St. Mary's parishioners have made some interesting observations lately. Part 3 in our series, here are a few more of them:

• Though St. Mary's has been threatened with closure, (and make no doubt we continue to fight and do not believe we will be closed because it is not God's will), it is interesting that no mention has been made regarding the closure of either of the two churches in Buena. Now, we at St. Mary's have always held and continue to hold the position that no church closures are necessary or justified and we are loath to see any church close. We nevertheless wonder what sense it makes to leave Malaga with no church while leaving two churches in Buena. (Here we are not even counting the proposed large chapel planned to be built at the Padre Pio Shrine, also in Landisville.)

As you can see from the map below, Our Lady of Victories and St. Michael's, the two churches that make up Queen of the Angels Parish, are only 1.1 mile away from each other. According to Google Maps, you can walk this in about 20 minutes and drive it in 3.


View Larger Map

• Fr. Namiotka has proposed--with a pastor still in place in Newfield!--that the St. Rose of Lima rectory should be turned into office space. (Out of the other side of his mouth, he claims that he has always shown respect and deference for St. Rose's existing pastor.) Let's be realistic. If it is already "too far" to come all the way from Buena to St. Mary's for Mass or Benediction, then what sense does it make to put office space in Newfield??? Though St. Rose is supposed to be the seat of the unwanted merger, the most Namiotka has held out to them is the hope of office space along with the phrase, "for now." Anyone who believes in the practicality or the plausibility of these plans ought to have their head examined.
  

• Despite the fact that the Core Teams have pointed out gaping holes in the supposed "process" practically every meeting, including the fact that their voices are not being heard or respected and that the steps are not being followed, our convener, Fr. Namiotka, has utterly disregarded them and continued to plow through, continuing to do nothing but pretend to go through the steps. Members of the Core Teams feel utterly powerless because they believe Namiotka just does whatever he wants, the Core Team "process" itself being a complete farce. They fear that they will become the "fall guys" for the church merger/closure fiasco that no one is in favor of (except Ed Namiotka and the bishop).
  

St. Mary's parishioners have made some interesting observations recently. Here are a couple more of them:

Two parishioners (of many) believe that lack of belief in and reverence for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament on the part of priests is to blame for the merger/closure crisis. In our own parish, we have seen lack of regard for the Blessed Sacrament not only in the desire to unnecessarily "reduce" Masses and Eucharistic Adoration, but in attitude on the altar. For example, once, when the pastor accidentally dropped a host on the floor, the proper dignity and procedure was not followed. When this was later pointed out by an elderly parishioner, the parishioner claims our pastor continued in a flippant attitude of defiance, insisting he had never heard of such things and had done nothing wrong. It is a sad day when the laity have to point out the importance of revering Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament to a priest. But the bottom line is, if you don't respect Jesus' Eucharistic Presence, it's all downhill from there!

• One parishioner pointed out how frequently he sees priests without priestly attire. He believes that this reflects a lack of respect for their own vocation. We can attest to our own experience at a diocese-sponsored event at which multiple priests were in attendance. To our recollection, only one of them was wearing clerical attire. One was at our table and we did not learn that he was a priest until about an hour or more into the workshop. At a nearby table in a plaid, flannel shirt and jeans sat the pastor of the parish! Not only was he not dressed like a priest, he was not even dressed particularly neatly.

The parishioner who pointed out this problem believes that this is one of the reasons why Catholic identity as well as respect for and understanding of the role of the priest are so confused. We wonder, if there are a significant number of priests who misunderstand their own true role as shepherds--and fail to take that responsibility seriously--how are the laity to understand or follow? Certainly this has been the case at St. Mary's since the departure of our last pastor, and it has been very sadly true at the diocesan level as well.

Is it a matter of being willing to stand out and be different? Is it a matter of fear that the general public may no longer view priests favorably due to the child abuse and church closure scandals? Or is it merely an unwillingness to stand up for the Faith and what is right and true, even though it may be unpopular, unpopular even with one's superiors? Who knows.

