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!!!
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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
July 27, 2009 1:31 PM
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.
When 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!
ReplyDeleteJuly 27, 2009 12:34 AM
I'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.
ReplyDeleteJuly 26, 2009 9:44 PM
I 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.
ReplyDeleteJuly 26, 2009 4:44 PM
Concerned 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.
July 26, 2009 4:04 PM
The '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?
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.
ReplyDeleteJuly 25, 2009 1:02 PM
Building 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.
ReplyDeleteJuly 25, 2009 11:41 AM
Monsignor 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!!!!!!!
Look, it's obvious the Monsignor cannot make everybody happy. I, for one, however am siding with the Monsignor on this one.
ReplyDeleteWhen the petition to "Save Mary Park" was going around for signatures, many who signed on to same did not know the WHOLE story. In a nutshell, the following is a synopsis of events as I have come to learn them.
In 2006, the last communication from the Church, which proposed the placement of the rectory behind the current site, stated, "We will keep you informed as this project develops," and that is exactly what Monsignor did, saving all of us the needless legal mumbo jumbo that was taking place with the Sundrys over the easement issue.
Monsignor tried fervently in the next couple of years to negotiate with the Sundrys to use the easement so as not to encroach upon Mary Park needlessly (to the tune of spending a lot of money in legal fees). At the outset, had the Sundrys not been driven by pride, greed, and gluttony and found it in their hearts to let the Monsignor build on the easement, none of what is going on now would have come to fruition and Mary Park would still be a beautiful green open space. However, the outcome of litigation was advantageous for the Sundrys, leaving Monsignor to opt for another solution.
Meanwhile, our beautiful God, your maker and mine, saw to it that His will be done and not the Sundrys. Ironically enough, St. Mary Church was bequeathed $1 million at the most appropriate time, allowing Monsignor to go forward with his plan of building a rectory, along with approval from the Archdiocese, even though the location of said rectory was not his first option (thanks to the Sundrys).
Now, you can just imagine how irate that made the neighbors from the north. Hence, comes the "Save Mary Park" petition, spearheaded by none other than friends of the Sundrys. It is just a shame that when these people were petitioning for signatures that they did not tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, to seek the signatures needed. To their credit, all 300 signatures were obtained, even though many have chosen to withdraw their signatures from the petition since then.
Next comes the letter so graciously drafted and mailed to parishioners by Monsignor notifying them of the events that transpired and the current status of the plans for the new rectory and the Monsignor's desire to have an open forum discussion in re the rectory and events.
Then, as if all this is not enough, the Sundrys, realizing they have no other alternative to stop Monsignor from building, finally concede to use of the easement by Monsignor in order to build the rectory behind the current site, as initially proposed.
What a sad state of affairs!!!
Truthfully, Mary Park is owned by the Archdiocese and can be used for whatever purpose the Archodiocese sees fit, like it or not. As a parishioner, if you do not like what is happening, you always have the option of choosing another parish, and I am sure God will understand.
God bless Monsignor many times over for having to deal with prideful, greedy, and gluttonous individuals. May his new home, whereever it may be constructed, be filled with faith, love, happiness, and may God give him lots of patience and understanding.
"Since like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it". CCC 900
ReplyDeletePope Benedict XVI has declared this a "Year for Priests". This is a year for us to pray for, love and support our priests, who although embody the "presence of Christ in the minister, is not be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses". CCC 1550
The faithful active in this discussion are clearly serving the Parish, and yet, we too are being served. The priesthood, "which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service". CCC 1551 Our Faith is centered on the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, served to us by our priests.
So, we are all together, utterly imperfect, yet serving one another. Let's all take time to pray that this be resolved in humility, in thanks for the abundance of our resources, in a spirit of continual service and focus on our sacramental Faith.
Frankly, I think the pepole who agree with monsignor are nuts! why on EARTH can't monsignor build the rectory up. or for that matter into the parking lot at the right of the building. Green Space is necessary and very much utilized. Maybe YOU should get more informed? i don't feel like arguing this anymore. I hope that all are aware that if this actually goes down, there will be physical resistance from one if not many.
ReplyDeleteSarauskas has driven a wedge in our Parish by following his repeated mantra, "This is NOT a democracy; you have no vote in this matter!!!" (I attended the 6/22 school board meeting, and that is a direct and repeated quote from him). I am willing to bet that if his after-mass discussion meetings ever take place, it will be obvious that the majority is against building on Mary Park. Unfortunately, however, Sarauskas decided to secretly work to his desired conclusion, working with his "yes" men and only speaking to the Parish when a group of Parishioners investigated his sly and devious decision-making process.
