St. Mary's parishioners have made some interesting observations lately. Part 3 in our series, here are a few more of them:

• Though St. Mary's has been threatened with closure, (and make no doubt we continue to fight and do not believe we will be closed because it is not God's will), it is interesting that no mention has been made regarding the closure of either of the two churches in Buena. Now, we at St. Mary's have always held and continue to hold the position that no church closures are necessary or justified and we are loath to see any church close. We nevertheless wonder what sense it makes to leave Malaga with no church while leaving two churches in Buena. (Here we are not even counting the proposed large chapel planned to be built at the Padre Pio Shrine, also in Landisville.)

As you can see from the map below, Our Lady of Victories and St. Michael's, the two churches that make up Queen of the Angels Parish, are only 1.1 mile away from each other. According to Google Maps, you can walk this in about 20 minutes and drive it in 3.


View Larger Map

• Fr. Namiotka has proposed--with a pastor still in place in Newfield!--that the St. Rose of Lima rectory should be turned into office space. (Out of the other side of his mouth, he claims that he has always shown respect and deference for St. Rose's existing pastor.) Let's be realistic. If it is already "too far" to come all the way from Buena to St. Mary's for Mass or Benediction, then what sense does it make to put office space in Newfield??? Though St. Rose is supposed to be the seat of the unwanted merger, the most Namiotka has held out to them is the hope of office space along with the phrase, "for now." Anyone who believes in the practicality or the plausibility of these plans ought to have their head examined.
  

• Despite the fact that the Core Teams have pointed out gaping holes in the supposed "process" practically every meeting, including the fact that their voices are not being heard or respected and that the steps are not being followed, our convener, Fr. Namiotka, has utterly disregarded them and continued to plow through, continuing to do nothing but pretend to go through the steps. Members of the Core Teams feel utterly powerless because they believe Namiotka just does whatever he wants, the Core Team "process" itself being a complete farce. They fear that they will become the "fall guys" for the church merger/closure fiasco that no one is in favor of (except Ed Namiotka and the bishop).
  

People at St. Mary's have raised some very interesting questions recently. Some are not new concepts, but they bear repeating:

• One of the premises of "merging" churches is that there will ultimately be far fewer priests. In our particular scenario, we currently have three priests living in a large, "3 suite," recently upgraded rectory in Landisville, Buena [right]. Fr. Namiotka has multiple times expressed his desire to have this be the main residence of the pastor/priests of the entity he would like to see merged because it can house multiple priests comfortably. If we are expected to have only one priest in the future,* why have such a big house? Wouldn't it make more sense to rid ourselves of an expensive and too large property in Landisville and make use of perfectly sufficient, smaller, more economical rectories in either Newfield of Malaga [left]?
  

• Of the four churches involved in the St. Mary's merger/closure group, St. Mary's is, to date, the only one to lose things. We have lost our Saturday evening Mass, a day of Eucharistic Adoration (which we were willing to extend!), and other devotions on top of it. None of these losses has been necessary! Not only that, despite the number of priests, we do not have a priest available to us consistently and we have office staff forced upon us that do not do their job efficiently. This makes it difficult to even get in touch with a priest, get a Mass card, schedule baptisms, or other such simple things. We have been forced to accept staffing that our pastor himself would never accept at "his" church. Point is, ironically, we have as many if not more priests now than we have in the past. Why, then, are we losing ANYTHING?

• Although it has been pointed out to us that church attendance is down (truthfully, it fluctuates to the point that some Sundays the church is very full and others less so), it is our understanding from talking to other surrounding churches that attendance is down at all the local churches. Not down as in, "well, people just aren't religious anymore," but down as compared to a year or two ago. We can only conclude that people are not necessarily choosing to go to different churches, but not to go to church at all. The fact that the diocese not only expects this decrease, but accepts it reflected in the fact that it says to only consider 75% of a church's ordinary income going into a merger. So they expect to lose 25% due to attrition or decreased giving, both of which would reflect dissatisfaction to say the least.

Why are people leaving? Our guess is disillusionment and despair. People see what's going on, for goodness sakes. How is this helping the Church? Or souls? We at Save St. Mary's predicted this would happen, but do the diocese, Church leadership, or even local priests care? Apparently, they do not care enough to see the writing on the wall and stop merging and closing churches.

* Frankly, we have no idea if a reduction in priests is realistic or not. Right now we have more priests and fewer services. One of the three priests in Landisville is a religious order priest who is in the process of incardinating into the diocese.

AKA: Sabotage and Brow Beating Dressed Up as Legitimate "Process" 

Left: A wolf in sheep's clothing. Below, the [becoming more apparent] wolf in wolf's clothing.

This blog is a continuation of the previous blog's "Status Chart of the Merger Manual Agenda Items for the Newfield, Malaga, and Buena Group," dated June 15, 2010.

Note:  At the beginning of Meeting 4 (Jan 12th), the merger date of January 2011 was announced without any input or coherent explanation.

 

The Following Are Dates of the Core Team Meetings where Agendas Were Supposedly Covered:

Mtgs 1-3: Nov 17^th (no minutes from any other meeting provided)

 

Mtg 4: Jan 12^th

 

Mtg 5: Mar 1^st

 

Mtg 6: April 6^th

 

Mtg 7: May 4^th

 

• There was also an additional meeting held on October 14, 2009, where the CORE TEAM met to vote on the Presbyteral Council's recommended plan that Collings Lakes remain stand-alone.

