NOREEN W. FOTI
770 Lantern Hill Road
Shavertown, Pennsylvania18708
(570) 696-3169
June 11, 2008
Msgr. Vincent Grimalia, Director
300 Wyoming Avenue
Scranton, Pennsylvania18503
Subject: Called to Holiness and Mission: Pastoral Planning in the Diocese of Scranton
Dear Msgr. Grimalia,
I am writing as a member of the Core Team for Sacred Heart – St. John Parish in Wilkes-Barre, PA to present a dissenting opinion regarding the self evaluation, core team response and cluster recommendations submitted by the parish core team and cluster team.
It is important to recognize my involvement in the parish over the years as well as my status on the core team as you consider my report, comments, the evidence contained therein and conclusions to follow. I have been working with a concerned group of parishioners for over six (6) years to restore the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church in order for it to serve the catholic community in North Wilkes-Barre. To facilitate this goal, the Sacred Heart Wilkes-Barre Foundation Inc. was founded last fall (October, 2007) as a non-profit corporation. Although my initial request for membership on the parish core team (see attached letter dated January 3, 2008, Exhibit A) was rejected when the core team was established, I was eventually appointed on February 20, 2008 per mandate by Bishop Martino for my inclusion as a member of the SHWB Foundation. This mandate resulted from a lengthy meeting with Bishop Martino and other members of the diocese and the officers of the SHWB Foundation held at his request on February 8, 2008.
CC: Most Rev. Joseph F. Martino, D.D. Hist. E.D., Bishop of Scranton
Auxiliary Bishop John M. Dougherty
Maureen Gallagher, The Reid Group
David and Mary Jean Tarantini
Once on the Core Team and Cluster Team, the process followed by our parish, and the manner in which the Called to Holiness and Mission project was implemented at the parish level seemed flawed, and not always consistent with the intent as expressed by Bishop Martino and the Reid Group. I have raised many of these issues at the various core and cluster meetings, via e-mails, and during lengthy phone conversations with Father Quinnan (our Episcopal Vicar), Maureen Gallagher (representative from Reid Group), and Joe Boris (Cluster Chairperson). However, it is necessary to formally document all these issues in this letter of dissent. The following summarizes the specific areas and issues to which I take exception. Included are examples that will illustrate my concerns, and raise serious questions regarding the conclusions and recommendations submitted by the core/ cluster team.
1. The Status of Our Parishes Must Be Explained
In the initial Proposed Cluster Partners dated February 27, 2008 (Exhibit B) three (3) parishes in our cluster, Sacred Heart of Jesus, St. John Evangelist and St. Stanislaus Kostka were listed separately. As per correspondence from Bishop Martino dated March 7, 2008 (Exhibit C, Page 4) “there is no record of any suppression of St. John the Evangelist Parish. Therefore the parish still exists.” My letter to Bishop Martino dated March 12, 2008 (Exhibit D) addressed the confusion this caused. The reply, Earley to Foti, dated March 25, 2008 (Exhibit E) acknowledged receipt of my letter with no explanation or clarification of this issue. The Approved Cluster Partners dated March 18, 2008 (Exhibit F) lists Sacred Heart – St. John Evangelist as one parish. Should there have been three separate core teams: Sacred Heart of Jesus, St. John Evangelist, and St. Stanislaus Kostka? It is disappointing not to have received any clarification to date.
2. Make Up of the Parish Core Team (The selection and appointment of team members was not inclusive).
Out of a parish community of 2850 members, three (3) of the initial five (5) members of the core team represented the parish administration: Msgr. Sempa, Deacon Pete Hoegen, and administrative assistance Joyce Cecconi. The other two members are Maggie Benish and Joe Boris. Thus, Msgr. Sempa along with Deacon Pete and Joyce would always have majority rule and could substitute their will over the objections of the other members, who presumably would represent parishioners. I think this was a blatant attempt to suppress the voice and opinions of parishioners.
Furthermore, three of these members (Deacon Pete Hoegen, Joyce Cecconi, and Joe Boris) have been parishioners only during the tenure of Msgr. Sempa (Pastor effective 1997). The Reid Group has stated that members of the team should be parishioners “who know the story of the parish.” Bishop Martino encouraged ALL members of the parish to be included. Members of the parish who have been in the church for their entire life times and/or generations were not selected for the team.