• Along these lines, many parishioners have also expressed their observation of a certain worldliness that is prevalent, while on Sundays being told that the priesthood is about sacrifice. To most this smacks of hypocrisy at worst, a double standard at best, since so many ordinary Catholics struggle from day to day to make ends meet. It also seems ironic to them because we are being expected to give up those things that are most precious to us--our church and our religious devotions, particularly to Jesus in the exposed Eucharist--but we are continually told that as a priest, our pastor is "entitled" to X, Y, or Z. Needless to say, this does not go over too well with anyone at St. Mary's. The bottom line is that people can tell a true shepherd from, well, an impostor. So do pray for your priests, but be careful to know your Faith, for the devil is the Father of Lies.
  

People at St. Mary's have raised some very interesting questions recently. Some are not new concepts, but they bear repeating:

• One of the premises of "merging" churches is that there will ultimately be far fewer priests. In our particular scenario, we currently have three priests living in a large, "3 suite," recently upgraded rectory in Landisville, Buena [right]. Fr. Namiotka has multiple times expressed his desire to have this be the main residence of the pastor/priests of the entity he would like to see merged because it can house multiple priests comfortably. If we are expected to have only one priest in the future,* why have such a big house? Wouldn't it make more sense to rid ourselves of an expensive and too large property in Landisville and make use of perfectly sufficient, smaller, more economical rectories in either Newfield of Malaga [left]?
  

• Of the four churches involved in the St. Mary's merger/closure group, St. Mary's is, to date, the only one to lose things. We have lost our Saturday evening Mass, a day of Eucharistic Adoration (which we were willing to extend!), and other devotions on top of it. None of these losses has been necessary! Not only that, despite the number of priests, we do not have a priest available to us consistently and we have office staff forced upon us that do not do their job efficiently. This makes it difficult to even get in touch with a priest, get a Mass card, schedule baptisms, or other such simple things. We have been forced to accept staffing that our pastor himself would never accept at "his" church. Point is, ironically, we have as many if not more priests now than we have in the past. Why, then, are we losing ANYTHING?

• Although it has been pointed out to us that church attendance is down (truthfully, it fluctuates to the point that some Sundays the church is very full and others less so), it is our understanding from talking to other surrounding churches that attendance is down at all the local churches. Not down as in, "well, people just aren't religious anymore," but down as compared to a year or two ago. We can only conclude that people are not necessarily choosing to go to different churches, but not to go to church at all. The fact that the diocese not only expects this decrease, but accepts it reflected in the fact that it says to only consider 75% of a church's ordinary income going into a merger. So they expect to lose 25% due to attrition or decreased giving, both of which would reflect dissatisfaction to say the least.

Why are people leaving? Our guess is disillusionment and despair. People see what's going on, for goodness sakes. How is this helping the Church? Or souls? We at Save St. Mary's predicted this would happen, but do the diocese, Church leadership, or even local priests care? Apparently, they do not care enough to see the writing on the wall and stop merging and closing churches.

* Frankly, we have no idea if a reduction in priests is realistic or not. Right now we have more priests and fewer services. One of the three priests in Landisville is a religious order priest who is in the process of incardinating into the diocese.

AKA: Sabotage and Brow Beating Dressed Up as Legitimate "Process" 

Left: A wolf in sheep's clothing. Below, the [becoming more apparent] wolf in wolf's clothing.

This blog is a continuation of the previous blog's "Status Chart of the Merger Manual Agenda Items for the Newfield, Malaga, and Buena Group," dated June 15, 2010.

Note:  At the beginning of Meeting 4 (Jan 12th), the merger date of January 2011 was announced without any input or coherent explanation.

 

The Following Are Dates of the Core Team Meetings where Agendas Were Supposedly Covered:

Mtgs 1-3: Nov 17^th (no minutes from any other meeting provided)

 

Mtg 4: Jan 12^th

 

Mtg 5: Mar 1^st

 

Mtg 6: April 6^th

 

Mtg 7: May 4^th

 

• There was also an additional meeting held on October 14, 2009, where the CORE TEAM met to vote on the Presbyteral Council's recommended plan that Collings Lakes remain stand-alone.