 

• Although this plan was presented as somehow originating with the CORE TEAM, it in fact did not. When the CORE TEAM had met earlier in the year with Msgrs. Burton and McGrath, the idea of Collings Lakes standing alone was never even brought up. Rather, the CORE TEAM had recommended a cluster instead of a merger.

 

• While this October 14, 2009 meeting did not cover anything other than the new proposal, it is worth noting that the original vote was 6-6. It was only after a very lengthy arm-twisting session, that the second vote was taken and resulted in an 8-4 tally in favor of the proposal. During this arm-twisting /brow-beating session, it was promised by the CONVENERS that there would be no timeline with the new proposal. They said that the merger process could take as long as necessary to do it right. A time period of 3-5 years was possible.

 

• It was also stated that all of the churches could remain open under the new proposed plan. Conversely, it was threatened that St. Mary's would be imminently closed if we did not vote "yes." (Despite the threatening, St. Mary's core team members still voted "no.")

 

• Even though a 3-5 year timeline given, within three months of our vote to have Collings Lakes stand alone, we were given a target merger date - without any explanation, discussion, or input - of one year. The previous "Status Chart of the Merger Manual Agenda Items" shows how unrealistic this is, not to mention severely lacking in integrity.

What are we implying  here? Certainly not that St. Mary's wants to merge. Here we are showing that our convener, Fr. Ed Namiotka, is only superficially going through the steps of the "Destroying God's Gifts" process. He has made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of actually completing the steps, but just having the meetings so it looks like he's done what the Diocese requires.

The input of the various Core Teams, who were selected by the conveners, is totally and completely dismissed by him. Namiotka dismisses any input contrary to his agenda, which seems to be to destroy our parish and "merge" us against our will. While stating that he "has no intention of closing St. Mary's" numerous times to many people, he has also threatened to close us up if we don't do what he wants us to do, which is to go along with his merger process. In fact, at our little rosary rally last night, an elderly member of our parish asked us this: "I thought he said he was not going to close St. Mary's?" We think you can probably guess what our answer to his question was.

Despite the lack of substance, and the fact that the conveners previously stated a 3-5 year timeline was likely, Namiotka has suddenly decided that he wants us merged by January 2011. Someone breathing down your neck, Fr. Ed? Let us again state here that St. Mary's has NO intention of merging.

Have a nice second vacation, relaxing on those Caribbean beaches, Fr. Ed Namiotka. Must be nice. More to come.

ITEM #	DESCRIPTION	STATUS COMMENTS
1-1	Decide who will take minutes at this meeting.	COMPLETE.
1-2	Review the overall process of merging to ensure common understanding.	COMPLETE (more or less).
1-3	Prepare a common announcement to inform parishes that the merger process is starting. Decide the date of the announcement so all parishes receive the same information at the same time.	COMPLETE.
1-4	Decide how to introduce the CORE TEAM members to the merging parishes.	Not done.
1-5	Set the date, time, and place of the next 2, 3, and 4 meetings. Rotate the locations among the merging parishes whenever possible.	Not done during Meeting 1.
1-6	Ask Pastors to complete the "Facts About the Parish" form for Meeting 4 and make the needed number of copies (see Merger Manual, Appendices: Section B, Forms)	Not done or at least never distributed.
1-7	Decide who will inform the participants of meeting 4 of the venue and whether you will have written agendas, how they will be created, distributed, and who will take minutes.	Not done - probably why Meeting 4 was a disaster.
1-8	Prepare for the Meeting 2 agenda, setting a typical format, and normal length of meetings.	Not done, but then neither was Meeting 2 agenda.
2/3-1	Orientation to the role and focus of the work of the CORE TEAM in the merger process. The focus should always be to bring the merging parishes into one, to prepare for the administration and staff of the new parish, to strengthen ministries toward greater vibrancy.	COMPLETE (more or less).
2/3-2	Decide whether there has been sufficient attention paid to the grieving process. If needed revisit and arrange for any of the six processes for Coping with Change (see Section A-6) to aid the merging parishes with grieving.	Not done.
2/3-3	Discuss and decide on some community-building events or processes which can bring the merging communities together.	Not done - discussed having event on Feb 14, but never did. Communicated some Christmas events to other parishes. "Community" Penance service - around 25 attended from all 3 parishes - almost all from Q of A.
2/3-4	At Meeting 2, distribute and discuss the information provided on the form "Facts About the Present Parish" (Appendices: Section B) completed by the pastors. Parish Profiles already completed for priests applying to be CONVENERS should also be made available.	Not done.
2/3-5	Arrange to gather information about the history, customs, and traditions of each parish.	Not done.
2/3-6	Name the values, skills, and present feelings the parishes hold in common.	Not done.
2/3-7	Brainstorm effective ways to communicate to the parishes as a whole.	Not done.
2/3-8	Prepare for Meeting 4 with the Pastoral Councils, Finance Councils.	Not done other than to set date and place.
4-1	Orientation to the merger process to ensure common understandings.	COMPLETE (more or less).
4-2	Clarification of the different leadership roles in the merger process.	COMPLETE (more or less).
4-3	Pastoral Councils members discuss their own Parish Overview Worksheets (Merger Manual, Appendices: Section B Forms) and the Financial Summaries.	Not done - at time of meeting only Q of A had been given the worksheets. Financial summaries not discussed at all - only cost of priests discussed in generic terms.
4-4	There is no meeting 4, agenda 4 item listed.	N/A
4-5	Observations and discussion areas should be reflected in the minutes.	Not done.
5-1	Decide which values and priorities need to be brought forward to the new parish based on the data gathered about each parish in the merger and the input from the Pastoral Councils and Finance Councils, Parish Profiles, history, customs, and traditions will need to be considered in accord with the Facets of a Vibrant Parish. It is important that the new parish moves toward vibrancy. Past practices of all the parishes need to be considered to see which ones should be brought forward, modified, improved, or consolidated.	Not done.
5-2	Discuss an initial outline of a plan and timeline, using the general outline of sections in the Merger Manual, to accomplish tasks in order to establish the new parish.	Not done.
5-3	Decide what committees are needed to assist their work. Be clear about their goal, the scope of their task and put that in writing. Decide on the means of selecting membership and chairpersons and how committees will report. (Short written reports are very helpful to keep CORE TEAM meetings moving).	Never discussed what committees are needed - mandated, then discussed each committee briefly.
5-4	Decide on ways to communicate with the parishioners and councils of the merging parishes (see Merger Manual, Section A, "Communicating during a Time of Change," p.7).	Not done.
5-5	Set a visit time to walk through each of the facilities of the current parishes.	Only partially done prior to Malaga having CORE TEAM members . Convener stated that he has no intention of completing.
5-6	Prepare for the Meeting 6 agenda.	Not done.
6-1	Written reports given by committee chairpersons.	Three committees presented written reports - all were very formational/preliminary.
6-2	Continue discussion regarding a draft of an overall plan. In the planning always focus on ways to bring the parish communities together, spiritually, socially, and ministerially.	Not done.
6-3	Begin to develop a comprehensive draft of a plan of how the new parish will use the existing facilities. Ultimately this plan is presented for diocesan review to ensure that it complies with both canon law and civil law.	Not even started - listed some of facilities to be considered.
6-4	Begin working with the naming process for the new parish. This is not intended to be accomplished in one session (See sample process, Merger Manual, SECTION D-7, page 51-55.)	Not even started.
6-5	Prepare for Meeting 7 agenda.	Not done.
7-1	Report on the social, liturgical, and information calendar for promoting unity among parishes.	Pushed off until September for social. No mention of liturgical or informational.
7-2	Complete the draft regarding the use of the facilities so it can be submitted for review by the Diocesan Merger Review Committee.	Not even started - committee has not met.
7-3	Report on the continuing engagement of the parish with the process of naming the parish.	Pushed back to September.
7-4	Discuss how to blend parish ministries and what methods are appropriate for each ministry and program.	Talked briefly of what will do in future, mostly related to music. No substantive discussion.
7-5	Discuss the composition and role of a staffing committee to assist the PRIEST CONVENER and CORE TEAM with the hiring of personnel for the new parish.	COMPLETE.
7-6	Prepare the Meeting 8 agenda.	Not done.

