Dissenting Report No. 2

Dissenting Report No. 2 Compelling Reasons to Keep

Sacred Heart of Jesus Chuch Open and Site of Restructured Parish

NOREEN W. FOTI

770 Lantern Hill Road

Shavertown, Pennsylvania18708

(570) 696-3169

September 30, 2008

Msgr. Vincent Grimalia, Director

300 Wyoming Avenue

Scranton, Pennsylvania18503

Subject: Dissenting Opinion

Cluster #6 Response to Preliminary Recommendation of the Planning Commission

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 #648 in Wilkes-Barre, PA and of the Cluster #6 Team to present a dissenting opinion regarding the response of Cluster #6 to the preliminary recommendations of the Planning Commission. This dissenting opinion compliments the dissenting opinion sent to you on June 11, 2008 (copy enclosed) regarding the self evaluation, core team response and cluster recommendations. The facts and evidence present a compelling case to reconsider and revise your preliminary recommendation for Cluster #6.

To review, the Preliminary Recommendation for Cluster #6 (see Exhibit A) called for the consolidation of Sacred Heart – St. John Parish with St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish at the St. Stanislaus Kostka Site, pending the facility evaluation, followed by the consolidation of the new parish with Holy Saviour Parish within three years. I do not believe the St. Stanislaus Kostka site is the best site for this consolidated parish, and the information to follow will clearly demonstrate that the site best suited to fulfill the criteria established by the Bishop and the Planning Commission is the Sacred Heart – St. John Site.

At the Parish Town Hall Meeting held on August 26, 2008 and at subsequent meetings with the Cluster Team and Father Quinnan, the question as to why the Planning Commission recommended the St. Stanislaus Kostka site was never consistently or adequately answered. On one instance, parishioners were told that the site was selected because the pastor now lives at that rectory (as of Aug. 27. 2007). It hardly seems appropriate that the housing preference of one or two people should be the determining factor of where 3000 parishioners would be forced to receive the Eucharist and their sacraments. On another occasion, we were told that everyone in the diocese knew that Sacred Heart of Jesus Church needed “millions of dollars” in repairs. This knowledge was based on misinformation reported by the pastor in the past, and as will be demonstrated is not supported by prior evaluations and reports, nor the facility evaluation required by the Diocese that had yet to be performed. What was clearly stated was that there was nothing contained in the parish self study and self evaluation forms, the statistics, financial data, and the demographics that supported the selection of St. Stanislaus Kostka as the recommended site.

The Bishop and the Planning Commission have clearly stated the criteria that must be satisfied when selecting the churches to remain open in order to serve the restructured parish communities. In his letter to Parish Core Team members dated January 14, 2008, Bishop Martino identifies eight (8) goals of the Called to Holiness and Mission project. Goal No. 5 states: “To act as good stewards of all human, financial, and facility resources”. The Planning Commission also made four (4) general recommendations to all the clusters. Recommendation No. 2 states: “A new Mass schedule be developed that reflects good stewardship of priestly resources and maximizes opportunities for larger assemblies to provide a more robust celebration of the liturgy.” Simply stated, the goal is to utilize the larger churches in order to attract and seat as many parishioners as possible at each mass, in order to reduce the number of masses to be celebrated by the declining number of priests.

Obviously, a comparison of the churches, site parking, facility evaluations, parish finances and resources, and parish demographics is required. To begin with, the following charts illustrate the comparison of the size of each of the existing parishes, based upon the parish membership, mass attendance, and parish finances, as previously submitted by the Cluster Team:

Generally, regarding membership, ALL parishes have varying degrees of participation and membership. A very small percentage (approximately 5 – 10%) are the most active and loyal parish members. The large majority (approximately 70 – 80%) are ordinary practicing Catholics. The remaining parishioners are those whose observance is minimal and lapsed Catholics who do not practice their religion, but have not joined another denomination.

It should be obvious that by all measures Sacred Heart – St. John Parish is the largest of the cluster parishes, and that it will represent approximately two-thirds of a restructured parish, based upon parish membership, mass attendance, and income. Consequently, the restructured parish will be relying heavily on the parishioners of Sacred Heart – St. John Parish for support. Also worth noting is how the School Subsidy Assessments have dropped dramatically over the last two years. The reduction in this annual expense ($187,819) will have a dramatic positive impact on the net income after expenses, providing the parish with much needed funds for repairs and maintenance of its church.

The next set of charts compare the parish demographics, including baptisms, first holy communions, marriages, and deaths.

