There are several statements in this document which we feel misrepresent the situation, and we address each of these below.
1. “the campaign against the new rectory began in May…”
When the petition was delivered to the Monsignor, Pastoral Council, Finance Committee and Archdiocese, the cover letter clearly stated that we were not against a new rectory. Our concern was clear that “the new plan would have a significant adverse impact on St. Mary Park”, not that we were against a rectory. The petition was a response to our unanswered requests to meet with Monsignor regarding the new placement of the rectory in the center of Mary Park.
2. “our work is visible for all to see”.
The last official communication from the Church in 2006 which proposed the placement of a rectory behind the current site concluded that “we will keep you informed as this project develops.” It is apparent that parishioners were not kept informed. No disclosure was made concerning the current plan until after these plans were already finalized. The new rectory’s location in the center of Mary Park was obtained through the Village by implementing the Freedom of Information Act. Although permits were already pending for the current plan, the old plan was still listed on the web site leaving the impression the original plan was still operative, and most parishioners were not informed of this important change.
3. There is unanimous support for the current plan among the Pastoral council and Finance Committee
We all understand and appreciate the time and efforts that have been invested in this project and understand it is not the work of one person. However, it is our understanding that there is not total agreement among the members of the Pastoral Council and Finance Committee as inferred in the recent mailing. In fact we know of several members who strongly disagree with this decision.
4. Monsignor and the group promoting building in Mary Park wants “consultation within the parish”.
Monsignor has stated on several occasions at official meetings that this is not a democracy, and we are not “shareholders”. He stated at a recent School Board meeting that parishioners who do not agree with the decision to build in Mary Park can leave the parish. Finally, the facts demonstrate that there is no interest in “consultation.” The new plan was finalized before any Parish-wide disclosure of such a plan was even contemplated. Monsignor has presented the new plan as a “done deal”, which belies any true interest in “consultation.”
5. There is no other viable option.
Space does not allow to review each and every option available to St. Mary’s. A number of these have been discussed elsewhere on this blog. A document suggesting four other viable alternatives with similar budgets estimated by a local contractor was recently prepared and delivered to Monsignor, the Finance Committee and the Pastoral Council. In response, it was stated that the document was not to be discussed or should be dismissed at meetings of the advisory councils.
6. The position of our “neighbors to the north” have left us no other option.
It should also be noted that the Sundry’s sent a letter on June 8th, 2009, addressed to the Monsignor, finance and pastoral committees. It outlined that they would still be willing to enter into a land swap to erase the easement and remove the restrictive covenant, which would allow the residence to be built between the existing rectory and the Sundry home. There was a subsequent meeting on July 9th between a member of the Finance Committee and Art Sundry where a potential compromise hybrid solution, was discussed. On July 14th, the Sundry’s offered to consider the arrangement despite the fact that they would rather not have any residence so close to their home. They have since been informed this option was dismissed as it likely would take too long to move through the village.
7. We are under a time constraint to move forward.It also states several times throughout the new document that certain options are not viable because they would slow down the process because new plans would have to be developed or there would be zoning issues from the Village. Quite possibly if communication to the parishioners had been more effective throughout the process, input from a broader spectrum of parishioners and neighbors was solicited and evaluated, this project would have evolved naturally into a plan that would be found acceptable to many more parishioners and the Monsignor and his advisors would not feel so much pressure to build so quickly.
****
Since there is so much consternation over this issue a viable resolution to this problem would be to have the priests live together in a rented residence close to St. Mary’s since there is concern that the priests should live together as soon as possible. Then, as with other capital projects at St. Mary’s, a committee can be formed and charged with the responsibility of comprehensively looking at all the alternatives and presenting them to the parish in a factual based and transparent way.
Other things to consider:
-- It is apparent that when the convent was sold in 1996, the intent of the parish and archdiocese was to keep Mary Park green. This is supported by the “covenant” signed between the archdioceses and the Sundry’s and the letter to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency dated May 31, 1996 from David Newman, the then village attorney, stating, “Please keep in mind that the Church has no desire to sell off this open area for building purposes but, on the contrary, is attempting to preserve the same for continued park use.”
- A 4500 square foot house for 3 people in this economy where people in our own community are suffering financially seems excessive.
PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS ON THIS MOST RECENT POST!!!