 

• Although this plan was presented as somehow originating with the CORE TEAM, it in fact did not. When the CORE TEAM had met earlier in the year with Msgrs. Burton and McGrath, the idea of Collings Lakes standing alone was never even brought up. Rather, the CORE TEAM had recommended a cluster instead of a merger.

 

• While this October 14, 2009 meeting did not cover anything other than the new proposal, it is worth noting that the original vote was 6-6. It was only after a very lengthy arm-twisting session, that the second vote was taken and resulted in an 8-4 tally in favor of the proposal. During this arm-twisting /brow-beating session, it was promised by the CONVENERS that there would be no timeline with the new proposal. They said that the merger process could take as long as necessary to do it right. A time period of 3-5 years was possible.

 

• It was also stated that all of the churches could remain open under the new proposed plan. Conversely, it was threatened that St. Mary's would be imminently closed if we did not vote "yes." (Despite the threatening, St. Mary's core team members still voted "no.")

 

• Even though a 3-5 year timeline given, within three months of our vote to have Collings Lakes stand alone, we were given a target merger date - without any explanation, discussion, or input - of one year. The previous "Status Chart of the Merger Manual Agenda Items" shows how unrealistic this is, not to mention severely lacking in integrity.

What are we implying  here? Certainly not that St. Mary's wants to merge. Here we are showing that our convener, Fr. Ed Namiotka, is only superficially going through the steps of the "Destroying God's Gifts" process. He has made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of actually completing the steps, but just having the meetings so it looks like he's done what the Diocese requires.

The input of the various Core Teams, who were selected by the conveners, is totally and completely dismissed by him. Namiotka dismisses any input contrary to his agenda, which seems to be to destroy our parish and "merge" us against our will. While stating that he "has no intention of closing St. Mary's" numerous times to many people, he has also threatened to close us up if we don't do what he wants us to do, which is to go along with his merger process. In fact, at our little rosary rally last night, an elderly member of our parish asked us this: "I thought he said he was not going to close St. Mary's?" We think you can probably guess what our answer to his question was.

Despite the lack of substance, and the fact that the conveners previously stated a 3-5 year timeline was likely, Namiotka has suddenly decided that he wants us merged by January 2011. Someone breathing down your neck, Fr. Ed? Let us again state here that St. Mary's has NO intention of merging.

Have a nice second vacation, relaxing on those Caribbean beaches, Fr. Ed Namiotka. Must be nice. More to come.

ITEM #	DESCRIPTION	STATUS COMMENTS
1-1	Decide who will take minutes at this meeting.	COMPLETE.
1-2	Review the overall process of merging to ensure common understanding.	COMPLETE (more or less).
1-3	Prepare a common announcement to inform parishes that the merger process is starting. Decide the date of the announcement so all parishes receive the same information at the same time.	COMPLETE.
1-4	Decide how to introduce the CORE TEAM members to the merging parishes.	Not done.
1-5	Set the date, time, and place of the next 2, 3, and 4 meetings. Rotate the locations among the merging parishes whenever possible.	Not done during Meeting 1.
1-6	Ask Pastors to complete the "Facts About the Parish" form for Meeting 4 and make the needed number of copies (see Merger Manual, Appendices: Section B, Forms)	Not done or at least never distributed.
1-7	Decide who will inform the participants of meeting 4 of the venue and whether you will have written agendas, how they will be created, distributed, and who will take minutes.	Not done - probably why Meeting 4 was a disaster.
1-8	Prepare for the Meeting 2 agenda, setting a typical format, and normal length of meetings.	Not done, but then neither was Meeting 2 agenda.
2/3-1	Orientation to the role and focus of the work of the CORE TEAM in the merger process. The focus should always be to bring the merging parishes into one, to prepare for the administration and staff of the new parish, to strengthen ministries toward greater vibrancy.	COMPLETE (more or less).
2/3-2	Decide whether there has been sufficient attention paid to the grieving process. If needed revisit and arrange for any of the six processes for Coping with Change (see Section A-6) to aid the merging parishes with grieving.	Not done.
2/3-3	Discuss and decide on some community-building events or processes which can bring the merging communities together.	Not done - discussed having event on Feb 14, but never did. Communicated some Christmas events to other parishes. "Community" Penance service - around 25 attended from all 3 parishes - almost all from Q of A.
2/3-4	At Meeting 2, distribute and discuss the information provided on the form "Facts About the Present Parish" (Appendices: Section B) completed by the pastors. Parish Profiles already completed for priests applying to be CONVENERS should also be made available.	Not done.
2/3-5	Arrange to gather information about the history, customs, and traditions of each parish.	Not done.
2/3-6	Name the values, skills, and present feelings the parishes hold in common.	Not done.
2/3-7	Brainstorm effective ways to communicate to the parishes as a whole.	Not done.
2/3-8	Prepare for Meeting 4 with the Pastoral Councils, Finance Councils.	Not done other than to set date and place.
4-1	Orientation to the merger process to ensure common understandings.	COMPLETE (more or less).
4-2	Clarification of the different leadership roles in the merger process.	COMPLETE (more or less).
4-3	Pastoral Councils members discuss their own Parish Overview Worksheets (Merger Manual, Appendices: Section B Forms) and the Financial Summaries.	Not done - at time of meeting only Q of A had been given the worksheets. Financial summaries not discussed at all - only cost of priests discussed in generic terms.
4-4	There is no meeting 4, agenda 4 item listed.	N/A
4-5	Observations and discussion areas should be reflected in the minutes.	Not done.
5-1	Decide which values and priorities need to be brought forward to the new parish based on the data gathered about each parish in the merger and the input from the Pastoral Councils and Finance Councils, Parish Profiles, history, customs, and traditions will need to be considered in accord with the Facets of a Vibrant Parish. It is important that the new parish moves toward vibrancy. Past practices of all the parishes need to be considered to see which ones should be brought forward, modified, improved, or consolidated.	Not done.
5-2	Discuss an initial outline of a plan and timeline, using the general outline of sections in the Merger Manual, to accomplish tasks in order to establish the new parish.	Not done.
5-3	Decide what committees are needed to assist their work. Be clear about their goal, the scope of their task and put that in writing. Decide on the means of selecting membership and chairpersons and how committees will report. (Short written reports are very helpful to keep CORE TEAM meetings moving).	Never discussed what committees are needed - mandated, then discussed each committee briefly.
5-4	Decide on ways to communicate with the parishioners and councils of the merging parishes (see Merger Manual, Section A, "Communicating during a Time of Change," p.7).	Not done.
5-5	Set a visit time to walk through each of the facilities of the current parishes.	Only partially done prior to Malaga having CORE TEAM members . Convener stated that he has no intention of completing.
5-6	Prepare for the Meeting 6 agenda.	Not done.
6-1	Written reports given by committee chairpersons.	Three committees presented written reports - all were very formational/preliminary.
6-2	Continue discussion regarding a draft of an overall plan. In the planning always focus on ways to bring the parish communities together, spiritually, socially, and ministerially.	Not done.
6-3	Begin to develop a comprehensive draft of a plan of how the new parish will use the existing facilities. Ultimately this plan is presented for diocesan review to ensure that it complies with both canon law and civil law.	Not even started - listed some of facilities to be considered.
6-4	Begin working with the naming process for the new parish. This is not intended to be accomplished in one session (See sample process, Merger Manual, SECTION D-7, page 51-55.)	Not even started.
6-5	Prepare for Meeting 7 agenda.	Not done.
7-1	Report on the social, liturgical, and information calendar for promoting unity among parishes.	Pushed off until September for social. No mention of liturgical or informational.
7-2	Complete the draft regarding the use of the facilities so it can be submitted for review by the Diocesan Merger Review Committee.	Not even started - committee has not met.
7-3	Report on the continuing engagement of the parish with the process of naming the parish.	Pushed back to September.
7-4	Discuss how to blend parish ministries and what methods are appropriate for each ministry and program.	Talked briefly of what will do in future, mostly related to music. No substantive discussion.
7-5	Discuss the composition and role of a staffing committee to assist the PRIEST CONVENER and CORE TEAM with the hiring of personnel for the new parish.	COMPLETE.
7-6	Prepare the Meeting 8 agenda.	Not done.

In a recent bulletin,* Fr. Edward Namiotka used his bully pulpit to elaborate on his pipe dream of destroying our parish in the name of "merger." We will elaborate on his points in coming posts, but today we will begin with his desire to ensure his continued comfort.

In discussing what supposedly was accomplished at a core team meeting, he says,

During the meeting I suggested that Queen of the Angels Rectory is best suited as the future residence of priests since there are 3 suites (bedroom, sitting room, and private bath) in this building. It easily and comfortably accommodates three priests without any necessary renovations. The parish office could be located in another building.

Of course, this parish, "Queen of the Angels Parish," is where Namiotka has been located and it is the parish that he has repeatedly referred to as "my parish." (We at St. Mary's are like sheep without a shepherd other than Our Lord Himself.)


We find it interesting that in the face of devastating so many people, Namiotka is concerned primarily with his own personal "comfort." If you were to see the exterior of this rectory building in Landisville [above and below], you would probably notice that it is a rather large house to accommodate only three adults. It is certainly much larger than the homes of most people we know. Of course, we don't happen to know anyone who has a one-bathroom-per-person home.

Following is the content of a May 4, 2010 letter to Bishop Galante (emphasis is ours).  The letter, which speaks for itself, was signed by the members Newfield's Parish Council and Newfield's Core Team. The letter was publicly posted on the door of St. Rose.

 

Dear Bishop,

As members of the St. Rose of Lima Parish Council and responsible and constructive members of our local community, we wish to share with you some of the concerns about our local merger.

Change is a part of life and is to be expected in both Church and any social group or organization.

You will remember the great interest amd turnout when you arrived here for the Speak Up Sessions.  St. Rose was among the top parishes in number of attendum at these sessions.

We have cooperated fully with the deanery meetings concerning mergers.

When you announced in the Cathedral your intention for the new entity, St. Rose of Lima, Newfield, Queen of the Angels including St. Michael of Minotola and Our Lady of Victories of Landisville, St. Mary's of Malaga and Our Lady of the Lakes, Collings Lakes, under the two Co-Conveners, Fr. John Cavagnaro and Fr. Ed Namiotka, we participated in all that was required of us.

As of December 2009, we learned that Our Lady of the Lakes had been removed from the new entity and that Fr. Ed Namiotka is the sole convener.  Where things may have been bad in the past, they have now become worse.  We are concerned that we are considered part of a rebellious group.

We have experienced change with Collings Lakes now out of the mix.  The fact that the two co-conveners could not work together is known by all.

In place of moving forward, building unity and consensus, the Convener has placed us on the fast track to merge in January of 2011.  The meeting of the Parish Councils and the Core Groups ended with the Convener enraged and leaving the meeting with business unfinished.  Many questions remain unanswered.

The Convener is moving on with the merger for January.  He is having meetings just to have meetings and to get them over with.  Many questions remain unanswered with little positive outcome.  The Core Group members were picked by the Convener and some now feel like they are puppets, being told to do this or else you will be replaced. 

You must be made aware of this sham as we do not want this to reflect on you or your office.  Transparency is very important.

A January deadline with the manual not being followed, we fear will only create rebellion and lawsuits which will benefit no one.

This is an interesting insight we thought we'd share with you. We must remember that kings and other political leaders were believed to be appointed by Divine Right and were therefore viewed as just authorities to be obeyed. Even the evil King Henry VIII was a Catholic king and, at one point, an apologist. Up until very recently there have been practically no Catholics in England. King Henry VIII, once a Catholic king, turned against true Church teaching and destroyed the Church in England, but not without the complicity of most of the bishops and priests.

This weekend, I have been renting and watching, "The Tudors", Season 3. In Episodes 2 to 4, it chronicles, "The Pilgrimage of Grace." King Henry VIII destroyed hundreds of abbeys and Catholic churches to steal their possessions and gain more power for himself. At one point, the common Catholics in northern England were so distressed to see their churches destroyed that they organized themselves into a pilgrimage to ask the king to stop plundering their churches. The king lied and tricked them. The king had thousands of people killed, including women and children.

It is so poignant and important for us to remember how so many people have died for their churches.

May all the English martyrs, especially St. John Fisher, solitary bishop of England to stand up to King Henry VIII, pray for us.

