and embarrassment if we
appear to forsake our own mandate, mission, and values for 30 pieces of Over.
Taking our lead from the archdiocesan pledge for
transparency in finances and from the archdiocesan presbyterate, we would do well to ask that. any plan
for the future of SJS be proposed in a way that engenders "trust...
with transparency, consultation, communication, integrity, follow-through, and
many other desirable qualities..." all of which are found
lacking here (A Church Continually X3ein, Reborn, Archdiocese of Boston Pastoral Planning
Report, Spring 2007).
Trustees
will recall what is stated in the Amended By-laws of the Corporation:
"Inasmuch as the Board of Trustees. .. is the managing body of this corporation, the. individual metnlaers of the Board of Trustees are to insure, as a requirement of
their office, that St.
John's Seminary will retain in perpetuity its identity as a Roman Catholic
institution for the education of candidates for the priesthood."
The
Association of Theological Schools, in their standards on Authority and
Governance (8.3.1.1; disbud at the meeting
of 5 November 2005), states: "The governing board is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of
the institution's integrity and its freedom from inappropriate external
and internal pressures, and from destructive
interference or restraints. It shall attend to the well-being of the
institution by exercising proper fiduciary
responsibility, adequate financial oversight, .. "
Because
we, as trustees, are responsible for promoting the good of St. John's Seminary,
its "financial stability and c~iability," we need to
strengthen and promote all that has been
achieved. It is incumbent on us to reject this proposal. 1 strongly urge you to do so.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Fr.
John A. barren, O.P. Rector
24 May 2007 His Eminence
Sean
Cardinal O'Malley, O.F_M.Cap., and
Board
of Trustees
St. John's Seminary
Eminence
and Trustees:
The morning after yesterday's meeting of the Board of
Trustees finds me still uncomprehending and deeply distressed.
The way in which a $65 million project was presented
with no advance specific information that would allow study, evaluation, and
consultation, and then be voted favorably is
incomprehensible to me. The fact that no one in the Seminary was consulted,
or even informed, about the proposal is incomprehensible to me. The fact that
public events to announce the news were scheduled even before our meeting was
held last night and are being carried out this morning is incomprehensible to
me. Finally, the fact that announcements are being made to the public with no
vote taken at all by the Corporate Members is not only incomprehensible to me,
but is contrary to law. Last night's meeting
was a burlesque of the Board of Trustees and of the ways
of proceeding of any serious board.
Even more distressing to me is the substance of last
night's "deliberations." Exaggerated
statements about a projected budgetary deficit for FY08 served as the point
of departure for the presentation, the explicit recommendations of the Congregation
for Catholic Education were dismissed peremptorally, a proposal was made to
remedy a problem that we do not have, the remedy proposed is that the seminary
alienate assets that are needed to assure its future fiscal viability, and all
this was done in the name of
assuring our financial stability and viability. In my
judgment, all of this is utterly
preposterous.
For the second time in three years, RCAB plunders the
assets of St. John's Seminary. In 2004, the
seminary conveyed to RCAB assets worth about $56 million and received in
recompense $2l million and a promissory note for $4.8 million. If the seminary
were in possession of even the cash represented by the note, our financial
"problems" would be greatly eased. Instead the seminary is presented
as "not able to make it
financially." Now, assets of the seminary will be taken and combined again
with assets of RCAB, who will in turn sell them to BC. The Chancellor
stated emphatically
last
night that the seminary will not be recompensed according to the value of the
assets conveyed, but the $65 million to be derived from this sale will be
applied "where it is needed." Clearly, in this disposition the
seminary is considered as not one of the "needs" of the archdiocese -
even as a beneficiary of its own assets.
I do not wish to be associated
with an organization that shows so little respect for people who have been
charged with responsibility for it and so little respect for truth.
After prayerful consideration and with the support of
Fr. Dominic Izzo, O.P., my Prior Provincial,
I hereby resign as Rector of St. John °s Seminary, effective immediately.
I will be present at the ordination on 26 May, not as
representative of the seminary, but as friend of the ordiuandi (one of
whom has asked me to vest him). Likewise at
the ordinations on 2 June in Manchester and on 3 June in Portland, I will be
present only as a friend of those being ordained, not in representation of the
seminary.
I ask for your prayers and promise
you mine.
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. John A. Farren, O.P. Rector
"On the surface level it does sound suspect and does raise red flags,"
he said. However, he said the magic in Harry Potter is not sorcery. And
he noted that the original title of the first book was "Harry Potter
and the Philosopher's Stone." The title was changed to "Sorcerer's
Stone" for the book's release in the United States.
