(please click on image to enlarge)This site represents a group of concerned parishioners of St. Mary Church of Riverside, IL. We have recently been informed that the church has changed the placement of the proposed rectory to a Longcommon address. The Priests' Residence Project proposal presented to the parish and listed on the Parish website states, "The integrity of St. Mary Park would be maintained." We are concerned that the new plan would have a significant adverse impact on St. Mary Park, by compromising the integrity of the park's green space.
A petition stating the above concern is in the process of being circulated so parishioners that do not want to lose this green space can join together and voice their opinion. The petition will be sent to Monsignor Sarauskas, the Pastoral Council, the Finance Committee and the Archdiocese of Chicago. If you are interested in signing this petition please email one of the below contacts or a petition is available to sign at Grumpy's.
Please visit this blog again in the near future for further information. Many people who have signed this petition are not against a new rectory, however they would like other options/locations to be considered. We will be collecting signatures for petitions until June 3rd... We welcome your comments!
Susan Schoen
sschoen325@comcast.net
Michelle Cronin
mcronin@ameritech.net
Colleen McMahon
mcmahon82@comcast.net
Rita Domeier
markdomeier@ameritech.net
Liz Carey
lizcarey@sbcglobal.net
Maura Doherty
mojo1216@aol.com
TO LEAVE A CURRENT COMMENT
PLEASE SEE THE MAIN PAGE
OF THE SAVE MARY PARK BLOG AT:
www.savemarypark.blogspot.com
An article was published in The Riverside/Brookfield Landmark today (May 29) with additional information regarding the status of the building permits for this proposed plan.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for sharing this information. I cannot imagine Mary Park being taken away from our children. I know it is one of the kids favorite places to have picnics and gym days...there are so many memories that have been created here. I know Mary Park would be greatly missed by our school community as well as Riverside.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Monsignor came to St. Mary, he said he asked the Archdiocese to place him at a church where there was a school. Yet, he makes no effort to BE at the school, where he might show some support for the academic achievements of our students, for athletic events, or other extra curricular activities and fundraisers. (Thank God for Fr. Michael.) But he certainly made a unilateral decision that HE did not like the Demon mascot, and was quick to act on that decision without any input from any parishoners or school parents. He wil be here a short time, and after he is gone, are we stuck with being the "spartans"? Thank you to the people who are bringing this to our attention. Since the Monsignor is rarely at the school, and has so much help with saying the masses (Fr. Michael, the Dominican friar, and the Deacons), why would he have to ruin the open space that is used and loved by so many parishioners, for his own personal use? Our children need an alternate place to play and have gym that is not concrete. We all deserve some answers, and I am afraid that if we sit by and allow him to make the decisions unilaterally, we will be stuck with another "spartan" in the middle of Mary Park.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of the new rectory plan was that it would be minimally intrusive to Mary Park. This version is still posted on the St. Mary Church website. The new version above obliterates the park (it has a silt fence around it?), and I oppose it. I think it would be appropriate for parishioners to have input into the options and final decision, and I encourage Monsignor Sarauskas to seek such input, before we have to ultimately vote with our wallets at the end. He may get a better result that way. Recall the inclusionary process by which the church was redesigned and approved (and paid for!)
ReplyDeleteAny attempt to build on and thereby carve up Mary Park will be a blight on our Parish and our community. The new rectory should be built on the vacant lot east of the church parking lot on the south side of Herrick.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why they can't just put a sizeable addition on the existing rectory. This wouldn't affect the greenscape of Mary Park so much. IF additional money was received they could also build on the vacant lot south of Herrick. There are other options!! The whole things seems like it was sneaky. The parish needed to know all the potential plans and sites for residence, not just the one that was posted.
ReplyDeleteWhat about purchasing one of the many homes for sale nearby. There are 2 practically across the street on Nuttall.
ReplyDeleteSt. Mary Park is a generous gift from the St. Mary's community and is appreciated by Parishioners, neighbors, Village of Riverside residents and all who pass by or use this space - 365 days/year.
