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:

At first glance, the cost estimates would seem to favor the St. Stanislaus and Holy Saviour sites over the Sacred Heart site. However, upon closer examination, there are many inconsistencies, ambiguities, and questionable assumptions which lead to quite a different conclusion. All the facility evaluations were conducted by the same approved firm, Borton Lawson, headed by the same individual, Pat Endler. Unfortunately, the on site inspections and the evaluations were not performed in the same manner. For the St. Stanislaus and Holy Saviour facilities, Pat relied on his team’s visual observations during the two to three hour site walk through. However, for Sacred Heart – St. John, Pat in addition to a walk through inspection relied upon a previously prepared report from Masonry Preservation Services, Inc. dated February 22, 2002. Masonry Preservation Services is a contractor who assisted another architect, Carl Handman, to prepare a report of work required to restore of this 100 year old church to a like new condition based on today’s technology. Carl Handman’s review had determined that the apparent damage was due to the age of the church, and is not any different than what would exist in any other similar 100 year old masonry structure. The criteria for the Carl Handman report are not at all comparable to the criteria established by the diocese for the facility evaluations. The report prepared by Masonry Preservation is in reality a non-competitive proposal to perform as much work as can be identified by a contractor.

Pat Endler and his team observed vertical cracks in the brick veneer only at the front entrance, apparently due to water infiltration and the associated freeze-thaw cycle. However, Pat then relied on the report by Masonry Preservation Services (not qualified or approved by the diocese) to prioritize the work and estimate the costs. However, Pat failed to consider the effect of work completed after the Masonry Preservation report when assigning his priorities and costs. The urgency expressed by Masonry Preservation relates to their concern at the time of possible injury from falling debris, in particular terra cotta finials. There was no suggestion anywhere that the structural integrity of the front elevation, bell tower, or belfry had been compromised. The danger from falling debris was addressed in 2003 when the finials were removed and the roof completely replaced. (An eyewitness noted that the removal of just one finial required fours hours of chiseling.) Although Pat noted that this work had been performed, he continued to list the restoration and reconstruction of the front elevation and belfry as “High Priority”, and assigned a $1,000,000 cost estimate for this work. However, the actual recommendations by Masonry Preservation called for further engineering to determine exactly what is required to repair the belfry and bell tower pilasters. It was also noted that once the likelihood of injury to pedestrians was reduced, the remaining construction/masonry replacement work could be deferred. Assuming the actual construction cost of the required repairs may actually be $1,000,000, the cost of the engineering, which is the only “High Priority” aspect of this work, should be in the 5% - 6% range, and should not exceed $60,000. The remaining $940,000 can be deferred to “Medium Priority” or possibly even “Low Priority”. Also, deferring the masonry repair would also require that the repairs of the ceiling and wall in the belfry and associated painting ($115,000) would also be deferred.

The report by Masonry Preservation also included the reconstruction of both sides of the church. Pat Endler and his team, upon site inspection of all the exterior masonry on all sides of the church and rectory, did not observe any evidence whatsoever of any deterioration or cracking of the masonry, except in the front of the church as described above. However, in his final report, Pat recommended the reconstruction of the side walls as “Low Priority” for $750,000. Again, this was extracted from the prior report by Masonry Preservation. Considering no damage was observed on the side walls requiring future masonry repair, it is difficult to imagine why Sacred Heart Church would require $750,000 in future repairs, whereas Holy Saviour, also over 100 years old, would not require similar future repairs. Consequently, this cost should be deleted from the Sacred Heart Church estimate. Taking these corrections into account, and eliminating the school and other halls from consideration at this time, the cost estimates are as follows:

In comparing these estimates, it is important to remember that Borton Lawson had reports from a restoration contractor to use in establishing the condition of individual components and cost estimates for the Sacred Heart – St. John facilities. In developing its evaluation of Sacred Heart in 2002, Masonry Preservation utilized elevated manlifts, opened the walls and later patched the openings, and carefully examined the construction over the course of several days. However, when evaluating the condition or the individual components and cost estimates for St. Stanislaus and Holy Saviour, Borton Lawson did not have similar reports or prior evaluations to review. This is significant when considering the overall evaluation and cost estimates for all three sites. Considering that the two largest churches are roughly the same age, 100 years, and all built with the same basic technology, general building techniques, and similar materials, it is hard to imagine how just one of the churches would have so much damage due to its age, while the other church has miraculously avoided similar deterioration. This is not to imply that there was any collusion to arrive at

predetermined evaluation conclusions, as there is no evidence whatsoever that Msgr. Sempa’s interference with the facility evaluation contract (see Exhibit D) between Borton Lawson and the Sacred Heart Wilkes-Barre Foundation (which prevented the Foundation from even receiving a copy of the report) influenced the final report issued by Borton Lawson. The point is that a short two hour walk through is insufficient to obtain the necessary data in order to perform the required analysis.