ReplyDeleteIs not a Pastor supposed to build and support a faith community? How do quiet, behind closed door tactics accomplish this?
In response to the above comment, is not a community supposed to support their Pastor???!!! Does your definition of a Pastor building and supporting a faith community encompass the Pastor cow-tailing to ONLY the needs of the parishioners? Just like you and I enjoy a private, loving place we call "home," why do some parishioners feel that our priests are exempt from that type of living?
ReplyDeleteMonsignor did not want to build smack dab in the middle of Mary Park, but he was left no other option. The other options of locations of where else to build a rectory and why they were not feasible were addressed by Monsignor in his letter to the parishioners. Now, there are parishioners who disagree with Monsignor and his reasonings for same, but nevertheless, he cannot make everyone happy. Monsignor has not driven a wedge in our Parish. The parishioners themselves have driven a wedge amongst themselves due to their own strong beliefs and disrespect for our Monsignor.
Ask yourself this question: "If Jesus were the Monsignor in this situation, how would a child of God respond to same?" True believers in our Catholic faith know the answer to that very easily. May you find it in your heart, even if you disagree with Monsignor's decision, to ask God for the grace to accept and understand his decision.
Let us not walk blindly, but instead, walk in the light, so that our loving aura may be seen and absorbed by others around us as to how children of God are to comport themselves. May God continue to bless St. Mary Parish and its parishioners, especially in these trying times.
Monsignor has not been truthful to the parish or to the Archdiocese. I truly believe that the truth shall set this parish free.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, I disagree that Monsignor has not been truthful to the parish or to the Archdiocese.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the residents who spearheaded the "Save Mary Park" petition for signatures were the ones not being truthful about the initial site chosen by the Monsignor for the rectory and the years of litigation that the Monsignor had to endure in order to try to achieve his desire of building the rectory behind the present site, all to no avail.
Once again, at the outset, had the neighbors to the north acquiesced to the use of the easement, none of this would be happening and Mary Park would still be a beautiful and open green space.
Lastly, not surprisingly enough, after realizing that the Monsignor was going to go ahead and build the rectory in Mary Park after all, even if the location of the rectory was not going to be his first choice and after years of litigating the matter and thousands of dollars having been spent in litigation fees, the neighbors to the north finally acquiesced to the use of the easement. Why now? How about reimbursing the Parish and/or Monsignor the thousands of dollars spent in litigating the matter?
That being said, Monsignor has been as truthful as he could be, even though his truthfulness did not convey the feelings of others. Monsignor has the good of the Parish in his heart. The new rectory will house our priests comfortably and offer them privacy. Whatever his decision may be as to the new location of the rectory, I may not like it, but I respect it.
God help us.
IiM TELLING YOU! HE DOES NOT DESERVE RESPECT! there is PLENTY of room in the current rectory. it was built to house 3 priests!! priests have made a vow to live in together humbly and do NOT need their own kitchens and living spaces as monsignor has said. monsignor is getting selfish and making a fool of his holy name.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe I just read that. OF COURSE, the Monsignor deserves respect. We all do. That is why there is a problem in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe neighbors to the north did not respect the parishioners nor the priests. They thought that they could bully their way into getting what they wanted--a huge side yard. Their bullying tactics may have worked in the past, but it is't going to work now.
I can't wait to see the bulldozers on that property. That will mean JOBS for a builder who desperately needs work.
"Is not a community supposed to support their pastor?" He screamed at, swore at, and insulted the School Board during the coars of the 6/22 meeting. You should get your hands on a copy of the minutes. He called the School Board "child abusers." He screamed, "I don't need this shit." So, no, we are not to support a pastor who acts like that.
ReplyDelete"Monsignor has the good of the parish in his heart." The majority among us disagree. Did you notice the light attendance at this weekend's masses? Several throughout the weekend reported such. People are going elsewhere. And when my family walked out and saw Fr. Michel, well, the feeling we felt said it all. Who is godly? Who is priestly? Who builds community? Who cares about the community?
Sarauskas never once created a forum to discuss the new site of the new 4500 square foot rectory until the permits were issued and the decision made. And people wonder why there is dissent? Whose parish is it? Why was the parish left in the dark as the decisions were made?
He summarily dismissed the 14 person school board, which is made up of the families most involved in supporting the school. He based his decision on out-and-out lies. As has been confirmed, the rectory site issue was not on the agenda for the 6/22 meeting! He brought it up. He then says to the media that the Archdiocese supported his decision to dismiss the SB, which the Archdiocese flatly denies; and the Archdiocese is now investigating.