ReplyDeleteWe should support preserving as much of this open space as we can and I agree with the post above that there are several properties available at comparable prices within a 5 or 10 minute walk of St. Mary's that can serve the same purpose as another home, not to mention the current rectory plot.
This seems like a wrong option to build on such a beautiful piece of property when there are other possible solutions to St Mary's needs. There must be more to this story. I hope whoever is listening in this game of chicken to please adjust their points of view and keep what is beautiful and right firmly in view, the quiet open green space that the statue of St Francis overlooks right next to Mary Park - there is so much other stuff in the world to pay attention to.
ReplyDeleteThe website of the link above says two things...
"The integrity of St. Mary Park would be maintained."
--but building in St Mary park would be a dividing up of St Mary's. It would be like putting a studio apartment in the center of the church. Anyone witnessing the kids playing in that park and the Masses that have been performed in St Mary park would agree with this statement. I have video of Cardinal Bernadin smiling down at my dog as he processed into St Mary park for a special mass.
and,
A petition stating the above concern is in the process of being circulated so parishioners that do not want to lose this green space can join together and voice their opinion.
I know that parishioners and non-parishioners are interested in this issue. As anyone can come in to take in the spiritual food of St Mary's, so anyone with a sensitivity and a spiritual sense of that space with its trees and quiet will also care about this. Please SERIOUSLY consider other options. Where there is a will, there is a way. Would St Francis, Mary, Jesus do? WWFD? WWDMD? WWJD?
where is the petition and how does one sign it ? I assume that the 9 comments posted here is not the petition.
ReplyDeleteAll of the people listed above with their emails have petitions. We would be happy to get one to you to sign. Also, there is one at Grumpy's.
ReplyDeleteWhat a terrible loss this would be for our parish, our children and our community! There are other options, as we can all see from the many already proposed. It seems to be a very selfish plan to sacrifice one of our parish's most beautiful treasures. I cannot understand why building in the middle of St. Mary Park is even a serious option!
ReplyDeleteThis was sent from JoAnne Kosey:
ReplyDeleteAs a life-long member of St. Mary's I am very disheartened by the recent actions of the Pastor in regards to a new rectory in Mary Park. If there is such a "glut " of money in the Pastor's possession perhaps it could be better used to help many of our brothers and sisters who are in need during these tough times. That was a lesson I learned from the good sisters when I was a student at St. Mary's grade school and still applies today. I believe the people make up the parish and the decision should not have been made by one person leaving everyone else to foot the bill. there are alternatives but our opinions were not asked. Will Mary park, once God's Green Space be taken away and become George's Garden? WWJD?
This is incredibly short-sighted. This type of behavior demonstrated by the Pastor does not build community within OUR parish. Lets not forget this is OUR parish and we do have say in what direction we go in.
ReplyDeleteWhat a disgrace. Villagers are suffering, unable to sell their homes, and the Church was left the lot across the street as a gift.
ReplyDeleteA church that loses its green space loses its chief asset: standing proof of the majesty and love of God.
It is not just a St Mary issue, but a Riverside issue for both current, and more importantly, future people. Space and design matter - and can affect people's...souls, a curious word, but the correct word, in this context.
ReplyDeleteWhat distinguishes Riverside from other places is the emphasis on Landscape design. We have here a genius of design that melds opennness and built elements in a very pleasing manner that will never go out of style since we come from nature and we humans have a deep abiding connection to nature, and therefore to our source, to God --
--and St MAry park, and it is a park, despite what some have suggested that it is merely an empty lot with a couple of trees thrown in, is a jewel in the crown that is the Riverside landscape.