As mentioned in the opening of this report, Noreen Foti twice requested a position on the core team but was not accepted (see Exhibit A). It was only after a two (2) hour meeting with Bishop Martino that he, Bishop Martino, mandated a member of the Sacred Heart Wilkes-Barre Foundation be appointed to the core team (see Exhibit G). Noreen Foti accepted the appointment and was acknowledged in the bulletin, as per suggestion of the Reid Group, only after four requests (Appointment effective February 20, 2008; published in Church Bulletin April 13 and 20, 2008, Exhibit H).
Another issue regarding the core teams which seems inappropriate is the inclusion of both the Sacred Heart – St. John Parish Core Team and the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Core Team at the same core team meetings to perform their self evaluation. I recognize that both parishes are linked and share the same pastor and parish administration, but the purpose of the Called to Holiness and Mission project is to look at each existing parish independently first, and then consider clusters, etc. I believe that holding joint meetings with the core teams of both parishes during the self evaluation portion of the project was a conflict of interest, as it is quite possible that the interests of and direction of the Sacred Heart – St. John Parish would not necessarily be in the best interest of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, and vice-versa.
3. Parish Survey (The Process of “Parish Conversation” was also not inclusive)
The next aspect to which I take exception is the Parish Evaluation Form Survey that was taken during the homily of the mass during the February 16 – 17, 2008 weekend. The manual prepared by the Reid Group included an explanation of the criteria established for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each parish, and the context in which the criteria should be considered. Unfortunately, the parishioners were never adequately presented this information. There were earlier Parish Bulletin Inserts prepared by the Diocese distributed to parishioners (Exhibit I), containing a series of questions and answers about the project (Part I and Part II). As noted in the Parish Communication Guidelines in the manual, “Bulletin Announcements do not take the place of face to face meetings such as town hall meetings and other more personal vehicles for communication.” A short time later, parishioners were issued a survey form with 20 statements to be considered as “going strong, adequate, or needs improvement” (see attached Parish Survey Form Exhibit J). These statements were presented with no explanation, and parishioners were allowed a total of 10 minutes during the homily to read and evaluate each statement, record their opinion, sign, and return the form to the ushers. No education or guidance was given to the parishioners to assist with the completion of the survey. No one was allowed to take the survey home for further review and contemplation. The survey was limited to only the people present at Mass on one weekend only. As a result, only 315 survey responses were accepted and tabulated, out of a parish membership of approximately 2850 parishioners. Unsigned survey forms were not included. No exceptions were allowed for parishioners out of town on business or vacation, sickness, or other personal obligations that did not permit their usual attendance at that weekend mass. The survey form (Evaluation Form) was prepared by a few members of the Core Team in lieu of the long or short forms.
The actual survey responses were not reviewed by the core team members. Most of the team members never saw the actual completed survey forms. Instead, the results for both parishes (Sacred Heart – St. John Parish and St. Stanislaus Kostka) were tabulated using digital spreadsheets and graphs for both parishes by Tina Evans Simington, a member of the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Core Team (See Exhibit K). This is not to suggest that the tabulations do not reflect the actual survey responses. However, I found it unusual that the tabulations were not reviewed, checked, or otherwise audited by the core team or a subgroup for accuracy. I appreciate the amount of work involved in this task and it was a commendable effort.
The survey did not accurately reflect many of the criteria presented in the manual, and completely omitted certain criteria altogether. As examples, please note the following:
A. The original Reid Group Criteria #2 – Sacramental Celebrations asked if “sacramental and devotional prayers reflect the cultural heritage of the people assembled.” The Core Team statement was a mixed bag of indicators which said, “Sacraments are performed with compassion and understanding.” The original indicator asked “Funerals are celebrated with compassion and understanding.” Please note the omission of cultural heritage in the Core Team statement.
The term “cultural heritage” here is not limited to the idea of an “ethnic background.” More importantly it represents a cultural heritage of devotions such as novenas, holy hours, Forty Hours, May Crownings, processions, and rosary services to which the parishioners have been faithful. It also includes the culture of great art, music, and architecture that this church embodies. Thus, the conclusion of highest ranking on this criteria is distorted since 80% of the concept was not included. Yet this original criterion is essential in understanding the true greatness of the heritage of this parish which has slowly disappeared in the last ten years. If the original criteria had been used the ranking would not have been the highest.
B. The original Reid Group Criteria # 17 - Geographic Proximity, was to determine how well the parish was planning for future masses to be held in one geographic area. The core team’s question said “We hold festivals for social interaction.”
