A Conspiracy of the Faithful

The Archdiocese of Detroit treats a hall full of parishioners as something close to a conspiracy. Newman, I suspect, would agree—in the original sense of the word.

St. Albertus Church in Detroit (CNS photo/Jonathan Francis, Archdiocese of Detroit)

When Archbishop Edward Weisenburger announced in November 2025 that every parish in the Archdiocese of Detroit would be restructured, the Archdiocese’s own newspaper reported his promise of a process “transparent, inclusive and open to all Catholics.” The pressures are real. Fewer priests, fewer people in the pews, buildings built for a larger Church. The draft plans would end weekend Mass at as many as 90 parishes.

But notice which way the conversation runs. Parishioners speak at a listening session or into an online survey. The chancery reads and sorts. The Archbishop discerns in private. On the weekend of April 17, 2027, the faithful learn what he decided.

Speak, wait, be told. However many rooms it fills, a process that runs one way is a suggestion box. Not a conversation.

On October 27, 2026, more than 600 parishioners from more than 120 parishes did something the process had not made room for. They met across parish lines, on their own initiative, in a rented hall in suburban Detroit, to hear a canon lawyer explain the rights the Church herself gives them. The Parish Preservation Alliance, a nonprofit formed by parishioners from across the Archdiocese, had announced the meeting publicly, and I serve as its spokesman.

Restrained before a word was spoken

The Archdiocese answered first. On the morning of Monday, October 26, the day before the meeting, a canonical directive from the Archbishop arrived at my door by FedEx. Dated October 22, it named the meeting by date and place. It forbids me to offer “canonical advice or guidance” to any Catholic in the Archdiocese, to raise money for any canonical cause, or to work with any canon lawyer the Archbishop has not approved. That evening, his vicar wrote that by attending, I “will knowingly be in violation” of it.

Lawyers call that a prior restraint. The First Amendment does not bind a bishop, and I do not claim it does. But the Supreme Court calls prior restraints “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement” on free speech for a reason that holds anywhere: they punish nothing that was said. They decide in advance what may not be heard. A restraint on the speaker is a restraint on every listener. The directive was addressed to me. Its real audience was the 600.

Why go to all this trouble to keep one layman out of one room? Not because he was a stranger. This Archdiocese once seated me in the Archbishop’s cabinet. I have worked beside canonists in Detroit, Denver, and Philadelphia, helped draft dubia that the Archbishop of Denver submitted to the Holy See, and taught a graduate course on canonical issues in Catholic education. Many of Detroit’s priests know me. The directive now finds that I lack “even the most general level of expertise” in canon law. No one asked me a single question first.

I went anyway. Because I am contesting the directive through the Church’s own procedures, I will not argue its canonical merits here.

The Church wants the faithful talking to each other

The Archbishop decides. St. John Henry Newman called “consult” a word “expressive of trust and deference, but not of submission.” Vatican II asks the laity to obey their shepherds’ decisions, and the parishioners I know will.

But the same paragraph of Lumen Gentium says the laity are “permitted and sometimes even obliged” to give their opinion on the good of the Church, and the Catechism adds that they may make it known not only to their pastors but to one another. Archbishop Charles Chaput has called it one of the aims of his episcopate to teach Catholics that “the laity and the clergy are co-responsible for the church.” Is a right to speak that may be used only through channels the chancery designs, staffs, and summarizes really a right at all?

Pius IX knew where most of his bishops stood before defining the Immaculate Conception. He wrote to every one of them anyway, asking about their people’s devotion. His 1854 definition named among its witnesses the conspiratio of bishops and faithful, literally a breathing together. Newman seized on the word. The Church teaching and the Church taught, he wrote, are one testimony, “never to be divided,” and there is something in their breathing together “which is not in the pastors alone.”

If the faithful are consulted even before a dogma is defined, Newman wrote, surely bishops will want to hear them on “great practical questions,” before taking “any step which perhaps they could not recall.” His question was about Catholic schools. Ours is whether our churches stay open. The Archdiocese treats a hall full of parishioners as something close to a conspiracy. Newman, I suspect, would agree—in the original sense of the word.