This information comes from a parishioner opposed to church destruction. We asked him if all the churches in Clinton, Iowa were closed or destroyed. What follows is his response [a couple of details were removed for the protection of those involved]. After reading this, how could one argue that a church is "just a building?" Exactly whose purpose does this un-Catholic position serve?

As parishes, yes [they are all closed]. Sacred Heart was saved as a chapel for the school, which is near the downtown area.  The new church was built out in the middle of nowhere west of Clinton...similar to the "plan" for Streator, [Illinois]. The Clinton parishes were all merged in 1990 and, apparently, that's when all hell really broke loose.  Money started disappearing and renovation projects on the churches were canceled.  The Diocese of Davenport (probably deliberately) brought in particular priests who were determined to wreck what was left of the old parishes.

In 1992 The Wanderer Catholic newspaper ran a big article about the collapse of the Catholic Church in Clinton. Parishioners had no idea what was going on; Mass schedules changed constantly. Even then Catholics were leaving the Church in droves because of what was going on.

One Clinton priest told parishioners of St. Boniface that one day he "hoped he would be driving over the Mississippi at night and see a bright light and that it would be St. Boniface burning." This priest also wanted to trash the elaborate main altar at St.
Boniface [see interior photo right], calling it a "monstrosity."

[Edited out: Miscellaneous church parts were sold off to antique dealers.]

Upon learning that she would not contribute financially to the new church, one of the consolidation priests promptly removed one parishioner from the membership rolls of St. Irenaeus Church. In the end, despite the opposition of the laity, the beloved St. Irenaeus rectory was destroyed and its school demolished later on. After the closing of St. Irenaeus all the altars and statues disappeared.

St. Patrick's Church [top right and left, first two photos] was closed in 1997 and in 2005 the consolidated "Prince of Peace Parish" used $100,000 an elderly lady had left for the maintenance of St. Pat's to demolish that church and its rectory. The organ went right down with the church.
       
The consolidated parish in Clinton tried twice to brainwash Catholics in Clinton to build a new church.  It failed the first time in the late 1990s but succeeded ten years later and the new church was finished last year. It looks just like a barn and cost $7.1 million [see photo left].

For a time, the consolidated parish wanted to use St. Mary's [below right both top and bottom] as the sole church of the parish, but ended up demolishing it last year.  People say that lack of money was the only thing that stopped the consolidated parish from demolishing St. Irenaeus and St. Boniface as well.

You won't find any opposing articles in the local newspaper because the Catholic Church controlled the newspaper and kept out negative articles. Parishioners opposed to the destruction of their churches were forced to take out expensive advertisements in the paper to get their message across.

[Edited: A certain parishioner had questioned whether any of the money from the old parishes was being used to pay off the $37,000,000 abuse settlement that the Diocese of
Davenport was facing and was consequently threatened by a priest for doing so.]  The current pastor told this parishioner who was against church destruction that he "wanted to run him out of town."

I'm sure I've missed many other shady things the Diocese of Davenport did in Clinton (besides moving around prolific child-abusing priests).

Here's a pic of the barn...err I mean "church"  [see photo above or link below]. Actually, In my opinion an old barn not far from the new church is far more beautiful than whatever passes for Prince of Peace Church. http://www.jcpop.org/  

These are videos of Clinton, Iowa churches "before" and demolition videos of "after." What did they wind up with in the end when their churches were needlessly closed and destroyed and all the abuse settlement money paid? Yes, you guessed it: an ugly, generic McChurch that looks somewhat like St. Matthew's Baptist in Williamstown, and a little like the new Assumption in Galloway. The new church, "Prince of Peace," opened up within the past year.

So you think because your church is a "primary worship site" everything's A-ok? You think that the manner in which we worship--a new-fangled "church in the round" as opposed to, well, what we see below--is inconsequential? You think that a church's consecration is something with which we may easily and summarily dispense, despite Church teaching to the contrary? If that is the case you may feel right at home in the "New Church," or, what is called by our current bishop, "the Church of South Jersey." What you see below is nothing less than a tragedy. There is more to come on the Clinton, Iowa debaucle of the 1990s.