To summarize my objections to the manner in which the survey was conducted, the criteria established by the Planning Commission was not reflected adequately in the survey issued by the parish core team, the meaning and context of the survey questions were not adequately presented to the parishioners, and the parishioners were not adequately represented in the responses tabulated due to the lack of participation in this rushed survey process.
4. Parishioner Participation
Bishop Martino has issued numerous statements and instructions regarding the necessity and importance of every parishioner to participate in the Called to Holiness and Mission project (See attached Statements Re: Parishioner Involvement in “Called to Holiness and Mission” Pastoral Planning Project, Exhibit L). Sections of the manual prepared by the Reid Group are devoted to suggested bulletin announcements and parish meetings to demonstrate the transparency of this process and to ensure that parishioners are informed and involved in the process. I take exception to exclusion of parishioners and their input in the Called to Holiness and Mission undertaken at Sacred Heart – St. John Parish, and the lack of transparency in this process.
To date, there have been bulletin announcements regarding the formation of the core team, the initial members of the core team, and my addition to the core team. There was no work group or parish self study. There was only one parish town meeting held on March 13, 2008 to review the results of the parish survey. Although I felt that a town meeting should have also been held prior to the survey, I was happy that finally a parish town meeting was being held, having had requested a parish meeting for over a year.
I thought a facilitator should be present at the meeting, based upon past experience, and on March 10th I had a lengthy phone conversation with Father Quinnan (our Episcopal Vicar) to express many of my concerns. Following his direction, I also called Maureen Gallagher (representative from Reid Group) to suggest having a Reid Group Facilitator present for the meeting. After a lengthy conversation, she suggested that I personally visit with Msgr. Sempa to discuss. When I made a special visit to meet with Msgr. Sempa, I was assured several times that he and Deacon Pete were quite capable and knew how to conduct a town meeting. I clarified that the issue was not their ability to conduct a meeting, but suggested that it might be a good idea for a neutral third party to be present at the meeting, to help us work together and reconcile. However, they did not arrange for a facilitator to be present.
In anticipation of the town meeting, members of the SHWB Foundation developed a list of issues to discuss and questions to which they wanted answers (See attached Concerns Addressed to SH/SJ Core Team Meeting on March 13, 2008, Sacred Heart Church Exhibit M). The conduct of the meeting is summarized in the attached “Review of Events of ‘Town Meeting’, March 13, 2008 at SacredHeartChurch” (see Exhibit N). The only chance parishioners have had to express various concerns and opinions regarding the direction of their parish and the Call to Holiness and Mission project was met with indifference and intimidation. The above referenced “Review of Events of ‘Town Meeting’” prepared by attendees at the meeting cites numerous examples of disregard of the parishioners and their opinions. Various parishioners recognized and allowed to speak were interrupted, smirked at, and mocked. Those in attendance were also deliberately misled by responses by representatives of the core team.
There has also been no involvement of the Pastoral Council (initiated in February 2007) in this process, despite a written request (see attached letter dated May 1, 2008, Exhibit O). The letter suggested to meet together in prayer and to present and discuss their recommendation for the parish model. Unfortunately, this letter was never answered.
5. Data Verification Form
The Sacred Heart – St. John Data Verification Form (Exhibit P) was reviewed and signed on March 30, 2008 at the only Core Meeting that I missed (on vacation out of the country). I was told that the data was verified by Jackie Barkus and Tina Evans Simington, parishioners of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, who do not know the Sacred Heart – St. John Parish community. Our parishes were linked in July 2007. In addition to the lack of objective oversight by members of the Sacred Heart – St. John Parish community, I take particular exception to the following issues:
A. Of the 1085 families who belong to Sacred Heart – St. John Parish as of 2006, there was a determination that 798 were active, and 287 were inactive. This is an arbitrary subjective analysis, apparently by individuals who do not know our parish community. This analysis was then applied to the 2805 total number of parishioners in 2006, to reduce the number of parishioners for future consideration to only 2115. In reality, the total number or parishioners has been steadily increasing, from 1,970 in 2002 to 2,809 in 2006 (2,206 in 2004, 2,301 in 2005, and 2,809 in 2006). Clearly, membership is increasing and not in decline as indicated in the Data Verification Form.
In comparison, the number of families who belong to St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish dropped in 2007 by 20% (from 340 families in 2006 to 275 families in 2007), and 85% of those were considered active. Yet their Data Verification Form indicates the same constant number of parishioners (485) from 2004 through the present.
B. It also appears that the data submitted by Holy Savior Parish needs additional scrutiny (Exhibit Q). Considering there were 83 deaths in the three (3) years from 2004 – 2006, and 19 baptisms during the same period, it is difficult to understand how the number of families and parishioners would remain constant (526 families and 1198 members for 2004, 2005, and 2006).
C. The seating capacity for SacredHeartChurch is misrepresented on the Data Verification Form. According to the enclosed Seating Capacity analysis by a licensed Professional Engineer (Exhibit R), the existing seating capacity is 569, not 500 as stated on the form. Also, an additional 50 – 75 seats can be provided by re-installing pews in the choir balcony, for a potential maximum capacity of 619 to 644.
D. The Data Verification Forms did not indicate whether the parish is stable, increasing, or decreasing. A review and analysis of the data clearly indicates that the parish is stable.
6. Financial Data Verification Form
The Financial Data Verification Form was also reviewed at the same March 20, 2008 Core Meeting which I missed while on vacation. I never received a copy of the signed Financial Data Verification Form.
In reviewing the data from the Reid Group against data obtained in the past from the Pastor and the Finance Committee, there are many discrepancies (Exhibit S). Prior to the Called to Holiness and Mission study, attempts were made to obtain additional information and clarification regarding the financial statements to better inform parishioners (see attached letter dated November 17, 2007 to Msgr. Sempa and the Finance Committee, Exhibit T, which still has not been answered). I have performed my own exhaustive review and analysis of the various financial statements, and have found the following:
A. The reporting of Operating Income, Non-Operating Income, Other Income, Operating Expenses, Non-Operating Expenses, and Capital Outlays is not classified consistently from year to year. The classification of income and expense items needs to be clarified and applied uniformly by the diocese and parish, consistently year to year.
B. Capital outlays are not normally considered as an operating expense. The expensing of capital outlays distorts the actual operating expenses from year to year.
C. School assessments are decreasing drastically at Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. In fiscal year ending June 2007, the school subsidy expense was $315,218 against a Total Income of $540,258, which contributed to a loss of $95,678 (expenses exceeded income). In 2008, as a result of Catholic school restructuring, the assessment was reduced to $232,144, or approximately $83,000 lower than the prior year. For the coming 2009 fiscal year, the subsidy has been reduced another $105,000 to $127,399. This assessment is now at the same assessment rate as other parishes in the diocese, and should remain relatively constant in the future.
School Year: 2006 – 2007 2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009
Assessment: $315,218 $232,144 $127,399
D. In conclusion, the income for Sacred Heart – St. John Parish has remained relatively constant over the years, in excess of $500,000 annually, which places this parish in the top 15% of all parishes in the diocese based on total income. The reduction in school assessments will very rapidly help turn around the financial position of Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. The financial outlook for the parish is very bright.
7. Self Evaluation and Parish Summary Report
I take exception to portions of the Parish Evaluation of Criteria for Planning and the Parish Summary Report, on the basis that findings and conclusions of various criteria do not reflect the data collected from the parish survey or actual factual evidence.
To begin with, during the core team meetings to review and complete the evaluations and report, there was little if any justification given for various findings recorded for the criteria. Data collected from the parish survey WAS NOT reflected in the Parish Evaluation of Criteria – Short Form. Many of the findings were simply the opinion of certain members of the core team, as there was no input from parishioners. In instances where the criteria was included in the parish survey, the reported evaluation often did not match the survey results. The following are representative examples, and do not constitute a complete review and analysis:
A. The findings recorded in Criteria #9, Vocation Awareness Programs, listed three (3) minus signs out of the three (3) indicators, while the 88% of parishioners participating in the survey indicated that this area was “going strong” or “adequate”.
B. In Criteria #2, Sacramental Celebrations, the indicator of devotional prayers reflecting cultural heritage was not included in the survey and therefore never asked of the parishioners. Furthermore, the parish does not have devotions based on cultural heritage because they have been stopped by pastoral decree (even when requested by parishioners at private funerals).