In a recent bulletin,* Fr. Edward Namiotka used his bully pulpit to elaborate on his pipe dream of destroying our parish in the name of "merger." We will elaborate on his points in coming posts, but today we will begin with his desire to ensure his continued comfort.

In discussing what supposedly was accomplished at a core team meeting, he says,

During the meeting I suggested that Queen of the Angels Rectory is best suited as the future residence of priests since there are 3 suites (bedroom, sitting room, and private bath) in this building. It easily and comfortably accommodates three priests without any necessary renovations. The parish office could be located in another building.

Of course, this parish, "Queen of the Angels Parish," is where Namiotka has been located and it is the parish that he has repeatedly referred to as "my parish." (We at St. Mary's are like sheep without a shepherd other than Our Lord Himself.)


We find it interesting that in the face of devastating so many people, Namiotka is concerned primarily with his own personal "comfort." If you were to see the exterior of this rectory building in Landisville [above and below], you would probably notice that it is a rather large house to accommodate only three adults. It is certainly much larger than the homes of most people we know. Of course, we don't happen to know anyone who has a one-bathroom-per-person home.

Following is the content of a May 4, 2010 letter to Bishop Galante (emphasis is ours).  The letter, which speaks for itself, was signed by the members Newfield's Parish Council and Newfield's Core Team. The letter was publicly posted on the door of St. Rose.

 

Dear Bishop,

As members of the St. Rose of Lima Parish Council and responsible and constructive members of our local community, we wish to share with you some of the concerns about our local merger.

Change is a part of life and is to be expected in both Church and any social group or organization.

You will remember the great interest amd turnout when you arrived here for the Speak Up Sessions.  St. Rose was among the top parishes in number of attendum at these sessions.

We have cooperated fully with the deanery meetings concerning mergers.

When you announced in the Cathedral your intention for the new entity, St. Rose of Lima, Newfield, Queen of the Angels including St. Michael of Minotola and Our Lady of Victories of Landisville, St. Mary's of Malaga and Our Lady of the Lakes, Collings Lakes, under the two Co-Conveners, Fr. John Cavagnaro and Fr. Ed Namiotka, we participated in all that was required of us.

As of December 2009, we learned that Our Lady of the Lakes had been removed from the new entity and that Fr. Ed Namiotka is the sole convener.  Where things may have been bad in the past, they have now become worse.  We are concerned that we are considered part of a rebellious group.

We have experienced change with Collings Lakes now out of the mix.  The fact that the two co-conveners could not work together is known by all.

In place of moving forward, building unity and consensus, the Convener has placed us on the fast track to merge in January of 2011.  The meeting of the Parish Councils and the Core Groups ended with the Convener enraged and leaving the meeting with business unfinished.  Many questions remain unanswered.

The Convener is moving on with the merger for January.  He is having meetings just to have meetings and to get them over with.  Many questions remain unanswered with little positive outcome.  The Core Group members were picked by the Convener and some now feel like they are puppets, being told to do this or else you will be replaced. 