There has been exhaustive research, inspections, evaluations, etc. performed on the Sacred Heart – St. John parish facilities in recent years. The costs in the Borton Lawson facility evaluations for Sacred Heart – St. John parish reflect what is most likely the worst case scenario for these facilities. Whenever the detailed engineering studies previously recommended by Masonry Preservation are undertaken, it is very likely that alternate designs and materials can be identified to greatly reduce costs. For instance, the $1,000,000 cost to reconstruct the front elevation, belfry and bell tower includes replacing the existing copper steeple. However, a fiberglass steeple, dyed to the copper Pantene color, could be substituted for an estimated savings of $150,000.

In comparison it is still unknown what the costs could be to repair the 100 year old Holy Saviour Church and St. Stanislaus Church. The hidden damage disclosed at Sacred Heart has not yet been identified at these other churches. It would be naïve to believe that such damage does not exist. I strongly recommend a separate, thorough independent study by the Diocese of the facilities without the involvement of Parish Administration or Cluster Team. This should include a restoration contractor involvement, to uncover any areas of concern to expose the hidden damage.

When such damage is uncovered, the funding of the required repairs would once again fall on parishioners. As previously indicated, Sacred Heart – St. John Parish is in a much stronger financial position than either St. Stanislaus or Holy Saviour. Prior studies completed by Msgr. Sempa have shown that the parishioners of Sacred Heart – St. John Parish can raise approximately $1,000,000 (see Exhibit E). A new capital campaign to raise this additional money, added to the projected annual income surplus (resulting from the substantial reduction in school subsidy assessments) would cover the estimated cost of the recommended work for Sacred Heart of Jesus Church.

In addition, should the work at Sacred Heart of Jesus Church be approved by the diocese, with the commitment that this would be the site of the restructured parish, there would be substantial funds available from outside fraternal and philanthropic organizations unavailable to either the St. Stanislaus Kostka Church or Holy Saviour Church. This is due to the historical and cultural significance of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, as previously documented and submitted (see Rewrite of Parish Summary Report to Cluster, Exhibit F).

In addition, there is grant money available, such as the Save America’s Treasures Grant form the National Park Service (minimum grant: $25,000, maximum grant: $700,000) and from the Keystone Historic Preservation Grant (minimum grant: $5,000, maximum grant: $100,000).

According to Carl Handman, Architect, the recommended repairs of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church would qualify for such funding. Consequently, it is quite conceivable that the financial burden that would fall on parishioners to cover the cost of repairs of Sacred Heart of Jesus church could actually be less than the cost to repair either St. Stanislaus Kostka Church or Holy Savior Church. Upon completing the repairs of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, the reconfigured parish would have a church, valued at approximately $5,000,000, for future generations to accommodate the ever increasing parish community. Should repairs instead be approved for either St. Stanislaus Kostka Church or Holy Saviour Church, the costs would be unknown, and the repaired church would still not be able to accommodate the parish community.

It should also be noted that there are six (6) churches of other denominations on North Main Street within blocks of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church and St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (see Exhibit G). A few of these churches have recently undertaken substantial restoration and improvement projects. Considering one of the goals of the Called to Holiness and Mission project is: “To strengthen the presence and ministry of the church in the area…”, the largest Catholic church on this street should not be closed.

The members of the Planning Commission have many important and difficult decisions to make for their Final Recommendation to the Bishop. In considering the various alternates, it is important to avoid the past mistakes of earlier parish restructuring. At the three Parish Town Hall Meetings held during the course of the Called to Holiness and Mission project, it is apparent that many Sacred Heart – St. John Parishioners continue to hold deep resentment and anger from the union of the parishes in 1994. Some parishioners of the former St. John the Evangelist Parish continue to blame parishioners of Sacred Heart for the closing of their church in 2000. Sacred Heart was not involved in the diocesan and St. John Parish decision to close their church. These same parishioners, some of whom are Eucharistic Ministers, members of the Sacred Heart – St. John Finance Committee, etc., now focus their anger on Sacred Heart parishioners. Expressions such as this (Sacred Heart) is not my church, the church (Sacred Heart) should be bombed, burnt to the ground, etc. are not uncommon. These parishioners have repeated their refusal to support any restoration or repair project, since such repair work was not performed on their St. John Church. The big difference is that Sacred Heart parishioners are willing and able to raise the necessary funds for the restoration of their beloved church. Your actions and recommendations should consider the parishioners who will be most affected by the implementation of the final decisions issued by the Bishop. The ultimate success of the Called to Holiness and Mission project ultimately will depend on the parishioners.

Thank you for considering this dissenting opinion. I sincerely hope that upon careful reflection, you will agree with me that the only logical choice for the site of the restructured parish for Cluster #6 is the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church. I am available at your convenience for further discussion or to address any questions or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Noreen W. Foti

Sacred Heart - St. John Parish Core Team Member

Cluster #6 Team Member

CC: Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.

Most Reverend John M. Dougherty, D.D., V.G.

Diocese of Scranton Called to Holiness and Mission Planning Commission

Maureen Gallagher, The Reid Group

Msgr. John J. Sempa, Pastor

Father David Betts

Sacred Heart – St. John Core Team

Sacred Heart Wilkes-Barre Foundation Board of Directors