C. Concerning Criteria #8 and #9, Culture of Vocation and Vocation Awareness, there were several discussions on this subject at cluster meetings. Every indicator for Sacred Heart – St. John Parish was given a “minus” by the Core Team, whereas St. Stanislaus Kostka was given all “okays” and a “plus”. These parishes are linked and share the same pastor, administration and programs. St. Stanislaus Kostka does not have any unique programs to promote vocations, etc. Furthermore, our cluster over the years, Sacred Heart has fostered the most vocations (Exhibit U), many currently active in the diocese. Also, Sacred Heart currently has a young man possibly discerning a vocation to the priesthood. In summary, when comparing the three parishes in our cluster, according to the short forms, Sacred Heart – St. John’s is portrayed as the weakest in this area, yet is reality, Sacred Heart is once again the strongest parish in this area. Msgr. Sempa, Deacon Pete Hoegan, Joe Boris and Joyce Cecconi adamantly refused to change the ratings so Sacred Heart – St. John would at least be ranked the same as St. Stanislaus Kostka. Furthermore, my questions regarding the number of vocations from St. Stanislaus Kostka and Holy Savior were never answered.
D. Criteria 11, Social Justice, Advocacy and Outreach, received one of the highest ratings in the parish, yet on the Short Form completed by the core team, two out of the three indicators received a minus.
E. Criteria #15, Collaborating with Neighboring Parishes, and Criteria #17, Geographic Proximity received “minus” signs for Sacred Heart – St. John Parish, and “plus” signs for St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish for the following indicators:
i. The parish conserves resources and enhances its ministries by planning jointly with other parishes and schools.
ii. The parish has shared programs with near by parishes.
iii. The parish has worked to jointly schedule weekend masses with neighboring parishes.
These indicators should be rated the same for both parishes since they are linked (effective July 7, 2007) and are working together. St. Stanislaus Kostka does not have any programs with any other parish or school except Sacred Heart – St. John. The two parishes have one joint choir, coordinated mass schedules, share administrative expenses, and this year will be trying one bazaar together.
The introductory statement regarding the Historical and Cultural Aspects of the Church submitted by the core team is incomplete and weak. One of the greatest strengths of Sacred Heart Parish lies in its historical and cultural significance. I wish to submit a more inclusive description, and request that the attached “Rewrite of Parish Summary Report to Cluster of April 10, 2008” (Exhibit V) be considered in lieu of what was submitted by the core team.
Finally, the following should have been included in the evaluation of the parish strengths and weaknesses:
A. Strengths:
i. Spiritual welcoming with choir enhanced liturgies has increased Mass attendance at Sacred Heart – St. John Parish by 140 people or about 5% of the total parish membership. This is at a time when mass attendance dropped at Holy Savior Parish (421 in 2005 down to 383 in 2007), and at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish (291 in 2005 down to 141 in 2007).
ii. The number of marriages has remained constant (13 – 15 per year) during the past five years.
iii. The number of deaths have remained constant (52 – 55 per year) during the past five years.
iv. Income has remained relatively constant (approximately $500,000 annually) during the past five years. (This is approximately the same income as St. Peter’s Cathedral. This places the parish in the top 15% of all parishes in the diocese, based on income).
v. Community Outreach Programs are exceptional
B. Weaknesses:
i. Lack of daily custodial care of church building.
ii. Need to increase evangelization of unchurched.
iii. Need to increase adult education and support programs.
8. Cluster Planning
I take exceptions to numerous portions of the Cluster Planning form submitted by the core team for Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. Numerous examples are cited below that portray the parish in a drastically different light than is supported by data and other evidence.
A. Stewardship and Administration – Part 1
i. Current Reality
Contrary to the statement that the cluster parishes have dedicated and effective leadership, there is a lack of concern from the leadership at Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. Routine maintenance and housekeeping is not being performed. The front steps should be reset and grouted, the handrails should be sanded and painted, the bathroom is not cleaned as frequently as required, etc. Parishioners are willing and able to assist with this work. As an example, Sacred Heart Wilkes-Barre Foundation recently organized a Join Hands Day on May 24, 2008 with various fraternals to clean up the grounds around the church and school in preparation of the celebration of the 100 year anniversary of the dedication of the church. The turn out was impressive, and a lot was accomplished in just a few hours.