You must be made aware of this sham as we do not want this to reflect on you or your office.  Transparency is very important.

A January deadline with the manual not being followed, we fear will only create rebellion and lawsuits which will benefit no one.

 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

...But never you fear! The fight continues on!

What was said?

When we questioned a core team member (who, by the way, was not from Malaga) about the April 6th "core team" meeting, they stated that "priest convener" Fr. Ed Namiotka,  intends to ram through a merger no matter what anyone says. He apparently stated that, as he has done to the present, he has no intention of actually following the steps outlined in the merger manual, but only having the meetings and not actually doing what the merger manual states should be done. In this way he intends to push a merger through by January 2011, even if he has to meet "without St. Mary's core team." How can you have a "process" with "representatives" but then refuse to meet with them and listen to what they say? What's the big rush, Father? Someone breathing down your neck?

It is ironic that out of one side of his mouth he claims that this process is honest and open-ended, but in reality he intends to do precisely what he wants, even if it means just superficially glossing over the steps and forcing the merger and consequential closure of our church. For shame!

Moreover, more than once he has threatened to replace core team members if they fail to do just as he wants them to do. Yes, it's a puppet process.

St. Mary's is Unified in Opposition

St. Mary's parish has been completely unified in opposing this merger and closure since day one and has been consistent in this position. St. Mary's core team, our "representatives" according to our "convener's" own words, have consistently advocated that the "process" needs to be re-started from Step 1 since none of the steps have even been followed in the least. Our "representatives" have not been listened to but have instead been told that their "representation" of us will specifically not be listened to and that our "convener" will do what he wants to do. Some representation! What a farce!

Secrecy is the Name of the Game

Further, he has told us, the parishioners of St. Mary's, that these meetings are "closed meetings." He has previously told the core team members that what goes on at these meetings is to be kept "under the veil of secrecy" due to all the arm-twisting and intimidation that goes on there. If this "process" was truly a "representative" one, if this "process" was truly honest, there would be no secrets because there would be nothing to hide. Apparently there is plenty to hide in the Church and too many bishops and priests are well practiced at employing the "veil of secrecy" method of doing business. This veil of secrecy gives our religion a bad name.

But we all know this is not a process and St. Mary's Parish has said so since the beginning. It is a program of intimidation and the forced closure of churches. Well we at St. Mary's intend to fight this sabotage and evildoing because it is wrong. WE WILL NOT BE COMPLICIT IN THE CLOSURE OF OUR CHURCH. WE WILL FIGHT IT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. We will continue on as we always have, functioning as a true parish family, not an artificially concocted one.

Whose Will is it these "Priest Conveners" are Doing, Anyway?

Again we say, what kind of priest goes around and closing churches? And whose will is he doing? Surely not God's, because God would never advocate lying, intimidation, secrecy, and the closure of His House. One can only wonder what such a priest hopes to obtain in the end, after doing such nefarious work.

But the Church Herself teaches that one cannot do evil in the name of good (or even in the name of some reward one hopes to obtain someday for one's obedience/complicity). Just because a bishop says, "Jump!" does not mean one should respond, "How high?" If nothing else, the fallout from the child abuse scandals should be proof enough of that. No, we must be ever-vigilant and remember that although evil will never prevail against the Church, evil can certainly penetrate.

There is only One's will to be done here and that is God's. There is no gray area. God requires our obedience to Him first and foremost, and nothing can contradict that. As St. Thomas More said, "I am the king's good servant, but God's first." In the end, before His throne, we the faithful have to answer to Him and will have to explain how we defended the Church (or didn't). Priests and bishops will also have to answer for how they defended the Church--or were instrumental in leading souls away from the Church by closing churches down.

The Semantic Game

When I first met our current pastor/priest convener, I made it clear to him that, "You won't have an easy time closing us, Father." Looking startled, he responded, "I'm not here to close the church." I looked right at him and I said, "Good. Glad to hear that." Needless to say, I intend to hold him to his word. Though I fully realize that to him it's probably merely a game of semantics, that he feels that somehow he's not technically "here" to "close" the church but only to "merge" it and attend to our spiritual needs (although he's shown his intense dislike of us so many times since he first arrived that it seems that's just as much his role). Others at St. Mary's have likened this "I'm not here to close the church" response to going to the movies and using the restroom facilities. We did not go to the movies specifically to use the restroom, we just happened to do that while we were there.

Anyway, we all know what happens at the end of "merger." The people of St. John Vianney and other parishes can attest to that outcome and to the many lies they were fed in the "process." Therefore we must be so careful to listen to what is being said and not said, sift through the verbiage, and figure out what is really happening. We must be careful that we ourselves do not fall into the devil's trap of lies and semantic games. God doesn't want us to play fast and loose with semantics. The Lord Himself said, "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no,"* We should be direct and truthful with our words, and our lives ought to follow suit.

In any case, at St. Mary's, we're not stupid. We will clearly see if he was telling the truth over a year ago. What's he really here to do? So far as we can tell, he's a convener, and as a convener he's agreed (not been forced, but has agreed) to try to "convene" (force the merger of) four churches. But what's the carrot? Time will tell.

I personally have always believed Fr. Namiotka's here to try to shut us down, and every action has been to that end. If that is the case, and that seems to be what he came right out and said at the core team meeting the other night, then we have different interests a heart and have chosen up sides. Everyday when we wake up in the morning we choose--will we do God's will today or someone else's?