It was very disturbing to hear of the rectory construction plans for Mary Park. I had thought that the Church had evolved to a greater and meaningful eco-consciousness which had been so lacking in the past. Perhaps Msgr. Sarauskas should read the works of Thomas Berry, Ph.D., a Catholic priest of the Passionist order who was a cultural historian and an ecotheologian, who co-authored The Universe Story with Brian Swimme, a mathematical cosmologist. I was fortunate enough to meet Father Berry at several conferences, including one at the Field Museum
ReplyDeletePerhaps he should also read Randy White’s book, Young Children’s Relationship with Nature: Its Importance to Children's Development & the Earth's Future. A growing body of research shows that the natural environment has positive effects on the well-being of children including better psychological well-being, increased cognitive functions, concentration (especially including children with ADD and ADHD), and self-discipline. In the logical advancement of the “Leave No Child Inside” movement at both the federal and state level, it is mind boggling to me that the removal of Mary Park as natural area for both students and adults should even be considered when there are other logical options to follow for a new or improved rectory. These studies are very specific about “natural” areas, not basketball courts or parking lot areas for play areas, which we already have. In fact, I had hoped that Mary Park could possibly add further native plantings on the periphery of the park.
I suggest we get the word out to boycott giving an offering to the church this weekend and see how he misses our support!
ReplyDeleteI was sadly disappointed to read about Msgr. Sarauskas' fast track in building a rectory (The Landmark, June 3, 2009)in defiance of parishioners and in contrast to reason. As a thirty-year resident of Riverside, and long term parishioner, I have witnessed shocking squander of valuable church property. Glorious land parcels were sold off below market value, and are now residences worth a fortune. The short sightedness of pastors that have come and gone has soured this congregation's trust, and has made me skeptical of this parish's priorities.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the worst financial situation of a life time, and with thousands of homes in the area in foreclosure and affordable, it is nonsense to ruin one of the most pristine greenspaces anywhere, "St. Mary Park".
The ostentatious structure planned is more than likely to offend Riverside citizens who are active in preservation and sustainability.
I urge Msgr. Sarauskas to halt construction plans and to reconsider more practical options for housing three priests.
This action is consistent with Monsignor Sarauskas' inflated sense of self-importance. Why not build on Millie's lot and save the green space for St. Mary parishioners and students? Better yet, why not put a second floor on the present rectory or, as noted above, buy a nearby house already on the market? This is just another nail in the St. Mary parish coffin for this family. We'll go to church at St. Vincent Ferrer or St. Giles.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, I hate the idea of the rectory being built in the park. At first, I had no idea why the plan was revised to build the rectory in the park. I count as friends many of those that are behind the petition. I signed the petition to signal that I had unresolved questions about the project. On the other hand, I knew that there had to be another side to the story. I sought answers from a parish council member and life-long Riverside resident that I greatly respect and consider a dear friend. Reconciling these conflicting perspectives is a daunting task.
ReplyDeleteI’m convinced that the Monsignor would rather keep the park open. Unfortunately, he is faced with a commitment to the Archdiocese to build a rectory and to get it built quickly. He made the commitment while competing for one of very few, highly sought after, new priests. Thankfully, through his commitment to excellence and concern for his parish, he secured Fr. Mike, who is already beloved by parishioners. I wonder how many people have thanked Monsignor Sarauskas for single-handedly bringing him to our parish.
The Monsignor was honored with the title “monsignor” because he demonstrated exemplary service to the Church as both a priest and as a manager of Church assets. Whether or not we agree about the placement of the rectory, he deserves great respect; respect which is lacking in several of these posts. It’s a shame that in Fr. Mike’s first assignment he has to witness venomous attacks, from within the parish, on his mentor. Fr. Mike is going to see first-hand the heavy burden associated with making tough decisions in a parish. Given that the role of pastor can be a lonely one, especially when parishioners have turned against you, the need for a group home for priests is highlighted.
Perhaps the new plan should have been presented earlier. Maybe the rectory should be built somewhere else. I’d like to know why Millie’s place isn’t suitable. There’s nothing wrong with respectfully seeking the rationale behind the decision. However, as Catholics we’re compelled to conduct this conversation in a respectful manner with an extra measure of charity toward those tasked with making very complicated, tough decisions.
This whole string of events is a disgrace. All that the Finance committe and Monsignor Sarauskas have done is to divide the parish over this idiotic placement of the Rectory. The whole proccess should have out in the open and not in some seceret back alley meeting.
ReplyDelete"And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love..." I just love it when we all sing that song together in Church. Is this the place where I can pile on and take an anonymous cheap shot at our Pastor?
