This letter was submitted to savestmarys from Robert Walsh of the Council of Parishes. He requested we put it up on the website for public perusal. We've had this letter for awhile now but we're just getting around to putting it up now, so my apologies.
Comments about the letter:
What is not said is just as important as what is. While reading, notice that nowhere within the letter does Bishop Galante mention Meitler Consultants (the consultants of doom), nor does he mention that our Lady of Lourdes has tremendous debt and OLQP tremendous assets. Bishop Galante also takes a passive tone ("I accepted the merger recommendation of the deanery planners"), attempting to distance himself from the foregone conclusion and pass the buck for the decision to the laity and his Presbyteral Council, almost as if he himself was a disinterested witness.
Additionally, he attempts to paint the decision as one of pastoral care, which I don't think anybody really buys with regard to any church. He also does not mention that canonically, a "worship site" is not protected in the same way as a "parish," a fact he well knows what with his background in Canon Law.
Bishop Galante brings up the ridiculous Speak Up Sessions yet again, failing to mention that a virtually identical "process" has been used in many other diocese around the country, all with dire consequences. For your entertainment, we have italicized each use of the word "process" or like phrases within the letter. Why? Anytime you feel the need to emphasize the fluid and open nature of such a thing as a "process" it is very clear that no one in fact believes that there really was a true and open "process." Be assured that if, for research purposes, actual polls or votes had been taken which involved all Catholics in the Diocese of Camden, the choice to close or merge parishes would have been overwhelmingly and resoundingly denied.
In the second to last paragraph he again emphasizes pastoral care as the motivation for his desire to deny foreign priests to the diocese. Yet Bishop Galante fails to mention his lay-led ministry program that would effectively undermine various priestly functions and relegate them to the realm of the paid laity; he fails to mention his intention to bring in priests from the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, known to be very liberal; and he fails to mention the trickle of diocesan priests who he has assigned and continues to assign outside the diocese, arguably creating a priest shortage.
By the way, though the letter was dated June 10th, it was not postmarked until June 13th. Last we heard, Mr. Walsh has written somewhere around 27 letters to the bishop thus far.
Dear Mr. Walsh:
I write in response to your April 23, 2008 and June 3, 2008 letters in which you seek clarification regarding the status of the announcement of my intention to merge Our Lady Queen of Peace with Our Lady of Lourdes, as well as your request that I reconsider the announced merger.
As you are aware, on April 3, 2008 I announced to the people of the Diocese of Camden my intentions for the reconfiguration of the parishes of the Diocese. The announced reconfiguration grew out of almost three years of extensive consultation, study and review under the guidance of the Vicars Forane.
Deanery planners overwhelmingly recommended that Our Lady Queen of Peace should merge with Our Lady of Lourdes. This deanery recommendation was reviewed by the Diocesan Planning Commission and was the subject of a canonical consultation with the Presbyteral Council. Following the process that was established for this purpose, I accepted the merger recommendation of deanery planners in order to improve pastoral care to the people of this area of the diocese, to strengthen parish life and to create greater opportunities for the parish to advance the pastoral priorities identified by parishioners at Speak Up sessions. I also stressed in my April 3 announcement that Our Lady Queen of Peace would remain as a worship site for liturgy.
Further, as I explained on April 3, these are my intentions for reconfiguration, but there must be preparation time, perhaps 12-24 months, before mergers are formally promulgated with a decree establishing the new parish.
Last September, while the planning process was still underway, the "Alternate Options Committee" sent me a proposal for Our Lady Queen of Peace to remain as presently configured. While I appreciate your concern for the parish and the time you and the Committee spent preparing the proposal, it would have been inappropriate at that time for me to formally respond to your proposal, as it would have compromised and circumvented the clearly defined process that had already been established to evaluate such matters. However, I did speak personally with you at a fall meeting where I acknowledged your correspondence and spoke to you directly about certain aspects of the proposal.
As I indicated when we spoke last fall, your proposal to invite the Priestly Congregation of Carmelites of Mary Immaculate to serve Our Lady Queen of Peace fails to address the key motivation for parish reconfiguration. While certainly we must plan for the reduced number of priests that will be available to the diocese in the future, planning is being driven primarily by the need to improve pastoral care to the people of the diocese, to expand the range of ministries and services that will benefit the people of the diocese, to respond to the needs that they themselves have indicated must be priorities for this diocese, and to serve the common good of the diocese.
While I do not believe the proposal responds to the particular concerns that make parish reconfiguration necessary at this time, I assure you that I have reviewed your proposal carefully, as well as the background information you have provided regarding your parish, its history, and the activities and ministries now provided by the parish and its parishioners. In addition, since I already have obtained a wide range of input regarding the configuration involving Our Lady Queen of Peace, both before and after the April 3 announcement, I do not believe that it is necessary, as per the request of your June 3, 2008 letter, to schedule a meeting to further discuss the proposal.
I thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns and proposals in such a detailed and constructive manner.
May God continue to guide you and bless you.