* Matthew 5:37, James 5:12 

Springtime is picketnic time at St. Mary's.  Since the "merger" is being rammed down our throats without even following the diocese's own "merger manual," we decided it was time to dust off those old picket signs, and even make a few new ones.  

           

Forty-five people turned out for the rally, which included a picnic.

            

We had just finished eating as the core team members started arriving, including Kathie Ramos (pictured on left), from St. Mary's, and Kathy Valla (pictured on right), from St. Rose of Lima.  

            

Finally, Fr. Ed arrived, driven by Buena core team member Kitty Finn.  Fellow Buena core team member May Vassallo is seen in the back seat.

                                       

Fr. Ed started to get out of the car, but decided to flee the scene instead, shouting from the car to the other core team members that the meeting would be moved to Newfield.

Luckily, our new banner is lightweight and easily portable.  It can go anywhere - Newfield, Buena, or even Sacred Heart High School.

                                        

Andy Walton, Diocesan spinmaster (spokesman), was quoted in the CP article we linked to yesterday as saying, "the [law] suit was premature because 'no (merger) decree has been issued and there's been no alteration of the parish.'" Well that's an interesting perspective, isn't it? Using this logic, all "core team" meetings and other plans to close, consolidate, and otherwise alter parishes and churches are also premature. Of course, if a decree had been issued, they would argue that if a complaint was to have been registered it should have been raised before the decree was issued. Let's face it. Any parish who sees the writing on the wall needs to act quickly and proactively, not after the ink is dry and the wrecking machines are in place. When wrong is being done, we are obliged to speak out about it. Using Divine law as a guide, all plans to destroy God's churches and, as the current Diocesan administration intends to do, change the Catholic Faith to resemble evangelical protestantism, are always premature since they are entirely unwarranted and wrong. But it doesn't appear the Diocese is using Divine law as its guide, but instead corporate law, or something equally ungodly.

St. John Vianney parishioners, our prayers are with you. It is time to again stand up and voice your opposition to this evil act. Do what is necessary to make your position clear.

Here is the [poor] Courier Post article in which they mislead the reader by making it appear that St. John Vianney* is much younger than it is. Also, notice how idiotic and deceptive the reasoning is. The CP only speaks to core team members, not to those unhappy with the loss of their parish. Anyone who thinks that people in the diocese, much less SJV parisihoners, are "accepting" and in favor of this merger plan is deluding themselves.

In case you haven't already guessed, St. John Vianney is a beautiful little country parish. It is small, old, and traditional. No wonder the bishop wants it gone.

It is sad that its pastor, a priest we happen to like very much, has not supported his parishioners and the rights of the parish to its existance as stipulated by canon law and Church history. This has been the case throughout the diocese. Some care too much for the stability of their status and their standing with the bishop and not enough for the tending of their flock and standing in opposition to that which is overtly wrong.

They hope to "get people back" by closing their parish??? What kind of reasoning is that? The only people who buy this line of reasoning are some on the core teams. By doing this, they are effectively slamming the door in the face to those who ever thought of returning to the Church, but that's just as well to Galante, who has a "new church" in mind that bears little resemblance to the Church we know. Scroll down to the comments.

Snip:

The parishes -- St. Margaret in Woodbury Heights and St. John Vianney in Deptford -- are to merge Jan. 13, Galante said. The new parish will be called Infant Jesus....

The merged parish, with its seat in Woodbury Heights, will serve 3,300 families. It will be led by the Rev. Joseph T. Szolack, the current pastor of St. Margaret's.

St. John Vianney Church will serve as a worship site "as needed by the new parish," the diocese said in a statement.

St. Margaret's Parish was founded in 1961 during a period of suburban growth in Woodbury Heights. St. John Vianney became a parish in 1971.

Merger preparations began in November 2008 when a "core team," with members from each parish, held an initial meeting with Szolack. Parish members since that time have worshipped together and shared social activities, such as a carnival and pancake breakfasts, the diocese said.

"Initially there was some uncertainty as to how this would all work," said Mark Cipolone, a core team member from St. Margaret's. "Now, parishioners are accepting and looking to moving forward."

Cipolone acknowledged a desire to see the survival of St. Margaret's, which was founded in 1961, and St. John Vianney, a parish since 1971.

"Given the realities, we have to do it," he said. "We have to get people to come back."

Galante's announcement came two days after the merger of three parishes in Camden County. Those parishes -- St. Luke in Stratford, St. Lawrence in Lindenwold and Our Lady of Grace in Somerdale -- are now Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish.

The next merger is to take effect Dec. 23, when two Cherry Hill parishes -- St. Pius X and Holy Rosary -- are to become Holy Eucharist Parish.

So far, 17 parishes have merged since late July, reducing the diocesan total by nine.

Comments:

Replying to armageddon:

Bishop Galante is in the wrong pew....
He should be our next Governor......

Yes, he should merge public school districts but leave our churches and parishes alone.
12/12/2009 8:12:25 AM

Maybe the parishioners at St. Margaret are coming to "accept" it but I can assure you those at St. John Vianney, which incidentally has been there long before 1971 (as St. Agnes), are not "accepting" it. And before anyone says anything, St. John Vianney is a full parish on Sundays and in the black.
12/12/2009 12:39:37 PM

Replying to watertoo:

Maybe the parishioners at St. Margaret are coming to "accept" it but I can assure you those at St. John Vianney, which incidentally has been there long before 1971 (as St. Agnes), are not "accepting" it. And before anyone says anything, St. John Vianney is a full parish on Sundays and in the black.