ReplyDeleteA little history/perspective is in order here. Monsignor Sarauskas has spent over a year and thousands of dollars trying to put the new priest residence behind the existing rectory (East of Mary Park!!) Creating a priest residence was a commitment Monsignor made with the Archdiocese of Chicago prior to receiving a new priest.
I appreciate that a local Gallup poll has been taken and that there are a range of opinions on where the priest residence should be built. Ultimately, whatever is decided, there will be unhappy parishioners.
PROPOSAL: Would the neighbor to the North of Mary Park consider becoming a hero at this juncture and sign off on the easement allowing the original plan to come to fruition?
After reading the comments dated June 4th and June 5th in the Landmark following their story on this subject it seems to me that the writers of those two comments may very well have the solution to this dilemma.
ReplyDeleteOne writer made reference to the original plan. That plan was to expand the existing rectory northward. Evidently that plan required an agreement with a neighbor over the use of an easement.
Concerning preserving the open space this original plan would do just that. Unfortunately an agreement could not be reached with the neighbor.
The other writer suggested that the 'Save St. Mary Park' group, along with representatives from the parish, approach the neighbor concerning the easement and see if a satisfactory agreement could be achieved.
I don't know what the concerns are regarding the easement, but since there is so much interest throughout the community it makes sense that an effort should be made to work out an agreement with the neighbor.
Given the level of interest in this parcel of land I think the original plan would bring the most amount of satisfaction to St. Mary's parish, the neighbor, and the concerned community.
Kevin Casey's proposal stated above is right on the mark!
Nancy, who is being selfish? You are right. The building of the rectory in the middle of the beautiful empty lot should not be a serious consideration. Again. The original plan was for the rectory to be built north and very near the existing one. The immediate neighbor objected. In fact, due to the easement, they would not agree to it at all. Let me ask the question again---who is being selfish? Answer: Not St. Mary's.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is fair to imply that the neighbor to the north is being selfish. They bought a property (perhaps one that should not have been sold in the first place) with the understanding that the easement existed. The building of the rectory right next to their yard would have an impact on the value of their property and their privacy.
ReplyDeleteOver 300 signatures were collected for the Save St. Mary Park Petition. Copies of the petition were sent to the St. Mary's Finance Committee, The St. Mary's Pastoral Council and The Archdiocese on June 4th.
ReplyDeleteThank you to all who have supported this cause! We will continue to update this site as more information becomes available.
And what about all of the new construction of giant homes or enormous additions (McMansions) which result in the lack of privacy and views for the neighbors? Do you have the same compassion for them as you have for your friend? This type of construction certainly affects the propery values of the surrounding areas. Perhaps they should not have been bought in the first place, either.
ReplyDeleteWhen one buys a home near a school, church, or public building, one should expect to have issues with noise, traffic, or parking.
Caveat emptor.
I grew up in Riverside, and as a child, I walked by, what is now known as Mary Park, everyday, on my way to school, at St. Mary's. I remember that before it was actually named Mary Park, Mary Park, was a vacant lot. A lot mostly of filled dirt and dead grass, a seemingly barren area, that we as kids, were not suppose to go into because it was vacant and owned by the church. But, before it was a vacant lot, I remember too, the beautiful old rectory that stood so proudly on its ground, and the priests that lived behind its doors. I also remember, the day that beautiful old rectory was being torn down. I remember the comotion it caused around town and in the parish, that day, the preceding and following days. It was a very big deal then, as I am seeing it is today, all with the development of a rectory! Everyone was either for or against knocking down the old rectory and building a new one! I remember standing around, watching the bulldowzers, as they ate away at the beautiful white and black trimmed clapboard victorian, crushing the building, leveling it and finally filling the gaping hole in the ground with mounds of dirt. (my parents still have the pictures from that day) I remember too, how the rectory HAD to be torn down and NOT restored and, a new rectory HAD to be built! I didn't really understand it then, as I do not understand the idea of tearing up this park now. It even sounds as if, history is repeating itself, in a reverse sort of a way.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, I have visited my brothers families in Riverside. And I have watched that once vacant lot, where it seemed grass would never grow, mature into an amazing lush corner, flanked with the beautiful convent stained glass windows. I have watched the kids in the gym classes at the park run around, girls practice cheerleading and classes being held outside in Mary Park. I have often thought too, how much I sincerely wished, we had access to that park when I was a kid. (Remember too, in those days, St. Mary's didn't even have a gym). I have admired how Mary Park has turned into a vibrant green corner of the town. Not only does the park compliment Riverside, but, it truly compliments St. Mary's Parish, even more so!
