 |
|
ANTHONY S. FOTI
NOREEN W. FOTI
770 Lantern Hill Road
Shavertown, Pennsylvania18708
(570) 696-3169
March 2, 2007
Monsignor Joseph C. Bambera, V.E., Episcopal Vicar
Our Lady of the Snows Rectory
301 South State Street
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania18411
Subject: Sacred Heart of Jesus Church Preservation Project
Sacred Heart – St. John’s Parish Community
Dear Msgr. Bambera,
I have received you letter dated February 14, 2007, and, following your instructions, have contacted Msgr. Sempa regarding the subject project (see enclosed copy of letter). We have been dealing directly with Msgr. Sempa regarding our church since the initial parish presentation of the precarious condition of the parish plant in May, 2002 (see enclosed copy of letter dated May 9, 2002). However, there are several comments, misrepresentations and incorrect facts in your letter which I would like to bring directly to your attention.
First and foremost, Sacred Heart Church of Jesus is a Roman Catholic Church that serves the needs of all Christian faithful. The history of this church is no different than that of all the other ethnic catholic churches that were constructed at the turn of the century by immigrants from Eastern and Western Europe, who brought their deep faith to this diocese. This is the history of the diocese, not just this particular church. Msgr. Sempa has told us on several occasions that he does not like this church, and that when he looks at it he sees a “Slovak” Church. Of course, we see a beautiful House of God, with Gothic Architecture, that is a beautiful place to worship. As for myself, I am of 100% Italian heritage, born and raised in Boston, and I do not care which immigrants from which country built this church. It remains a House of God worth saving.
The cost estimates to repair the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church building are misrepresented in your letter. When I am allowed the opportunity to present this plan, you will see that the budget estimate to preserve the church building, including all architectural and engineering fees, even when adjusted for future escalation, is about 2.5 million dollars. Despite all the additional scrutiny given to this project, the scope of the work necessary to repair and restore this church has not changed. The four million dollar price tag you refer to in your letter includes over $500,000 to repair the school (no longer required now that school has been closed), $700,000 for improvements to the grounds (desirable, but not mandatory), and approximately $600,000 for debt repayment. You will also see that the initial fundraising campaign to raise less than two million dollars will fund all the structural and masonry repairs to the church building, and a majority of the debt repayment.
CC: Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D. Hist. E.D., Bishop of Scranton
Rev. Msgr. John J. Sempa, Pastor, Sacred Heart – St. John Parish Community
By far the most disturbing part of your letter is your categorization of the investment by loyal, dedicated parishioners and their fundraising efforts, to preserve their church and repay debt owed the diocese, as an irresponsible use of funds. I cannot fathom why the diocese would want to prevent the parishioners from attempting to preserve and save their church with their own funds and funds that they can raise from outside sources. This would not take anything away from the diocese, but to the contrary would not only repay the debt due the diocese, but would provide the diocese in the North Wilkes-Barre Area with a beautifully restored church. I also do not understand what authority the diocese has in preventing the parishioners from pursuing their desires, considering it is their money they wish to pledge to preserve their church, as the church and other assets are merely held in trust by the diocese.
It has been nearly five (5) years since the parishioners were first apprised of the deterioration of the church, the financial condition of the church, and the studies projecting the decline of priests and anticipated need to realign parishes and close churches. We were challenged to come up with plans to address all these issues, or be prepared for the possible closure of the church. Based upon the representations that the parishioners would be afforded the opportunity to develop and present plans to address these issues, and that the plans would be seriously considered, we rose to the challenge, have prepared a comprehensive plan, and have presented the plan to Msgr. Sempa (twice), the Finance Committee, and the parishioners. We have met all the requirements specified by Msgr. Sempa, and have overcome all obstacles thus far. Only four months ago, at the Parish Meeting you attended on October 17, 2006 to review the work required to restore and preserve the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, you gave no indication that raising funds to preserve the church would be irresponsible. It is unconscionable to be told now, after completing all this work and having made all the presentations, that such plans to preserve the church are now suddenly irresponsible.
Considering that the demographic studies and projections have not changed in five years, that the scope of the restoration and repairs has not changed in five years, and that the financial condition of the parish has not changed in five years, one can easily fathom that the only reason for denial of the opportunity to present this plan is that decisions concerning the future of this church have already been made. However, this would mean that the past presentations and challenge to address the issues presented were made under false pretenses, and that the presentation and approval process is a sham. It would mean that the decision to close the church was made early on, and was deliberately kept from the parishioners for years. Hopefully, this is not the case, as the ramifications for such deceit would be far reaching, affecting much more than just the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church or the Sacred Heart – Saint John Parish Community.
Assuming you concur with my analysis, it seems only logical that we should work together to allow all the desires of the parishioners be heard and be presented to the Bishop. I’m sure you will agree that, as it is necessary that any plan for any church and parish be compatible with the plans and direction of the diocese, the studies and data used to evaluate all plans should be available to the parishioners developing these plans. Therefore I request copies of demographic studies you refer to, as well as the parish membership. In particular, perhaps you could elaborate on how the parishioners are being profiled. I also request copies of the financial statements and projections that may be influencing the decisions. I understand the sensitive nature of this material, and we agree to treat all material as confidential. You may not be aware that my wife, prior to our marriage and our moving out of the area, prepared all year end financial reports of Sacred Heart Church and school submitted to the diocese (without compensation). Obviously, we can be trusted not to divulge any confidential information provided.
We remain dedicated in our efforts to preserve this church, and will pursue all remedies and recourse at our disposal. Our desire, of course, is to work in cooperation with the diocese, and not as adversaries. The diocese and parishioners should be able to collaborate on their plans, and neither party should be isolated in the process or work independently in a vacuum. There is no need for either party to rush into hasty decisions or take drastic action with potentially dire consequences.
I respectfully suggest that, instead of discouraging the dedicated faithful of this Sacred Heart of Jesus – Saint John Parish Community, the diocese should be applauding and championing their efforts to take proactive measures to renew the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church (and possibly the Sacred Heart School), to be effective missionaries of the Good News of Jesus Christ throughout the North Wilkes-Barre Area. Our vision, should we be successful with our fundraising campaigns, is for these facilities, once restored, to serve all the Catholic faithful from all different walks of life and diverse cultural backgrounds. The school building or convent, if restored, could also accommodate CCD education or continuing catholic education for adults, pre-cana classes, retreats, and even church committee meetings. The school facility could even provide shelter for the homeless, accommodate a food pantry, or perhaps even a senior citizen center or medical or legal clinic. After all, the mission is to cultivate an awareness of cooperation, collaboration, and the sharing of resources and activities.
I trust you realize our desire to accommodate the needs of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church in light of the overall mission of the diocese. We have been very open and upfront with Msgr. Sempa regarding our plans throughout this five year ordeal. In fact, prior to the formation of the formal Parish Pastoral Council, we have been working with Msgr. Sempa in that capacity. Therefore, in keeping with Vatican Council II, we would expect to be consulted and to participate in the decision making process affecting this church.
Sincerely,
Anthony S. Foti
|