For those who still believe that priests deserve blind faith, realize that Sarauskas made it through the same screen as did those lsted here: http://www.archchicago.org/c_s_abuse/report_032006/list.pdf
That's certainly not to say anything except that priests are human beings, and they no longer are deserving of blind faith and respect. They must earn respect just like any other human being around us. For those still living in the Catholic Church of the 40s/50s/60s/70s, it's time to evolve. Sarauskas has NOT earned respect, as he has NOT acted in a way that builds community. He has repeatedly stated, "This is NOT a democracy and your vote does NOT matter." That is your pastor, creating community one insult and one closed-door decision at a time.
And furthermore, I recently heard that the family of the woman who donated the $1 million has yet to be thanked by Sarauskas and is understandably very upset with the parish. What a charitable man.
The reference made to Msgr.Sarauskas making it through the same screen as those listed on the archdiocesan clergy abuse report of March 2006 is a cheap shot. Although the point discussed is in this comment blind faith in our priests, this reference is not appropriate for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteArchdiocesan Priests do not take a Vow of poverty like many Religious Order Priests. There is no vow or promise for them to live humbly or poorly. Each priest will have his sitting room, bedroom, bathroom and a place to park his car. The rest of the rooms in the rectory are common space, like the kitchen, dining room or a common recreation room for common recreation. It's really not asking for much.
ReplyDeleteYears ago before the Church renovation was to be done, I brought up to the point that St. Mary's parish will need a bigger worship space or church in the future. If there will be fewer priests then there will be fewer masses. It is not good that priest be turned into a a sacrament factory on any weekend. Luckily St. Mary's has not been down to one priest and we have been blessed to have more than one priest. A rectory is needed (on whatever site is chosen)for the future sacramental ministry for our parish.
He has tried to demand and command respect, yet he has never tried to earn it. He's stuck in the past, when priests were "owed" respect. I actually think the reference to the scandal is right on point; the scandal has damaged the priesthool, yet Msgr appears to still feel respect for his office is "owed." Those days are gone, and priests have been proven to be simply men.
ReplyDeleteHis lack of leadership is evidenced by this string. What a sad state of affairs.
As Chairman of The St. Mary Parish Finance Committee, I would like to set the record straight.
ReplyDeleteThe Monsignor and the Finance Committee are trying to accomplish what we honestly and openly believe is in the long-term best interest of the Parish.
We firmly believe that a priest residence is absolutely essential to St. Mary's continuing ability to serve the spiritual needs of the community.
We have worked on this project for a long time and have carefully considered many options. The idea to place the residence in the center of the greenspace was not the first hope. The first plan was to build in the corner of the lots, tucked in behind and to the north of the existing rectory. To accomplish this, we had to negotiate with our neighbors who own certain rights on the Archdiocese's property. Unfortunately, our negotiations were unsuccessful. We had to move on to another location.
There was never any intention or plan to go forward with any project without public consultation with the Parish. Our public presentations are scheduled for later this month. All are welcome. I hope we will be able to answer all questions. No final decisions will be made until feedback from these presentations is carefully evaluated.
Under Canon Law the final decision lies with the Pastor, in consultation with the Finance Committee. In that sense, it is not a democracy. However, the Monsignor and the Finance Committee are dedicated to the idea that all voices should be heard and considered.
We intend to be as open and transparent as we can be. We hope that the discussions will be kept to a civil, responsible level, bearing in mind that the presentations will be made in God's House.
Personal attacks and threats of physical resistance are certainly not civil or responsible. Comparing the Monsignor to a list of pedophile priests is not only irresponsible, it is reprehensible. It is a personal insult of the most base, vile degree. Since that comparision was made anonymously, perhaps one should consider the source- nobody.
That type of rhetoric is not constructive and is quite possibly detrimental to the cause of those legitimately opposed to the priest residence project. This is a very important issue involving the future of St. Mary's. These decisions need to be made after thoughtful objective reflection. Impassioned, inflamed rhetoric, personal agendas, and venomous personal attacks will not lead to a well-reasoned decision.
I would ask everyone interested to plan on attending one of the public presentations scheduled for August 23rd, 26th, and 30th in the Parish Center.
No one accused the Monsignor of pedophilia.
ReplyDeleteReaders were reminded that the Catholic church, has failed it's followers to the point where blind faith in a Priest may not be advisable.
This opposed to the recorded accusation of "child abuse" by the Monsigior against his parishioners in the 6/22 school board meeting.
Oh, for the days Sarauskas did nothing for St. Mary's save the occasional lashing out at young mothers in the middle of Mass or banning grieving families from having eulogies at their loved ones funeral masses (Archdiocesan policy?...I think not). I've lived within this parish long enough to know that this man does NOT represent the good people of St. Mary's.