It is not fair that they are closing a fully self-sufficient church like St. John Vianney. I wish that the Courier Post would interview other church goers besides core team members.
12/12/2009 1:28:02 PM

Geographically, how do they justify elderly parish members that live in Deptford traveling to Woodbury Heights? It is not around the corner!! This is one of many reasons I have left my catholic background. There is no thought to the people just to the politics!!
12/12/2009 6:16:53 PM

The obese bishop must be removed. He is uneducated and stupid. Anyone who puts money in the plate is a fool. Remember the house of charity is the bishp's home.
12/12/2009 8:06:04 PM

* The SJV website has been significantly downsized from what it once was. It was once one of the best church websites in the diocese. Guess they were told to downsize it to only the absolutely essential information. Are the parishioners being told it's time to roll over and die?

It is sad that in our current era of church closings and widespread corruption, many of us have witnessed something we have never heard of before. Too often, mass and church are being used as weapons held over the heads of the laity. If we do not go along with or agree with the closure of our beloved churches or tactics and practices employed by the "new catholicism," we are repeatedly threatened with lack of holy mass and with the closure of our ancestral houses of God. Completely inappropriate and unholy strong-arming tactics abound, most notably in core team "processes" but also elsewhere. We have several specific incidents we could relay involving different people, but we will not do this since the principle stands on its own. The bottom line is that one should never threaten to withhold the things of God from people as a means of securing one's own wishes. This is immoral. The people of God have a right to the things of God, to the sacraments, to holy mass, and to the churches which they have built and maintained as fruit of their labors and sacrifices for the love of God. When this sort of threatening occurs, it causes one to wonder about a sad estrangement from the original call of God to holy orders. Have some lost that Vision? Let us remember to forgive those who have decided to employ such horrendous tactics since they are severely misled. We pray, as always, that we all are continually converted in heart and mind and remember to Whom our allegiance is owed, for in the end, it is before His throne we will be judged.

On Friday November 20th, I attended one (of two) days of the "Lifelong Faith Formation" seminar/workshop/conference/whatever. It was held at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish in Absecon. Honestly I had no idea what to expect in terms of particulars, but my expectations were fairly low. (This way I could be pleasantly surprised.) I hoped to come from the day with a few ideas for our parish pertaining to RCIA or adult religious education, and maybe some curricula to flip through. Well, I really didn't get either of these. As it turns out, the seminar was mainly intended to help parishes implement a specific "faith formation" program. It was largely an "insert Tab A into Slot B" type of thing, with some options to make the program suit your own "community," but it was definitely a program. And yes, it was alarming, but I'll talk more about the program generally in the future.

Our Lady of the Lakes in Collings Lakes, formerly part of the St. Mary's Malaga, St. Rose of Lima Newfield, and Queen of Angels Parish (St. Michael's Minotola & Our Lady of Victories Landisville) merger/closure group was just permitted to remain stand-alone. Why? We have received no answer to this question. From their Nov. 15th bulletin:

I have received word from the diocesan Vicar General
that the bishop has approved the Core Team proposal that
our parish would remain a stand alone parish. But we are
encouraged to share resources and programs with the
merging parishes of Buena, Newfield, and Malaga.
This is great news for our Parish because we can continue
as usual serving the needs of the Collings Lakes area.
This is a good news 'short term' situation considering the
underlying problem of a priest shortage in our Diocese.
As more priests retire the present active priests will be
called on to do more. All of us must be ready for the future
when there may not be a priest in residence here. In the
meantime lets be a vibrant sustainable community.
To celebrate this good news we will have a wine and
cheese, coffee and cake celebration in our hall after the
Saturday evening Mass next week. Invite your friends and
family to the 5pm Mass which will have our new
'Lures of the Lakes' choir singing. Then socialize,
celebrate, and relax with your friends and neighbors.

What a slap in the face to the "process" and to all of the other churches in this diocese that would also like to remain stand-alone. "Core team" arm twisting is, apparently, part of the open and honest "process," but how such decisions are made remains a mystery to all of us. Political expedience, string-pulling, and personality conflict at high levels seem to be the order of the day. In truth, we the Catholic faithful have no real input at all, though we are required to speak the Truth by virtue of our baptism and confirmation.

Here's a letter to the editor from Diocese of Camden spinmaster, Andy Walton. Don't laugh right away, read it first.

Re: "Do not care" (letters, Aug. 27).

The letter writer from Magnolia, whose struggling parish is merging with two nearby parishes, suggested that Bishop Joseph Galante, his priest advisers, deanery planning teams, planning commission and Core Teams "do not care" about the pain being felt by parishioners when their parishes merge.

The feelings of loss that accompany change of this kind are not being ignored. In fact, unlike other dioceses that have moved far more quickly with parish reconfigurations, the bishop insisted there be a period of 12 to 24 months before he issued decrees formally establishing new parishes. He did this in recognition of the sense of loss he knew would be experienced and to give parishes adequate time to prepare to come together.

During this time, he has heard personally from parishioners in every part of the diocese and has acknowledged the disappointment many naturally feel. The fact is, if he didn't care, he would not be taking steps to address the needs of Catholics in South Jersey. If he didn't care, he wouldn't be working to reverse downward trends in religious practice.

The fact is, it is precisely because the bishop cares so deeply about the well-being of parishioners and because of his great love for the Church and the people of South Jersey that he has undertaken the effort now under way to strengthen parishes and improve care to the people.