B. Stewardship and Administration – Part II
i. Current Reality
Contrary to the statement that at current levels, the parishes cannot pay their assessments and their other financial obligations, Sacred Heart – St. John Parish is the exception to this statement. The reduction of the school assessment for the coming year to $127,399 represents a net reduction of approximately $188,000 in school subsidy expenses from the last published financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, which savings should more than offset the $95,678 shortfall (expenses over income). Sacred Heart has an annual income in excess of $500,000 year after year, which places it in the top 15% of all parishes in the diocese.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that demographics in the immediate proximity of each individual church are not conducive to the growth of the parish. To the contrary, recent demographic studies and census data indicates that the population is increasing (Exhibit W). In actuality, there are many churches of different faiths on North Main Street in the vicinity of SacredHeartChurch and St. Stanislaus Kostka. The inclusion of this discussion point is a continuation of attempts by the pastor to mislead the public regarding the viability of SacredHeartChurch and Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. Parishioners have been told repeatedly that the parish population is old and declining. In a letter mailed to every parishioner dated May 31, 2007 (Exhibit X) attempting to explain why Sacred Heart Church should not be restored, which was later requoted in a newspaper article (Exhibit Y), Msgr. Sempa stated: “To quote one telling statistic, in 2006 there were 7 baptisms’ of parishioners compared to 45 funerals of parishioners.” According to the Data Verification Form, there actually were 28 Baptisms and 45 Deaths, and during that year members of the parish increased from 2301 in 2005 to 2801 in 2006. Clearly the entire church congregation and the public have been misinformed.
There is also no evidence to support the claim that the congregations cannot underwrite the cost of the restoration of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church. No study has ever been conducted. There are numerous grants which are available to help cover the cost. The architect who completed the study has indicated that the restoration would qualify for a Save America’s Treasures grant from the National Park Service (minimum grant: $25,000, maximum grant: $700,000) and a Keystone Historic Preservation Grant (minimum grant: $5,000, maximum grant: $100,000) Also, a multi-year, multi-phase plan supported by a large number of parishioners allows donations to be spread out over years. It is interesting to note that the 250 parishioners who signed a letter of support for this plan did not at that time represent a significant sampling of the parish according to the administration, yet now the 315 parishioners who signed a survey form does represent a significant sampling of the parish (note the difference of 65 parishioners is only about 2% of the parish).
ii. Preferred Future
Although I agree that a partnership with Holy Savior is a great idea, Sacred Heart – St. John Parish and St. Stanislaus Kostka should not consolidate as described in Model One – Consolidated Parishes. Consolidations do not always prove to be more efficient or cost effective. Under this model, Sacred Heart Parish would be suppressed and lose its juridical identity. Its assets would be turned over to either the new parish or the diocese. It has been well documented that the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church is a standing embodiment of a great historical, religious, and cultural legacy. Suppressing this parish in order to create a new parish would strip this parish of its cultural heritage and identity. This course of action should be presented to and discussed with the parishioners. Parishioners have a direct and legitimate interest in the welfare of their parish and could suffer real harm from the suppression and destruction of their church. However, the parishioners, pastoral council, and finance committee have not been adequately involved in this Called to Holiness and Mission project in this parish. The significance of this recommendation by the core team is not understood by the parishioners.
Independence and identity are important issues. Holy Savior Parish wishes to remain autonomous, yet its membership is only 42% of the membership of Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. Holy Savior cluster members were in favor of a consolidation of Sacred Heart – St. John and St. Stanislaus Kostka, because in this scenario their parish remained independent. When I suggested all three parishes should consolidate and merge, the Holy Savior cluster members opposed. To truly understand the importance of independence and identity to the Slovak people, one would have to understand the history and struggle of the Slovak people. After years of political domination, oppression and racial problems, on January 1, 1993 Slovakia declared its independence and joined the free nations of the world (Exhibit Z).
In reality, Sacred Heart – St. John Parish and St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish can remain linked. Each parish finances should also remain separate. Sacred Heart – St. John Parish is already strong enough to stand alone, with its existing membership and level of income. Sacred Heart – St. John Parish welcomes all, and respects everyone’s heritage and culture. I do not see the justification for a parish with 2,800 members to loose its identity in order to add 482 members of another parish.
In closing, I’m sure you can see that I took this Called to Holiness and Mission project very seriously, and have devoted a lot of time and effort in participating in this worthwhile endeavor. The concerns and objections I have raised in this letter of dissent are significant and worthy of your attention and consideration.
The self study and recommendations of the core team of Sacred Heart – St. John Parish and the cluster team must be considered and evaluated in light of the evidence and documentation contained herein, and the documented lack of parishioner participation. The alternate structuring offered in this letter should be considered.
Sacred Heart has been a vibrant catholic community for 112 years. Its school was closed in June 2007 based on questionable information from the Meitler Group, and the parish was linked with St. Stanislaus Kostka in July 2007. This parish has survived extremely difficult times in recent years, through extraordinary support of catholic education and its catholic elementary school. Now that this parish will soon be on firm financial standing, and has demonstrated a growing membership, suppression should not be a consideration.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Noreen W. Foti
Attachments | 