It is distressing to me, when I read that the park is going to be built upon. I have seen that lot, that park, both with a beautiful building upon it and now as a lovely green sweeping space. I overwhelmingly, feel a park like Mary Park, adds more value to the community and to the parish then, any building planned for that space ever could.
Mary Park blends perfectly into the neighborhood, into the parish and into the architectural landscape of the town. Honestly, I would have never imagined that the park would have turned out so picturesque, but it has, most definetely , so why would anyone ever ruin it!
It seems there are many other options to consider for a rectory. But there are not any other options for a park like Mary Park! I think the parish owes it to itself, to preserve the beauty Mary Park beholds!
Dear Caveat Emptor,
ReplyDeleteI don't know the people to the north of Mary Park and I would have the same compassion for a neighbor of a McMansion, especially if there was an easement that required no building on the property.
The buyer was obviously aware since the easement exists and was agreed to.
Just wondering if anyone has any updates on this issue - I have lost track, thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhile I support the building of a new rectory, I feel strongly that it should be built on Millie's lot. The park is called Mary Park. Let's build a grotto or other memorial to Mary in Mary Park and save the McMansion for another town.
ReplyDeleteThe update on this issue is that st mary's admin is trying to finesse this and slow dow n th process from
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS WHAT WILL BE DONE.
to
This is what will be done and why.
There does not seem to be a WILL to do anything other than inserting the building in the middle of the park. I agree totally in keeping the priest residence on the campus, but there are other ways to skin a cat, to get this done without violating that space (at Millies , modifying the current rectory, even potentially changing the offices to Sundstrom's).
A couple posters ago made an eloquent summary of the history of that space and notes, correctly, that St Mary's park is an improvement from before. Let's not regress.
Yes, I agree with the last post. He's getting ready to dig.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the invasion of the USSR, Hitler insisted that the Slavs should be treated like the Helots under the Spartans: "They (the Spartans) came as conquerors, and they took everything."
ReplyDeleteSuddenly the moniker 'Spartans' is making a lot of sense.
Also, did I miss any open discussions of where the parish admin. finally decided to build? I remember Msgr. touting building a priest's residence a couple of years ago (which I have no problem with,) and now getting ready to build on Mary Park. The recent mailing made it sound like the dissenters are sabotaging the project, but where was the discussion about finalizing the plans and inviting comments from the parish community? Again, did I completely miss this?
ReplyDeleteThe Forums and the invitation to mail or email comments was mentioned in Monsignor's cover letter and throughout the enclosed document. All of the items are at the website. The Forums will be announced in The Bell for subsequent Sundays. In case your happened not receive some pages of the insert, perhaps you may want to check the website.
ReplyDeleteBuilding a residence in the middle of Mary Park will divide our parish, but not by two. It will divide the entire parish against a small group. It is not responsible spiritually or otherwise to go forward with this plan.
ReplyDeleteIf you have concerns, which are not being met at the parish level, about the manner in which this process is being handled, you should contact Father Robert Clark. His e-mail address is frclark@stcletusparish.com. He is the dean for St. Mary's Riverside and appointed by the Archdiocese of Chicago to help out in matters like this.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Priests Residence Discussion Document' which was mailed to the entire parish states that a benefactor made a $1 million bequest...'she directed that the remainder fund the priest's residence.' Can we get some proof on that?
ReplyDeleteConcerned Parishioner said...