ANDREW WALTON Office of Communications Diocese of Camden Camden

St. Gregory's:
Andy's talking about the beautiful St. Gregory's (above) in Magnolia. Galante, McGrath, and Walton "care" so much they seem to have sold the property to Wawa. Who do they think they're fooling? We've got pictures of the surveyors sent to us by a concerned reader back last Christmas. Money talks, and to the tune of 10 million dollars, apparently. Empathy my foot. It's prime real estate.


View Larger Map

"Downward trends in religious practice":
As to the misleading demographic information continually touted by Mr. Walton, we've addressed it numerous times. It's lies. Just look here and here and here. All you have to do is look on a map to see where Magnolia is to know that the Catholic population in that area can only be expanding, not decreasing. We're not talking rural Fairton, Cumberland County here or Dennis Township, Cape May County. We're talking close proximity to Philadelphia in a congested, continually expanding area of South Jersey.

The plain fact is that the Catholic population in NJ and in South Jersey in particular is dramatically increasing. In fact the Catholic population in NJ has increased by at least 2.5% since 1990, by roughly 100,000 people. In Gloucester County alone we're looking at a Catholic increase of at least 20% since 1990. The Catholic population is only decreasing in South Jersey's only true urban centers, Camden and Atlantic City, as illustrated below:

                    Deptford           Salem County                Camden                   Atlantic City

1950                 7,304                 49,508                       124,555                       61,657

1960               17,878                 58,711                       117,159                       59,544

2006-7*          30,529                 66,595                         80,010                      39,684

*most recent available estimate

"Reversing Downward Trends":
Do they really care about reversing supposed downward trends or about justifying their own agenda? If all they care about is giving people what they want, they should stop watering down the Faith and desiring to build protestant style megachurches. And if they are truly targeting young adults, as they should, this group wants one of two things, neither of which the Diocese of Camden is offering: (1) an authentic and unapologetic Christianity, or (2) at the very least, clarity and a lack of hypocrisy. This is why you see the most traditional churches and religious orders growing. Alternately those who are leaving the Church are leaving for a protestantism whose Christianity is clear and faith exacting. Others who leave leave the Faith and stay away out of disgust for the likes of people like Walton and others who pretend religion but in reality have nothing but political motives. See these comments on Andy's letter, for example:

bjd0305:

It is more effective to have fewer churches with more people in them. god is a hell of a businessman
9/2/2009 8:27:08 AM

firebird 7478 replying to bjd0305:

Which is why he's always asking for more money.
9/2/2009 10:41:42 AM

Case in point. House of "Charity" anyone?

"Feelings of Loss that Accompany Change":
We addressed this patronizing attitude just the other day. So we quote ourselves!

They have spewed psychobabble pertaining to the alleged difficulty that we, the laity have coping with change. This kind of patronizing dribble is without merit because it fails to address the purpose of the change and merely holds up "change" as having inherent value. This type of rhetoric attempts to put the Catholic faithful on the defensive, as if we have to prove our ability to healthily cope with change by accepting the destruction of our parishes. The question remains, is the change we are expected to embrace a change toward the Good, toward God's Will, toward God Himself? What are we supposed to be changing to?

"Heard Personally From Parishioners":
And, apparently, listened to few of them. Go ahead and ask St. Gregory's how "listened to" they're feeling right about now. They got "listened" right into closure.

Here are a few comments on a recent letter to the editor lamenting the pain that Catholic parishes are now enduring. The person who emailed us the link to these comments said this:

Please check out Charlie 164's post. He is saying that even parish core teams are realizing that the bishop's reconfiguration plan will financially hurt the parishes and Catholic schools. Remember, core team members had to take an assessment to prove that they were open minded about the bishop's plans before they could be designated core team members.

Geraldine:
just wait til the churches come down and the wawas go up
8/10/2009 9:47:13 AM

Charlie164:

Since it's well-known, at least among people in Vineland, that Bishop Galante has long wanted to close the historic and beautiful Sacred Heart (roughly the size of the cathedral in Camden), which outrages many (myself included since this is the church of my ancestors), this is no great surprise. In fact, it's the oldest trick in the book. One way of messing with a group's identity is to remove its long-standing leader. While Fr. Amabile's mother is apparently sick, (may the Lord bless her,) that seems a very convenient thing for the Galante administration.

What's still so surprising is that a native Vinelander, Msgr. John Burton, would continue to work with Galante in achieving this end. Shame! (One wonders, is it all about getting ahead and making brownie points?)

His departure would not affect Galante's plan to cut 124 parishes in the diocese down to 68, Walton said. Sacred Heart Parish and St. Isidore the Farmer Parish on Magnolia Road will merge under the plan, with St. Isidore assuming primary worship duties.

It seems to be most people's assumption that since St. Isidore's on Magnolia has so much land, Galante plans to use it to create his gigantic Vineland, evangelical protestant-style megachurch on that spot. But I suppose a traditional and beautiful Catholic church, no matter the size or history, does not serve the bishop's purposes.

(Below are maps of St. Isidore's on top and Sacred heart on the bottom. If you'd like to examine the maps more closely just click on them.)

View Larger Map


View Larger Map

Besides all that, closing Sacred Heart would rip the soul out of what is left of downtown Vineland. What a way to build "community" and help the less fortunate--to move the main Vineland parish to the burbs.

It would seem appropriate at this time to thank the Augustinian Order, in all seriousness and sincerity, for helping us in South Jersey by sending us priests for all these years. They have been a great blessing, and continue to to be, even, as Fr. Marty Smith referred to them, as "rent-a-priests" when parishes are in a pinch. We thank you!

The article is below. You may also read Daily Journal article by clicking here.