As illustrated, virtually all the baptisms, first communions, and marriages in the cluster occur at Sacred Heart – St. John Parish. As these statistics are either stable or increasing, it is evident that the parish community is not in decline, but is stable and more likely increasing in size.

The final set of charts will compare the seating capacity and parking availability of the churches in the cluster.

As can be clearly seen, the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church is clearly the largest church, with twice the seating capacity of St. Stanislaus Kostka and 160% of the seating capacity of Holy Saviour. The impact of these statistics cannot be overstated. If the stated goal of the Called to Holiness and Mission project to utilize the largest churches in order to attract and seat as many parishioners as possible at each mass is to be the guide, than the only logical choice of the site for the restructured parish is Sacred Heart of Jesus Church. This point was raised at the Parish Town Hall Meeting to review the facility evaluations, and Rev. Quinnan agreed that this was a valid objection to the Planning Commission preliminary recommendation, yet no mention of this was included in the Cluster Response Form. The reason why Sacred Heart should be the site is because it is the only church that, with only three masses per weekend, can accommodate the current number of parishioners from all three parishes that regularly attend mass, as explained in the attached “A Parishioner’s Response to the Preliminary Recommendations” (Exhibit B). The following table illustrates this analysis:

The basis of this table is the assumption that on average, the churches will have a maximum mass attendance of 80% of the church capacity during typical weekend masses. Under this assumption, only Sacred Heart of Jesus Church can handle the number of parishioners from all three parishes who routinely attend mass, with no more than three masses (the maximum number of masses that one priest is allowed to celebrate each weekend). Unless an additional priest is available (which runs contrary to the premise of this entire project), Holy Saviour and St. Stanislaus simply are not large enough for this consolidated parish community. Furthermore, should the restructured parish community be successful in evangelization as is another stated goal and recommendation, Sacred Heart of Jesus Church can accommodate a 30% increase in the parish attendance with still only three masses, while Holy Saviour would require five masses per weekend, and St. Stanislaus would required five to six masses per weekend. How can a smaller church building serve a larger community that is charged to evangelize and grow? With the expansion of new business and development in the area (see Exhibit C), there are opportunities for evangelization. For example, offering a noon weekday mass for professional businessmen and women, local employees, shoppers, and patients would help strengthen them to live their faith, introduce them to the parish, and could possibly lead to membership.

The above table evaluates the typical weekend masses. However, there are many times when actual mass attendance exceeds the typical attendance indicated above. Holiday masses, in particular Christmas Masses, Easter Vigil Masses, Easter Masses, typically fill the existing Sacred Heart and St. Stanislaus churches. Forcing parishioners to attend these masses in smaller overcrowded churches will prevent them from attending mass on these occasions, or will force them to go to other churches. Also, these other churches may also be over crowded due to restructuring. This runs contrary to the mission to evangelize and reach out to the unchurched.

The above table illustrates that Sacred Heart has more than twice the parking availability of Holy Saviour, and nearly twice that of St. Stanislaus. What cannot be quantified, but which may be even more important, is the location and safety of the available parking. Holy Saviour Church is located on a secondary street in a residential area. This road, and the roads leading to this road, are not designed to handle the amount of traffic that would descend on the area from the combined parish community driving to and from mass. The roads would become very congested, dangerous to negotiate, thus creating a very difficult traffic situation.

Both Sacred Heart Church and St. Stanislaus Church are located on the busy North Main Street in Wilkes-Barre. North Main Street is a state road that receives priority care, whereas Hillard Street (location of Holy Saviour) is a city street under the care of the city. The parking for St. Stanislaus is across the street from the church, requiring parishioners to cross a busy street. Furthermore, the church and parking is at the crest of a hill on this busy street. Visibility is substantially impaired as drivers approach the crest of this hill, posing a serious risk of injury to parishioners, especially the elderly and handicapped, attempting to cross the street. During adverse weather conditions and winter conditions, when roads are slick and slippery, the risk is even greater. Considering the increase in number of parishioners that would be forced to attend mass at this location should the preliminary recommendations be implemented, the risks of injury or worse to the parishioners will increase. The parking for Sacred Heart is on the same side of the street as the church (two parking lots adjacent to the church, and one lot behind the church). Also, Sacred Heart is located on a long, level section of this street. Parishioners utilizing the existing parking lots do not have to cross this street. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that a home on Madison Street would be donated for additional parking for the parish, but only if Sacred Heart of Jesus Church remains open. This would further improve the Sacred Heart parking situation, since a drive through procedure could be implemented, whereby cars could enter from North Main Street and exit through Madison Street.

Since the Preliminary Recommendations were issued, the facility evaluations have been completed. The following table summarizes the cost estimates associated with the evaluations: