The recommendation to close St. Thomas the Apostle church in Irondequoit has become a popular topic of discussion among the Rochester Catholic blogs (see here, here and here). As you may already know, St. Thomas is one of three remaining strongly orthodox parishes within Monroe County (the other two being Our Lady of Victory and St. Stanislaus’ TLM Community). The church is slated to close in 2010 pending a final revision of the Planning Group’s decision, and the approval of Bishop Matthew Clark. Given the bishop’s history with church closings, nobody is expecting him to turn down a recommendation to close the parish.
One issue which has been brought up by Rochester blogger Eugene Michael is whether or not the priests of the cluster should cast a vote in recommending the closure of the parishes of St. Thomas and St. Salome. Let us hope that they did not, as it is the duty of the pastor to seek what is best for the parish(es) entrusted to his care. The possibility that the cluster priests might have influenced the voting reminded me of the closures of St. Francis Xavier and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel last fall. These two parishes were clustered with Corpus Christi, and ultimately it was decided that Corpus Christi should become the sole worship site, while the other two churches should close. What many may not be aware of is the role that the two priests on staff played in this outcome.
Fr. Vincent Panepinto, the Pastor of the cluster, wrote a reflection on the events leading up to the closings of OLMC and SFX. This reflection was published in the parish bulletin a couple of weeks following the two closures. Here are links to scans of the two page document: page one, page two. If the text appears small, click on the image and it should enlarge itself to readability.
In this document, the following passage sticks out [emphasis added in bold]:
“In the very early summer of 2008, the vote went to Corpus Christi 6 to 4. Holy Redeemer/St. Francis Xavier swayed the vote in the direction of the Corpus Christi Church and both priests voted for Corpus Christi Church. There was later some concern about Fr. Mugavero’s vote because he was in his final days with us. Yet, he was still a priest of ours and by Diocesan regulations, he still had a vote.”
Ultimately in the decision to select Corpus Christi as the sole worship site to the exclusion of OLMC and SFX, the two priests on staff cast the two votes which broke a 4-4 stalemate.
My continued prayers for the people of St. Thomas. As more information becomes available, it will be posted.
Tags: Church Closings, IPPG
|
The people of St. Thomas need to stand up and fight Bishop Clark. There has been so much dishonesty about this whole event. If you want to close a parish, Clark, get the courage to do it yourself. Stop relying on pastoral councils to do your dirty work. This is nothing but cowardice.
Is it 2012 yet?
Wow, I didn't realize that the vote was so close to close Mount Carmel. That was my parish home while growing up in the inner city back in the 1970s. There really appears to be an agenda in Rochester.
I repeat I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!
Rome Help us !!! Please help us!!!
Do you hear us? HELP!!
The parishioners at St. Thomas the Apostle should set up a fund to sue Bishop Clark for ownership of the parish.
I would donate $100.00.
The New York State Religious Corporation Law is giving Bishop Clark 100% ownership of the parish. This is the law that needs to be challenged and eventually changed.
The first phone call should go to the group of parishioners who recently sued the Episcopal bishop for ownership of their parish, in Irondequoit. There were several Democrat and Chronicle newspaper articles about the lawsuit.
Filing a complaint with Rome is a waste of money and time. I don't know of one case that ruled in favor of the parishioners.
I should clarify that filing a complaint to stop a parish closing with the Vatican's top appeals court, called the Apostolic Signatura, is a waste of money and time.
We have the opportunity to sue Bishop Clark under New York State civil law.
The parishioners at St. Thomas the Apostle should set up a fund to sue Bishop Clark for ownership of the parish.
This is an absolutely terrible idea, and sloppy, tactical thinking at the expense of strategy. It would:
* Break the back of the Catholic church in terms of assets and property
* Encourage more bickering, backstabbing, and powerplays in the community. Think parish councils are petty and worldly now? Just wait.
* Establish a two-way street that would let dissidents to steal property from the Church faithful. Wouldn't it be great if the Corpus Christi building had been taken over by Jim Callan and company? Yeah, didn't think so.
In a state/country where the average Catholic, or at least, the vocal minority and activist minority, disagrees with Church teachings on women priests and celibacy, and don?t know or care enough to stand against abortion and gay marriage, do you really want to give parishioners this sword to hold over the head of any orthodox priest or bishop?
~TD
Anon. 11:50am sounds like Bishop Clark trying to protect his "financial empire", that the parishioners in the Diocese of Rochester built and paid for, with hard earned cash.
How in the world did parishioners in the Diocese of Rochester build so many parishes and schools and get along so well with the past bishops, before Bishop Clark came to Rochester and started the destruction in 1979?
I have 100% faith in our orthodox parishioners, to take care of the finances of their parishes and schools.
Parishioners already serve on parish finance committees and protect the best interest of their parish.
How soon, you forget the schools that raised over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) in 2 weeks last year, but Bishop Clark still closed the schools, against the will of the parishioners.
How in the world did parishioners in the Diocese of Rochester build so many parishes and schools and get along so well with the past bishops, before Bishop Clark came to Rochester and started the destruction in 1979?
How soon, you forget the schools that raised over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) in 2 weeks last year, but Bishop Clark still closed the schools, against the will of the parishioners.
In both of these paragraphs, you've hit the crux of the issue. Putting aside all of the other duties of a Bishop, we need a better administrator.
In a state/country where the average Catholic, or at least, the vocal minority and activist minority, disagrees with Church teachings on women priests and celibacy, and don?t know or care enough to stand against abortion and gay marriage, do you really want to give parishioners this sword to hold over the head of any orthodox priest or bishop?
Does that really sound like Bishop Clark to you? C'mon.
Let's be realistic here. You're trying to use the powers of the state to reform the Church. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit backwards? If this were a liberal group trying to wrest control away from, say, Archbishop Chaput, you'd be crying foul (and so would I) about the separation of Church and state, and the right of the Church to govern itself.
~TD
If there is a separation of church and state and the Church (Diocese of Rochester) has the right to govern itself, then please explain why we need a New York State Religious Corporation Law on the books, that protects the bishop as owner of the parish and school, rather than the parishioners, that built and paid for it.
There is no separation of church and state, as long as this law "dictates" that the bishop is the owner of the parish and school.
Imagine if the President of a public corporation decided to close down the company, sell the buildings and put the money in his savings account.
New York State stockholders have more protection than Catholic parishioners.
The people of St. Thomas need to stand up strong together and storm the Pastoral Planning meetings, not allowing a word other than their own to be heard. They've been pushed around for far too long by the Christ the King majority, time to take a freaking stand people. We know damn well the people of St. Thomas will not go over to Christ the King, so tell them that. Tell them that you'll go downtown to the orthodox Our Lady of Victory. I am serious, tell them exactly where you're going and why. Tell them Fr. Antinarelli would welcome us and has more respect for our worship needs than the current leadership does. Christ the King is the den of liberals, St. Thomas is the house of the Lord! The people of St. Thomas are not going to roll over and suckle from the teat of Christ the King parish. Enough is enough. Fight back people, fight back with all your man power possible. Stand outside and picket, do what needs to be done. Come on!!!!
E-mail the Planning group chair:
emstehler@gmail.com
Tell her what you think about this whole process and how we have been disrespected.
E-mail our alleged representative:
mochs@rochester.rr.com
Tell her that she has stabbed us in the back, and is not representing our interests properly. Has she been promised a leadership position in the new Christ the King parish?
And e-mail the parish leaders and give them a piece of your minds:
irondequoitcatholic@gmail.com
Come on, we need to make a stand before we get pushed around and the liberal catholics get their way again.
Let's review:
1. Bishop Clark fights against the traditional Catholics to put off their obtaining a Latin Mass. The St. Joseph Foundation is called to step in and finally help persuade the Vatican to take action.
2. Bishop Clark installed Joan Sobala to lead St. Anne, a site of orthodox sanity, chant, Latin, incense, and great reverence. Joan Sobala is killing this parish. The attendance is almost half of what it was before she arrived.
3. Bishop Clark clustered St. Thomas with the liberal Christ the King. St. Thomas experiences a rapid decline over a 2 year period, including a drop in attendance of over 40%.
Ok adamant shameless defenders of Bishop Clark, explain to me how this man isn't deliberately trying to wipe out orthodoxy and tradition from the Diocese of Rochester?
I'm waiting…
Having had first hand experience with St. Thomas the Apostle, and being married to someone whose family has been members of that parish for over 40 years, I feel that I have some knowledge and every right to put my two cents into this debate. My husband, who, with all of his brothers and sisters, graduated from STA School, has not set foot in this, or any other Catholic church because he wants to in nearly 20 years.
In my experience the people of STA are cold-hearted, self-righteous and at times downright rude. The lack of pastoral care to my husband?s family during his father?s illness did not go unnoticed by me, or others in the family. In the 5+ years he was ill, no one came to visit, called to offer prayers or support, or to bring communion, even though the office was called by me (several times) and by others in the family.
I can honestly say that the people of St. Thomas have no one but themselves to blame for this.
I am sorry for the people of St. Thomas. Change is always hard, but before you try and remove the speck from your brother?s eye, shouldn?t you remove the beam from your own.
Persis, your profile says that you are studying at the St. Bernard school of heretics, and you're studying to become a pastoral minister (administrator you hope?). Thus, I would be willing to wager that your religious leanings are on the progressive side. If this is true, then you obviously would feel out of place in an orthodox Catholic church which has male altar servers and celebrates the Mass with tradition in mind, and has no use for you in the position you wish to work. The first post on your blog is a glorification of the "reforms of Vatican II" and defense of Bishop Clark, so you must have some kind of axe to grind against traditional catholics and St. Thomas.
In three years when you're out of a job because Bishop Clark is no longer our bishop, you will have no one to blame but yourself.
I think now would be a good time to point your attention to a "work-in-progress" which was emailed to me a short while ago.
http://www.savestthomas.blogspot.com
There is nothing posted yet, but I have sources that tell me that things are definitely in the works for a resistance movement, one public, one not-so-much. We all know what that means . . . 😉
I permit much on this blog. Sometimes too much in the opinions of others, but I just work through it.
HOWEVER: I will not tolerate someone to label and entire parish as being "cold-hearted and self righteous." Someone who is studying to be a lay administrator has no right and no privilege to judge the hearts of such a vast multitude. It is wholly inappropriate. We have our fun on this blog, yes, poking fun where it is due, but only to keep ourselves from crying over the reality which others have created. Anyone who labels a Catholic parish as being at fault for problems that the bishop throws at them will be dealt with. And quickly. The same goes the other way, too. If anyone bashes an entire parish as being "heretical scum" or some such thing will have every comment deleted. We cannot judge people's hearts. We can only judge their actions.
Judging from the actions and words of Persis, I am appalled that such a person will be in charge of a parish.
Some comments:
-Giving control of a parish to the parishioners would be very unwise for the reasons another poster stated. It may be all well and good, say, if Our Lady of Victory were to be run by the parish and not the diocese. But, but… what about when you have a schismatic situation develop like we saw with Corpus Christi? As TD stated, letting Jim Callan and his Spring Committee hold the power over their parish would have been a terrible idea, since the Diocese wouldn't have been able to stop them from doing their own thing and squatting in the parish.
-St. Thomas parishioner, I hope you and others at your parish will stand up and try and give the best fight possible to save your parish. I do feel what happened there is unfair. When CTK was clustered with ST and SS, we all knew back then what the outcome would be. When the Pastoral Plan called for three worship sites, we knew that only one of the three in the cluster, along with St. Margaret Mary and St. Salome, would comprise the three parishes. There has been a game going on for so long, but the parishioners are not idiots.
-Persis said: "In my experience the people of STA are cold-hearted, self-righteous and at times downright rude" Please do not make a general statement like that about the good people of St. Thomas. That is very un-Christian. If you have a problem with the leadership, I can understand, since they would be the ones responsible for the pastoral care, but please do not bash the people who attend the parish. Unless each and every one of them has been nasty to you, then I find it difficult to make a statement suggesting the entire congregation is cold-hearted. I share Genjcgetty's concerns… if you are studying to be a pastoral leader in our area, I would expect much more compassion than to make a sweeping generalization about the people of a parish. You would alienate the people at whatever parish you're assigned to very quickly if you make statements like that.
~Dr. K
Persis, that was uncalled for.
Persis is Anne Gallagher of Good Shepherd. She loves to give the homily, which is reserved to the priest or deacon.
Dear Anon 9:26
Here is an entry in zoominfo for the Anne Gallagher you mentioned. This might help. Didn't Persis claim she is 40+ years old?
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Gallagher_Anne_489696060.aspx
Te Deum Laudamus!
I personally think the people of St. Thomas could make a decent case to keep their parish open.
1. They have a large church building that is receiving acoustic improvements
2. They have plenty of parish meeting space
3. Although some organization is currently renting out their school, they could easily use it as a Catholic school again and move the CTK school over there
4. The body of a holy man is buried on campus
5. There is plenty of parking
6. If the current plan goes through, there will be NO parish located north of Titus Avenue
The people of St. Thomas the Apostle need to unite and flood these meetings to voice their opinion. Their representation has been poor so far, but that can change very quickly now that the writing is on the wall.
And Persis, that comment is very inappropriate and hurtful in this time of sadness. I hope to God that you do not end up working as a "pastoral administrator" in my parish. If you do, I am leaving.
Choir, you are right. My apologies. The information at her blog sounded a lot like Gallagher, but I see that there is an age discrepancy. Thank you.
40+ could still be Fr. Hart though!, ha ha.
My $.02, on the savestthomas blog, I think the picture of St. Thomas at the top should have some reference to it possibly, one day becoming a mosque. Somebody say it looks similar to the "hagia sophia" in Constantinople. Maybe the Islamic Crescent hanging over the church would drive the point home more forcefully. Just a thought!
On totally unrelated topic, where do these "word verification" come from? These "words" aren't really words at all. They make no sense. Kinda like the DoR! NO SENSE or NONSENSE or NUNSENSE!!!
I agree with Choir, people need a big dose of reality, both the lax members of St. Thomas, and the members of the other communities who supported this closing recommendation.
Let us not forget the wise words of Matthew the prophet (link): "That we have and will continue to face enormous challenges and change ? sometimes controversial change."
My translation for "controversial change" -> "I will destroy all traces of tradition in this diocese. This is revenge for exposing Corpus Christi's illegal activities, for going to the Vatican to get a Latin Mass, for fighting the Cathedral renovation, for reporting me about the gay Mass, for complaining about Sr. Joan and lay preaching, and for all that you have done to stand in my way! MWA HA HA *cough hack* HA HA!" [This is my own translation, not his actual words]
To Persis,
St. Thomas has an active Legion of Mary, whose members are in the hospitals every single week. Each week at their meeting, the priest gives them the names of parishioners who are in the hospital, or whose families have called, and then the Legion members go visit them. Are you sure no one came, not even Legion members?
"Are you sure no one came, not even Legion members?"
She's probably assuming that because they didn't appear when she was at the hospital that they didn't go at all.
Saving St. Thomas is absolutely necessary for many reasons.
First off, St. Thomas parishioners need justice and the DoR is not acting in a fair and just manner. They are being made a scapegoat for many of the bad decision made by Bishop Clark. We would have had priests to pastor these parishes if Clark had promoted vocations years ago. Clark had a politically-correct "filter" through which vocations would be approved or not.
Second — Vatican II called for participation by the laity. STA laity is speaking now and has spoken years ago when the school was closed. But the Bishop doesn't get the "spirit of Vatican II" of the laity involvement because it doesn't fit with the Bishop's agenda. This is a Bishop that speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Remember Bishop Clark is a "Jadot-appointment". Read about Jadot —>
http://tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=24893
Thirdly, in a different way, keeping STA open is a victory for Western Civilization. For many years, Christianity, but more specifically Catholicism has been kicked around by politicians and some of its own theologians. The "world" is trying to shut down the voice of the Catholic Church. It is our right to speak up and defend our Catholic faith, teach our Catholic faith, practice our Catholic devotions in our Catholic parish, pastor by an orthodox priest and, hopefully, one day soon, by a real unabashedly Roman Catholic bishop.
Until then, we need to stick together and fight the DoR.
To Persis: I truly mean this in the most charitable way possible —
they (the diocese) may have the buildings, but WE have the faith!
Wake up and smell the incense before it's too late.
Oremus pro invicem.
"St. Thomas parishioners need justice and the DoR is not acting in a fair and just manner."
Choir, I just put up a post about a couple more examples of how St. Thomas has received unfair treatment. This parish very easily could remain open, but opportunities to strengthen it (such as repairs, including some already in the works, and bringing in St. George Lithuanian parish) have been rejected and discouraged by the planning group and the diocese. Who are they all fooling? They want Christ the King to remain open, not St. Thomas. The more excuses they make, the more obvious this is becoming.
~Dr. K
Dr. K – I wish I had read your posts first, I would have left my comments there.
It is clearer that we have to fight back harder than ever.
"I just put up a post about a couple more examples of how St. Thomas has received unfair treatment."
Dr. K, Are you talking about 8:44PM above, or did you post somewhere else? If so, where?
Thanks.
The post is on the blog at http://cleansingfiredor.blogspot.com/2009/07/st-george-lithuanian-considering-move.html
~Dr. K
Persis, you're really putting that St. Bernard's education to good use when you make nasty comments like that.
It is so sad how easily we put blame on those who are trying to save what is left instead of putting blame where it is due. All I have to say is that if more so called "Catholics" would attend Mass and help support their parish, churches wouldn't have to close. Let's try getting people back into the church and stop blaming the priests, the bishop, and anyone for our own mistakes.
I blame Persis for the troubles of St. Thomas.
Thank you for proving my point!! Why don't we take responsibility for our churches and stop this pointing fingers and rudeness to others who do not share your point of view? Have any of you ever heard of "Evangelization"?
"Why don't we take responsibility for our churches"
The people of St. Thomas are tying to do this. They have brought forth many ideas to keep their parish afloat and to make it grow stronger, but the Planning Group is running the show. It's hard to take responsibility when not given the chance.
I do agree though, if more people were to attend Mass, they would have yet another argument to support their cause. Parishioners who stop attending Mass are not helping matters.
~Dr. K
Persis, that was the most un-Christian thing I have ever read.