Sacred Heart pastor moving on to N.Y. post

By KRISTI FUNDERBURK • Staff Writer • August 11, 2009

For anyone who doesn't receive the transition newsletter series, this latest one (#18, from 01-09-2009) is pretty funny, so I wanted to share it with you.  Like the rest, its entertainment value far outweighs its "news" content.  But at least you get to see how your charitable contributions are being spent at the diocesan level.

 

The newsletter starts with what can only be described as a large bowl of word salad from Marilyn Vollmer:

 

"Belated and prayer wishes for the New Year!  My fingers find it difficult to type 2009 as this number marks the 3rd year of planning preparations leading toward the goal of renewed and dynamic parish life in South Jersey."               

I'm not sure if this greeting is an attempt at New-Aginess or just a sign of intellectual decline.  I'm also not sure if her fingers are disappointed that the program has taken so long or if they are just in shock that this farce has been allowed to continue for three years now. 

 

Anyway, the word salad greeting is followed up with some platitudes, then this interesting analogy:

 

"At a deeper level this is a profoundly spiritual journey of the Paschal mystery, the same mystery we celebrate every Lent that climaxes with the Easter Triduum: life, death, and resurrection so that others may have life."

Ooh, I like metaphors.  Let me try this one out.  Our parishes are like Jesus, their destruction is like His crucifixion, and the new parishes are like His resurrection.  Not at all sure I agree with the last part of that, but I'll play along and extend the metaphor a bit further.  I guess that means that the Bishop would be like...Judas.  Those who know this is wrong, but refuse to say or do anything about it for fear of losing their position would be like...Pontius Pilate.  And the people from stand-alone parishes and primary worship sites who support this reconfiguration because it validates the "holiness" of their own parish would be like...the Jews crying out "Crucify Him!"  You make a good point Marilyn - thanks for the insight! 

 

Next comes the rolling out of a "leadership" training program by Peg Garvey-Mitchell for all core team members and conveners.  I can't think of a better way to waste large amounts of money than this.  Even the empty "convent" in Pittsgrove may eventually increase in value, but this is just silly.  If leadership can be taught at all, it would certainly take a lot more than a few hours with a consultant whose qualifications seem questionable.  Peg Garvey-Mitchell's profile on the National Pastoral Life Center website is strikingly devoid of any real credentials:

 

"Ms. Peg Garvey-Mitchell - Planning Consultant for non-profits

"Peg comes to us from with a vast experience of planning experiences which include leadership development, communication skills and group process. She recently served as a facilitator for the Diocese of Metuchen's First Synod. She is a consultant to the NPLC and facilitated the 2007 and 2008 Bernardin Conferences for the Catholic Common Ground Initiative."

No degrees or training are mentioned and no specific experience referenced prior to 2007 - just the generic claim of "a vast experience of planning experiences."  Surely, in such a short bio, there would have been room to mention at least one of the vast experiences.  I just don't get it - first Follieri, now Peg Garvey-Mitchell - who is making these decisions and where is the accountability? 

 

But my favorite line of the whole newsletter is this:

 

"It goes without saying that attending the Training Sessions is a must for the Priest Conveners."

Well, I guess it also goes without saying that if it really went without saying, Marilyn would not be saying it, much less underlining the word "must."  Yes, you conveners, you must go see Peg Garvey-Mitchell.  Without the benefit of her "vast experience of planning experiences," how will you ever learn how to communicate or lead?    

 

The newsletter ends with a note that Marilyn will be addressing questions about worship sites soon.  We've heard that the diocese is going to stop using the term "secondary" for worship sites to try to stem opposition from those parishes designated "secondary worship sites."  That's not confirmed yet, though, so we'll just have to wait and see.

 

My fingers find it difficult to type 309 as this number marks the 309th blog entry since the planning preparation decisions leading to the destruction of nearly half the parishes in South Jersey were announced.   Delayed and charm thoughts for the New Year to you too, Marilyn.

I just got off the phone with one of our COP members from Assumption, Wildwood Crest, who gave me an update on what's been going on there.  If their convener, Fr. Michael Field, had any misconceptions about how Assumption felt about him or the merger, I think they are now cleared up. 

Fr. Field presided over one of Assumption's Masses this past weekend. During Mass, Fr. Field decided to go a little charismatic and asked the congregation to raise their hands and pray over their core team.  The parishioners collectively and entirely chose not to participate in this stage production.  The meet and greet afterward gave an equally powerful message, with approximately five parishioners from Assumption attending.  Assumption is a pretty big church - they have 1,350 notarized signatures for their canon law appeal (including signatures of all four members of their core team).  This is a very clear statement about Assumption's opinion of the merger and of their convener, whom they have asked to resign from that position for several reasons that I won't get into here. 

Of course, Fr. Field may not be spending as much time down the shore as he'd like to in the near future because his own parishioners at Queen of Heaven in Cherry Hill are also getting organized to fight their merger.  This is thanks in part to the complete arrogance and rudeness of their own priest convener, Fr. Tom Newton.  The story, as I'm told, is that Fr. Tom went into a Knights of Columbus meeting and stated that Queen of Heaven would be closing in May, the church would immediately be sold to the highest bidder and there would be no Knights of Columbus in the new parish.  Queen of Heaven will be meeting with the Council of Parishes next week to begin organizing on a parishwide level to fight the merger of their parish.  

To both Assumption and Queen of Heaven (and all other parishes opposed to this reconfiguration), know that we at St. Mary's stand behind you and will support you in whatever ways we can.  Keep fighting the good fight!