We have already addressed the common but erroneous claim that by defending our church (and the True teachings of the Church) we are causing disunity. In the most recent bulletin, however, multiple claims are made, all of which can be pretty easily dismissed. We shall take them one by one:
1. Namiotka claims that in the Core Team meetings, they are "
following the Merger Manual that we received from the diocese." Of course, we know this is basically a lie, but Fr. Namiotka "chooses [his] words carefully." In a recent
couple of entries, we have addressed (as did a Core Team member) the fact that Namiotka is
only superficially glossing over the "steps," accomplishing none of the substance required, and steamrolling objections as well as requests to return to steps that were not completed. When Core Team members attempted to present the chart of missed steps, we were informed by multiple Core Team members that Namiotka accused the member of hijacking the meeting and getting off-topic.
2. Namiotka claims that they are trying to create one parish of four existing churches. The truth is that the Core Team has, in fact, not yet recommended merger. All recommendations, as we understand it, are supposed to be coming from the Core Team and various committees. As a matter of fact, our information has indicated that most Core Team members prefer cluster to merger, but their wishes do not appear to matter, making one wonder what the purpose of the Core Team is.
To our knowledge, one vote was taken, and two unrelated issues were forcibly tied together. Because the majority did not vote they way the conveners wanted, we were told by multiple individuals present that the Core Team members were brow beaten and their churches threatened until the slimmest of majorities was reached. Needless to say, if this vote had been taken in a foreign dictatorship, outside observers would have decried the vote as a farce.
Obviously, the purpose is to make the "process" look like it is representative and as if the Core Team is accomplishing anything, when in fact Convener Namiotka is doing precisely whatever he wants. Additionally, it appears we have more priests than ever before and therefore a merger is completely and totally unnecessary--except perhaps to further a certain priest's career. Guess somebody's got to be the bishop's "go-to guy."
3. Namiotka states, "Many times there are rumors, misinformation and misconceptions that take place when all the merger information is not accurately reported or not fully comprehended." Actually, what he says here is true, since from where we sit, most of the misleading and even conflicting information is coming straight from him. Fr. Namiotka rarely communicates with St. Mary's parishioners except through the bulletin and the pulpit. When we seek information from own Core Team members about what goes on in those meetings, they are just as confused and frustrated as the rest of us! Even Core Team members from other parishes are apparently similarly confused. Those from "his own" parish, Queen of the Angels, have apparently nicknamed him "the Shadow Priest" because he's never around and not very accessible. Therefore whatever confusion abounds, he can look at himself as the source of. But there can really be no clarifying of that which is ultimately in error. In the case of church closures, there is only right and wrong, truth and error.
This confusion and frustration on the part of the Core Team is particularly ironic because he himself says, "the Core Team members and I have the responsibility of relating all information back to each respective parish as completely and accurately as possible." Apparently the only one who's clear on anything is Fr. Namiotka, and what information we're getting is far from complete or accurate! So far as we can tell, the only clear thing is his intent to destroy our parish and our intent to preserve our parish, the House of God, and the Church against all enemies.
4. Namiotka claims "we are working to make our new parish the best possible parish for all of the parishioners" (emphasis his). We at St. Mary's feel that this cannot possibly be true. Why? Let us count the ways...
- In the best possible parish, a pastor would be present and truly listen to and care about the concerns and spiritual needs of his parishioners.
- In the best possible parish, devotions that give glory to God would not be wantonly eliminated for no good reason and with little notice.
- In the best possible parish, all involved would be equal participants in an open and transparent process, not a closed and fixed sham in which the participants' concerns are steamrolled time and again.
- In the best possible parish, people's spiritual needs would be cared for and the sacraments given joyfully, while we at St. Mary's have been neglected and sacraments such as baptism nearly impossible to arrange.
- In the best possible parish, we would have qualified office staff. We have many overqualified volunteers at St. Mary's who could do (and have done) a much better job. In fact, we wind up having to do much of the work that should be done in the office ourselves anyway.
- In the best possible parish, we could get our own events listed in the bulletin, we could obtain (legible) mass cards without jumping through hoops of fire, and we would have access to the materials we need to plan the Feast.
- In the best possible parish, the volunteer spirit of giving would be uplifted and praised and encouraged rather than condemned.
- In the best possible parish, parishioners are respected and the pastor a person deserving of respect because he gives respect to God and His House.
- In the best possible parish, major decisions such as Mass eliminations and maintenance work are brought to the Parish Council Meetings if only to make the representatives aware, instead of done in secret and expenses thrust upon us unannounced.
Are St. Mary's interests being served in this merger sham? Of course not. Are God's? Definitely not. Bottom line: St. Mary's IS unified...AGAINST the merger!
87th Annual Feast of the Assumption