A priest shortage is a reason to share a pastor, not to close a parish

The Archdiocese’s central argument is the shortage. It projects about 130 active priests by 2034, down from 224. Its director of parish renewal has said it “simply can’t continue to serve the 209 parishes” with the priests it will have.

Rome answered that argument years ago. A 2020 Vatican instruction written for dioceses doing exactly what Detroit is doing says a shortage of priests is a reason to entrust several neighboring parishes to one pastor, which is what Detroit’s new pastorates do. It is not, by itself, a reason to merge a parish out of existence, and it is ordinarily not a reason to close a church. The shortage is relevant. It is not sufficient.

Nor does the promise that those churches will not close automatically settle anything. A church without a Sunday Mass does not need a closing decree. It closes itself, for reasons Rome has said are not enough.

Then there are the priests. Nearly every parish priest in the Archdiocese will be reassigned in the summer of 2027. Only nine are exempt. The Archbishop may move his priests, but the same instruction asks for stability for pastors and real weight on a parish’s bond with a priest who served it well. It also quotes Pope Francis warning against every attempt to “supplant, silence, look down on, ignore or reduce into small elites” the faithful. Notice which verb made the list.

In September 2026, Pope Leo XIV told the world’s newest bishops: “Learn their names, listen to their stories.” Detroit is about to ask nearly every pastor to start over on both.

Straw men and poisoned wells

The Archdiocese’s October 28 statement, on a web page first titled “Regarding the Parish Preservation Alliance,” warns the faithful against “outside organizations and individuals” who take donations while claiming canon law can stop or control the restructuring. No one in that hall made that claim. The Alliance charges nothing and pays me nothing. Warning against an argument no one made is a straw man. Warning the faithful away from the messenger instead of answering the message is poisoning the well. Bishop Robert Barron, back from Pope Francis’s Synod on Synodality, wrote that if there are “armies of Catholics who feel excluded or condescended to,” the Church has a serious pastoral problem and owes them humility and candor.

Buffalo already tried this. In 2024 its bishop barred parishioners from using parish property to organize appeals against his restructuring. After meeting with the Dicastery for the Clergy, he repealed the ban as “too restrictive of the rights of the faithful,” and Rome soon reversed several of his closures. Buffalo’s rule reached parish property. Detroit’s reached a rented hall.

What the faithful are owed

The faithful of Detroit are not asking to run the Archdiocese. They ask only for what the Church already says they are owed: reasons specific to their parish, shown to them before the decision is final, and the freedom to meet, to learn, to talk with one another, and to choose who will help them speak.

I served as superintendent of Catholic schools for this Archdiocese, and I learned that people accept hard decisions they were allowed to help shape. Newman’s plea to be heard on the schools got him reported to Rome for heresy. The Church’s final answer? To make him a Doctor of the Church and co-patron of Catholic education.

On the night of his election, Pope Leo borrowed St. Augustine’s words: Vobis enim sum episcopus, vobiscum sum christianus. For you I am a bishop; with you I am a Christian. Detroit’s faithful have heard the first half. They are waiting for the second.

I call on the Archdiocese to keep its promise: a process open to all Catholics, including the ones who talk to each other.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Kevin Kijewski 1 Article
Kevin Kijewski, an attorney in Birmingham, Michigan, led the archdiocesan school systems of Detroit and Denver, served as an associate superintendent in Philadelphia, and is spokesman for the Parish Preservation Alliance. Follow him on X at @KevinKijewski.

11 Comments

  1. The faithful should have their say, not be mute like sheep before the shearer.

    The quick manner in firing the 3 seminary professors with little explanation when he took over may be revealing.

    • Made me recall that Detroit has the biggest Freemason Temple in the world.

      Archbishop Weisenburger relates with the autocratic hubris of a Lodge Master.

      Categorically different from Christ’s command for the greatest to be servant of all.

      Ed. Weisenburger could learn from genuine Christian Catholics, like Kevin Kijewski.

  2. We read that the Archdiocese of Detroit soon will have only 130 priests to serve 209 parishes. Do the math. Undergoing a similar but less challenging adjustment, the Archdiocese of Seattle is well into a process of forming parish families and, also, closing some parishes.