ReplyDeleteThis blog was originally created to gather support of concerned parishioners regarding the placement of the Priests Residence in the center of Mary Park. Our intention was to inform people and provide an open forum for discussion. We have asked that all comments include a name and kept to the subject at hand… saving Mary Park. Seeing there has been a series of anonymous personal attacks on both sides of the issue, the settings have been changed so that all comments will be checked to make sure a full name is attached, or they will not be posted.
ReplyDeletePlease continue to check the blog for updates and attend the upcoming church meetings to voice your opinion.
I believe all of this discourse and discontent could have easily been avoided by using a collegial, collaborative and concensus style of decision making. During the campaign and planning for the Gym and school addition, this style of management worked very well. The stakes for our parish are very high; alienating the parish community in this economic time is not wise. Attendance at church has been unusually low, even for the summer months. So has the collection been lower than normal.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the discussion meetings after church really were planned in advance of the resistance and controversy, but the timing of said meetings seems very coincidental. Given the heated nature of the comments here and among my neighbors, I would imagine these discussions could escalate.
I also would hope that Monsignor and the Finance committee will consider the value of goodwill from the St. Mary school families and the School Board. I have been on the school board and president for 2 terms, and there has always been some adversity between parish and school. The parish needs money and the school families are skilled at raising it...but are primarily motivated by the benefit to their children and the school.
Finally, I think that everyone who has raised a concern, has the best interests of St. Marys in mind. Lets hope the wants of the few don't outweigh whats best for the parish at large.
Let me expound on my previously written comment regarding the present "sad state of affairs" facing our parish today. Clearly, the "sad state of affairs" is not due to the lack of leadership on Monsignor's part; however, it is due to one's greed, pride, and selfishness in not acquiescing to the use of the easement for the new rectory. I still stand firm in believing that had, at the outset, the Sundrys not given Monsignor such a hard time and forcing him to litigate the matter with them, the present "sad state of affairs" would be moot. The Monsignor did have the best interests of the parish at heart with his initial site plan for the rectory, but the neighbors to the North, however, did not.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, with regards to the issue of suspending the School Board, I have since become informed that the President of the School Board, Bob Lyons, was notified personally that (1) the Archdiocese gave authority to Monsignor to suspend the School Board; and (2) that if anyone had any questions with regards to same, that they could contact the Archdiocese. Maybe Bob Lyons can inform us on this issue.
I somehow cannot find it in my heart to believe that the Monsignor would single-handedly disband the School Board willy nilly. There, I am sure, is much more to this action. Maybe we can, as parishioners, ask Monsignor himself why he did what he did; but I, for one, am not ready to call him a liar. I may not feel that he is the most personable person, but I do believe he has the best interst of the parish at heart.
Finally, if the old adage "out of the mouths of babes" holds true, when I presented the facts at issue to my oldest daughter Sophia, this was her response: "Mom, why don't they just let Monsignor build the rectory in Mary Park? God has chosen him to be our priest, and he knows the right thing to do."
Ask yourself this question: Why can't we, as parishioners and Catholics, have the same faith as this child in this man whom God has chosen to lead our parish?
May God's will be done for the good of the Parish and its future.
The August 2nd edition of the Bell states that the first meeting to discuss the rectory will be held on the following date:
ReplyDeleteSunday, August 16th after the 11:30 mass (in the Oak Room)
This date was not referenced by Mr. Wilk of the finance committee in his post.
Mark your calendars.
Dear Fellow Parishioners. We need peace-making, reconciliation and forgiveness in our parish. Let us all resolve to put into practice these basic principles of our faith. God will help us to get through these difficulties.
ReplyDeletePOST 1 of 3:
ReplyDeleteNella and other interested readers:
I have stayed away from weighing in on the blogs given the situation at hand, but with three weeks passing since the school board’s suspension and no official word from our administration on what happened, I feel I need to address some misconceptions about what has taken place.
Please note that I am responding on my own – in other words, I am not speaking for the former board. While I will try to keep opinions out of the following summary, to the extent any creep through the opinions are mine and mine alone.
Also, I apologize for the length of this response. There is no short answer to your inquiry, and I want to provide a clear and accurate picture of the sequence of events.
So what happened with the School Board?
As the 2008-2009 school year wound to an end, it was time to establish a new board for the 2009-2010 school year. Several people were rolling off the board after serving three or more years, eight existing members would continue on, and six people had expressed interest in joining the board. Given that it has been difficult in years past to attract members, we felt blessed to have substantial interest and we (past and present board members, Principal Valderrama, and Monsignor) agreed that we should add all six interested parties to the board bringing our total to 14. Lastly, with Ellen Wagner rolling off after doing a great job as president, I agreed to assume the role of president for 2009-2010.