ReplyDeleteI do understand that the current rectory may not be adequate for both a residence and a pastoral center. The priests of our parish do deserve some privacy and decent accomadations. However, I think that with an addition to the exisitng rectory that would include a private 2nd floor and controlled access to certain rooms on the first floor (kitchen, dining room etc.) and by moving some of the meetings to exisitng locations, this problem could be solved without having to build a new structure. Perhaps some of the meetings could be moved to the school building. These meetings could be held in the school library, faculty room, or Oak Room. The letter sent out stated that Religious Education is currently housed in the rectory. I am not sure why. There was an office in the school that was designated for the RE program. Has this changed? I was also under the impression that an entire classroom was devoted to the music program. Could not this space with some minor constrcution serve as an office for our Music Director as well? There was also another unused classroom in the older part of the school. What about that space for some additional offices? The letter also stated that the current rectory is too "old" to remodel becuase it was built in 1973! This seems a little hard to accept, especially when so many of us live and remodel homes built decades before that! It seems that some alternatives should be researched and debated before breaking ground in Mary Park.
It seems that there should be a more open discussion about this.....
ReplyDeleteI left St. Mary of Celle because of the pastor there acting exactly like Monsignor is acting. These men, and they are only men, feel that they are like God and shouldn't be questioned. They only want to do what they feel is best. They don't want to hear from the parishioners. He himself said if you don't like it you can leave. So many of the pastors don't listen to their parishioners and that is exactly why membership and donations are going down in every parish. Mary Park isn't just enjoyed by the kids, it's enjoyed by all of the community.
ReplyDeleteI've read the letter after the fact and I visited the web-site to view the video. It is a very convincing arguement defending a "need" for a multi priest residence...unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that tearing up Mary Park and building a monster of a home is the solution. I invite anyone to enter the existing rectory and find anyone in their so called offices. Most of the time the rooms are empty. Completely EMPTY! Even the video varifies this statement. The RE director has three offices--why??? The president of the US has only one oval office. The bulletin is compiled on a computer just like the one I am using in my own home. The music director is in the basement instead of being in an empty classroom in the school. There is a 3 car garage. How about closing off the living room used "day and night" or just end the conferences after 6pm? The rectory was built to house four priests or did I not hear correctly??? Another crucial question is, who is going to pay for all these buildings long term? We are talking about landscaping, heating, electricity, maintenance and God knows what else. Does the pastor and the existing finance committee expect the parishioners to pick up the tab after they are long gone? Do you remember that we froze in the church during the winter months because there was not enough money to pay high energy costs and a collection was made after every mass? Hope to God we have another generous donor with a million dollars to save us once again down the road. We better pray for a better economy in order to sell MIllie's lot to help defer the anticipated expenses. Since the archdiocese owns all of Mary Park maybe they will sell off the rest of that too. In the meanwhile, Goodbye green park and hello concrete.
ReplyDeleteWhen figuring out space utilization, please look earnestly at re-using the current rectory, the school, the church basement, AND the newly built gym for hte various uses of RE offices, music, Bulletin, and the like. maybe they can vacate the rectory, then the rectory can be used as a .... RECTORY!
ReplyDelete"When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a single crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before" Jacob Riis
ReplyDeleteDon't give up.
The parishioners are the parish. We make St. Mary Parish our life. Our Priests are our spiritual leaders. While the Priests may come and go in thier tenure, the families of parishioners stay sometimes for generations. Personally, we have already had 3 pastors in our lives here at St. Mary and we are here not yet 20 years.
ReplyDeleteI feel that our spiritual leader is out of touch with is parish. For example, it was unbelievable to me that when I spoke to thank MY priest for administering a sacrement, that that priest should ask me, 'and just who are you?'. After the priest being at our parish for more than 5 years one might expect that he would know financially active parishoners with children in the school.
The timbre of the parish has changed since we have had a change of leadership. We used to love the high level intellectual and thought provocing sermons delivered by the DePaul visiting priests and felt that our souls were being nourished and allowed to grow in faith. We were not suffocated in dull and preachy droaning that does not reflect the church's place in today's society. Do not misunderstand, I believe that Roman Catholic dogma is dogma and that cannot be altered but the method of delivery certainly has an effect on the message. I joined the 'club' because I truly believe that dogma.
