NO LONGER A MISSION DIOCESE

President, Catholic Extension Society

One wonders if the chancery has notified the Catholic Extension Society, from which it receives quite a bit of funding annually, that the Archdiocese of Agana no longer needs its money.

The Archdiocese of Agana is classified by the CES as a mission diocese, qualifying it to receive grants to the tune of at least a quarter of a million dollars per year. 

According to the CES, to qualify for mission status the archdiocese must be able to demonstrate that it cannot sustain itself without outside funding.

Apparently we can. Not only can we now afford to sustain ourselves, according to today's U Matuna we are now wealthy enough to sustain two seminaries one of which is organized solely for the purposes of sustaining a missionary outreach to the ends of the earth. 

A diocese which is wealthy enough to fund missions to other lands can no longer be itself a "mission", at least not in the sense that the CES defines it. So bye-bye CES funding to the Archdiocese of Agana (which essentially only funded the chancery payroll anyway). 

Let's review what constitutes a mission diocese and see if we still qualify. According to the CES, to qualify for mission status a diocese must demonstrate one or more of the following: 

1. There are many Catholics, but little institutional Catholic presence (i.e. ordained leaders, Catholic schools and church buildings).

Not! On Guam, there are more Catholic churches per square mile and more priests per Catholic than any other place in the United States. And, as per the 2010 Archdiocesan report for the clergy, Guam's priests have more leisure time than does the average U.S. priest.

2. There is a rapidly growing Catholic population, but limited financial means to support this growth.

Not! In fact we have a rapidly dwindling Catholic population as anyone who goes to Mass regularly can clearly see. What IS rapidly growing are all the other churches on Guam which are packed with former Catholics.

3. Catholics are spread throughout great geographic distances, making pastoral outreach difficult.

Obviously not.

4. Catholics are located in areas facing economic hardships.

Apparently not. We not only can afford two seminaries, we can afford to pay to bring foreigners to Guam, pay for their formation (how many we pay for that don't become priests but just go home, we don't know), and then pay for them to live and work elsewhere. We'll leave names out for now, but there are priests incardinated in this diocese who live elsewhere but are still on the local payroll. Think of that the next time your parish has to do a carwash or a bake sale in order to do afford a new paint job for your church or even CCD materials. 

5. Catholics represent the religious minority in their communities.

Obviously not.

So, what then are we doing taking money from the Catholic Extension Society? In fact, since Guam extracted itself from the U.S. Conference in 1984 and aligned itself with CEPAC, the Conference of Bishops of Oceania, and is only an "observer" to the USCCB, why are we still taking money from an organization whose mission it is to serve the "poor dioceses" of the United States? 

We may be politically aligned with the U.S. as a territory, but since we were big enough to strike out on our own and establish ourselves as an archdiocese and align with another Conference, and now big enough to establish two seminaries and send missionaries to the ends of the earth, WHY do we still have our hand out to the CES disguised as a "poor diocese"?

Maybe we don't. Maybe the chancery has written the CES and advised them that we will no longer be asking for grants. If so, please advise. If not, we will notify the CES ourselves. 

NOTE: Yes, we are well aware that the church views "mission" more generally. However, we are speaking here specifically of qualifying for mission status under the terms of the Catholic Extension Society for the purposes of receiving money.