    The difference in this imperfect but more harmonious process seems to be threefold. First, the rationale is based not only on the priest headcount (and burnout), but also on declining numbers of active parishioners and inadequate parish budgets in the most affected parishes. Second, a genuinely iterative consultation and decision process has moderated the initial proposal. Instead of rotating all the priests, the number was cut to the half who were nearing the end of their six-year assignments. And the boundaries and compositions of many parish families were adjusted based on, what, the first round of consultation. And third, the consultation process within the resulting parish families continues. Details matter.

    The plummeting number of Catholics who actually attend Mass regularly (some say 15 percent) is an index of profound disruption within the Church, falsely attributed by many to the Vatican Council itself, rather than to what followed…including incompetent handling of liturgical innovations. The surrounding culture is toxic. The world situation is not what it was half a century ago. Catholic education is abysmal.
    Many parishioners seem to think our parishes are local congregational assemblies with an expressive ritual, rather than a universal and Eucharistic Church where the parish priest is an extension of the bishop who is a successor of the apostles (Lumen Gentium). A celebrant of the Real Presence, not a more ambiguous “presider.” In Seattle, the underway transition is couched as an effort to rejuvenate the Catholic Church in Western Washington. (By comparison, are we reminded of the disastrous Call to Action fiasco concluded in Detroit back in 1976?)

    We surely hope that whenever Pope Leo XIV does visit the United States, he can focus on real evangelization, rather than on whatever is the future state of complex “dialogue” in any American diocese. Such flashpoints are more skillfully avoided or at least resolved earlier rather than later. Likewise, similar scenarios already acted out on the Big Screen in far-less-than-perfect (!) “synodality” in Germania and then even in Rome.

    How to be truly apostolic and pastorally listening at the same time?

  3. This is exactly what happens when the Church is led by sinful men. No need to look further than sin for an explanation.

    • Thank you Mr Kijewski, my prayers are with you.
      Looks like the archbishop in Detroit is from the mold of Judas Iscariot, unfortunately they have others as well. I pray God bless you with Wisdom, Understanding, Strength, Consul, Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of the Lord, and that you are successful in this endeavor.
      Amen
      🙏✝️🙏

      • I’m not sure being deliberately obtuse is quite the same as betraying the Son of Man.

        Overturning 100 years of faith with a sweep of people’s opinions,thinking and emotions under the rug is not right though.

  4. Ahh, yes. Lèse-majesté creeps back into the weaponry of Church hierarchy. Archbishop Weisenburger seems to relish the pedestal upon which he has hoisted himself. What arrogance (and paranoia)!

    My prayers are with Mr. Kijewski and the faithful lay Catholics of the Archdiocese of Detroit.

  5. First, I am not a fan of Bishop Weisenburger given all that I have read.

    However, the following facts were presented at the time of the announcement, and are still listed on the internet:
    There are 900,000 Catholics in the diocese of Detroit, and only 16 percent attend mass weekly. Regardless of what the Vatican has said, I have read that a single priest pastoring three parishes does lead to burnout. Besides, not only is there a priest problem, but with so few parishioners per parish there is hardly enough contributions to maintain the physical facilities. I understand that people have an attachment to their parish, but if there are not enough people and financial resources to. maintain them then something has to be done.

    • Some priests can handle more than others though and this should be considered on a case by case basis. Even when my wife almost died giving birth to our son in 2002 our priest didn’t show up for the anointing and laying of hands, a lay minister did.

      Again, they should be listened to, as I’m sure even the archdiocese will admit they dont have an exclusive on good ideas.

    • Crusader
      With all due respect it’s not what needs to be done that’s the problem, I think most will agree things need to change. But how the archbishop is avoiding input and true honest input from the parishioners. He’s acting like a little Francis, do as I say mo questions asked.

  6. Crusader writes: “Besides, not only is there a priest problem, but with so few parishioners per parish there is hardly enough contributions to maintain the physical facilities. I understand that people have an attachment to their parish, but if there are not enough people and financial resources to. maintain them then something has to be done.”

    Yes, the something to be done us to show the archbishop the door.

    Seminarians in Detroit, take note. Transfer to another diocese ASAP!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*