Previously, there was a presence (physically as well as figuratively) of the pastor's support in the school which made us feel that our choice to send children to St. Mary was the best choice that could be made to educate our children in our faith as well as in academics. It appeared that there were more important issues in the school than the perceived necessigy of changing the name of the school mascot (even though the largest Catholic College in the US bequeathed us the name) because it was 'demon'. How trite! I would be hard pressed to believe that any St. Mary Alum has become a satanic devil worshiper due to the name of the school mascot.
I thank God in heaven for sending us Fr. Michael after a dismal few years. We cannot thank him enough for his presence in the school and his attention especially the the upper grade students in teaching them religion so that they leave St. Mary with him as one of thier lasting memories. Good memories of a priest involved in thier lives. It is so very refreshing and takes me back to my youth where I truly had someone to look up to as a role model.
That said.
As well when we moved here, the new rectory was being built. Fine; it was laready started and we missed the discussions surrounding its implementation. Unfortunately, no one lived there for very long. The priests moved out to have apartments of thier own. 'No privacy' was one circulating reasoning. 'Needs for parish office space' was another. I am sure that is a deparate issue of which we have not been appraised. That the priests should live on campus is more than reasonable and I am highly in favor of that. I agree with other bloggers, however, who state that there are plenty of homes for sale in Riverside and one of these should be purchased instead of adding another carbon footprint to the environment. The house immediately east of the church is for sale. It seems reasonable to add another piece of adjacent property to the parish and pick up a bargan given the economy. We who support the parish and pay the bills would more than likely be mre fiscally responsible with our hard earned dollars both for now and for the future. Buildings decay and need replacement from time to time. Land is permanent. Out yourself in the place of those wh support this parish.
Yes, thank God for Father Michael. Too bad we can't turn the decision over to him. I bet he alone, with no 'advisory' councils, would make the right decision for the parish.
ReplyDeleteMonsignor summarily dismissed the entire St. Mary School Board this past weekend, basing his decision on the dissent he felt while the rectory topic was discussed at the June 22 School Board meeting; the topic, by the way, was purposefully left off the agenda (knowing it was at the boiling point), but Monsignor decided to raise it during his alloted time to speak. After a good hour of raised voices, the meeting ended with Monsignor raising his hands and screaming, "I don't need this shit," before storming off.
ReplyDeletePeople, he decided to wipe out a group of 14 who were volunteering their time to better our school. There was no investigation. There was no due process. There was no warning. He sent an unsigned letter to the homes of School Board members.
Folks, THAT is is the type of man at the helm of our Parish and empowered to make decisions on your behalf. THAT is the type of man we are dealing with here and wishing would listen to us regarding the Mary Park situation. He's the type of man who would wipe out a well-intentioned group of school advocates simply because he could.
If you take issue with the leadership (or lack thereof) Monsignor has exhibited over the recent past, please reach out to Father Robert Clark at St. Cletus; Fr. Clark is in charge of overseeing Monsignor Sarauskas. His e-mail address is frclark@stcletusparish.com.
Have we all become protestants??? One cannot vote out a pastor no matter how frustrating he has become or how frustrated he gets at "town hall" meetings. He is a holy man and gives descent sermons whether you like it or not doesn't really matter...go to a different mass. With all due respect, he came into this parish expecting a residence but instead was handed newspaper ads. He had to find an apartment on his own with borrowed money from his mother. God help us! It all started with Fr. Gunderson who couldn't get along with the fellow priests and jumped ship. Consequently, the rectory was invaded with so-called paid pastoral. I agree that they should be kicked out of there and turn that rectory into the residence that it was meant to be. Meanwhile in defense of the Msgn. on this one--he did try to negociate with the Sundrys over a little piece of land but they were too pig-headed to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Now, why are we blaming this holy man who just wants to live closer to the church?
ReplyDeleteStop pointing fingers at the Msgn and point to the Sundrys who actually got that property for a steal. Shame on you Sundrys!!!!!!!
TO LEAVE A CURRENT COMMENT
ReplyDeletePLEASE SEE THE MAIN PAGE
OF THE SAVE MARY PARK BLOG AT:
www.savemarypark.blogspot.com