Fraternally,
Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante, D.D., J.C.D.
Bishop of Camden
Comments about the letter:
What is not said is just as important as what is. While reading, notice that nowhere within the letter does Bishop Galante mention Meitler Consultants (the consultants of doom), nor does he mention that our Lady of Lourdes has tremendous debt and OLQP tremendous assets. Bishop Galante also takes a passive tone ("I accepted the merger recommendation of the deanery planners"), attempting to distance himself from the foregone conclusion and pass the buck for the decision to the laity and his Presbyteral Council, almost as if he himself was a disinterested witness.
Additionally, he attempts to paint the decision as one of pastoral care, which I don't think anybody really buys with regard to any church. He also does not mention that canonically, a "worship site" is not protected in the same way as a "parish," a fact he well knows what with his background in Canon Law.
Bishop Galante brings up the ridiculous Speak Up Sessions yet again, failing to mention that a virtually identical "process" has been used in many other diocese around the country, all with dire consequences. For your entertainment, we have italicized each use of the word "process" or like phrases within the letter. Why? Anytime you feel the need to emphasize the fluid and open nature of such a thing as a "process" it is very clear that no one in fact believes that there really was a true and open "process." Be assured that if, for research purposes, actual polls or votes had been taken which involved all Catholics in the Diocese of Camden, the choice to close or merge parishes would have been overwhelmingly and resoundingly denied.
In the second to last paragraph he again emphasizes pastoral care as the motivation for his desire to deny foreign priests to the diocese. Yet Bishop Galante fails to mention his lay-led ministry program that would effectively undermine various priestly functions and relegate them to the realm of the paid laity; he fails to mention his intention to bring in priests from the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, known to be very liberal; and he fails to mention the trickle of diocesan priests who he has assigned and continues to assign outside the diocese, arguably creating a priest shortage.
By the way, though the letter was dated June 10th, it was not postmarked until June 13th. Last we heard, Mr. Walsh has written somewhere around 27 letters to the bishop thus far.
*******************************************
June 10, 2008Dear Mr. Walsh:
I write in response to your April 23, 2008 and June 3, 2008 letters in which you seek clarification regarding the status of the announcement of my intention to merge Our Lady Queen of Peace with Our Lady of Lourdes, as well as your request that I reconsider the announced merger.
As you are aware, on April 3, 2008 I announced to the people of the Diocese of Camden my intentions for the reconfiguration of the parishes of the Diocese. The announced reconfiguration grew out of almost three years of extensive consultation, study and review under the guidance of the Vicars Forane.
Deanery planners overwhelmingly recommended that Our Lady Queen of Peace should merge with Our Lady of Lourdes. This deanery recommendation was reviewed by the Diocesan Planning Commission and was the subject of a canonical consultation with the Presbyteral Council. Following the process that was established for this purpose, I accepted the merger recommendation of deanery planners in order to improve pastoral care to the people of this area of the diocese, to strengthen parish life and to create greater opportunities for the parish to advance the pastoral priorities identified by parishioners at Speak Up sessions. I also stressed in my April 3 announcement that Our Lady Queen of Peace would remain as a worship site for liturgy.
Further, as I explained on April 3, these are my intentions for reconfiguration, but there must be preparation time, perhaps 12-24 months, before mergers are formally promulgated with a decree establishing the new parish.
Last September, while the planning process was still underway, the "Alternate Options Committee" sent me a proposal for Our Lady Queen of Peace to remain as presently configured. While I appreciate your concern for the parish and the time you and the Committee spent preparing the proposal, it would have been inappropriate at that time for me to formally respond to your proposal, as it would have compromised and circumvented the clearly defined process that had already been established to evaluate such matters. However, I did speak personally with you at a fall meeting where I acknowledged your correspondence and spoke to you directly about certain aspects of the proposal.
As I indicated when we spoke last fall, your proposal to invite the Priestly Congregation of Carmelites of Mary Immaculate to serve Our Lady Queen of Peace fails to address the key motivation for parish reconfiguration. While certainly we must plan for the reduced number of priests that will be available to the diocese in the future, planning is being driven primarily by the need to improve pastoral care to the people of the diocese, to expand the range of ministries and services that will benefit the people of the diocese, to respond to the needs that they themselves have indicated must be priorities for this diocese, and to serve the common good of the diocese.
While I do not believe the proposal responds to the particular concerns that make parish reconfiguration necessary at this time, I assure you that I have reviewed your proposal carefully, as well as the background information you have provided regarding your parish, its history, and the activities and ministries now provided by the parish and its parishioners. In addition, since I already have obtained a wide range of input regarding the configuration involving Our Lady Queen of Peace, both before and after the April 3 announcement, I do not believe that it is necessary, as per the request of your June 3, 2008 letter, to schedule a meeting to further discuss the proposal.
I thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns and proposals in such a detailed and constructive manner.
May God continue to guide you and bless you.
Fraternally,
Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante, D.D., J.C.D.
Bishop of Camden