The 2009-2010 school board hosted its first meeting on Monday, June 22. Several days prior to the meeting I talked with Monsignor about whether the rectory should be added to our agenda for the meeting (we had previously discussed this possibility). He said not to put it on the agenda as an information packet explaining the status of the project was not yet ready. With this direction, I left the topic off the agenda and added the customary “Pastor’s Comments” open section to the agenda. When we reached that point of the agenda, to my surprise Monsignor opened with a discussion of the rectory.
I will not delve into details of the meeting, but in summary it was an unfortunate and ugly scene. I have forwarded the meeting minutes on to the Pastoral Council and the Finance Committee, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in understanding the dynamics at work that evening contact the Pastoral Council or Finance Committee and request a copy of the meeting minutes. I believe the minutes provide a very accurate description of what unfolded. I do not know what the Pastoral Council or Finance Committee intend to do with the meeting minutes, but once I was suspended I did not know what to do with the minutes either so I forwarded them on to those two groups.
With that backdrop, lets just say that Monsignor and I did not end the meeting on the best terms. Several weeks passed, and on Thursday, July 16th I received a call from Mr. Valderrama asking me to attend a meeting at 11:00 in the rectory on Saturday, July 18th. With another School Board meeting scheduled for the following Monday I assumed that we would discuss rules of the road for the upcoming meeting. Upon arrival I was told by Monsignor that I lacked the leadership skills to move the board forward and that I had misbehaved at the June 22nd meeting. Additionally, Monsignor was upset that the board stood at 14 people (guideline is 9) and that we had scheduled summer meetings without his approval.
At this point, Monsignor handed me a letter which he asked me to read. The letter stated, among other items, that “At the advice of the Archdiocesan School Office, I am suspending our present School Board.”
An argument ensued and rambled on for about 45 minutes.
POST 2 of 3:
ReplyDeleteWorking backward, I pointed out that we agreed on summer meetings previously and Mr. Valderrama and Monsignor were aware of this plan. (I’d also add that the School Board guidelines allow for meetings August-June, so we’re really only talking about an extra July meting). If the July meeting was a problem, I would have gladly called it off. Also, I think most schools would be pleased that 14 volunteers were eager to hold meetings during the summer so we could hit the ground running in the new school year.
Secondly, I pointed out that the decision to go to 14 members was made months ago (prior to me being named president) with the Monsignor’s full knowledge and support.
Lastly, we focused on the June 22nd meeting. Again, I won’t rehash details here as it’s not appropriate, but Monsignor felt that the board showed no control and acted immaturely. I’ll let the meeting minutes stand as the best summary of the evening’s events.
Several times during this July 18th meeting Monsignor reiterated that he had not made the decision to suspend the board on his own – the recommendation came from the Archdiocesan School Office (ASO). Not knowing any better, I assumed this to be accurate and did not press the issue. During the latter part of our meeting I suggested to Monsignor that he retain the other 13 board members and let me go. We went back and forth on this topic, and in the end Monsignor agreed to give it some thought and we would meet later the following week.
I met with the Monsignor again on Thursday July 23rd at 5:00 pm. Monsignor informed me that retaining the other 13 members would not work, but he would consider possibly asking a few people on to his newly appointed board. This meeting was brief and unemotional. Monsignor said he would mail the other 13 suspension letters promptly, and that if I saw board members I was free to tell them what was happening. I was out of town Friday, and on Saturday morning, July 25th, all of my fellow board members received their suspension notices.
During my various conversations of the prior week, I was provided the name of a representative in the ASO who had participated in the decision to suspend the Board. I provided this name to my fellow former board members, and suggested that they contact this individual to get more information on the basis of what we believed was the ASO’s recommendation.
POST 3 of 3:
ReplyDeleteThe following Tuesday morning (July 28th) I received a call from an ASO representative saying his inbox was flooded with angry e-mail and “what the heck is going on.” I explained what I had been told by Monsignor regarding the ASO’s role in the suspension and referenced the specific line regarding their office in my suspension letter. I was asked to forward any information I had on the situation, and I e-mailed my suspension letter, the agenda from the June 22nd meeting, and the meeting minutes. Within an hour I received a call from the ASO asking if I could get to their offices asap to discuss. I met with two representatives of the ASO starting at 3:00 p.m. and we talked for approximately 90 minutes.
I won’t detail my discussions with the ASO representatives (and the discussions continue) but I can relate the following: the ASO confirmed that they did not recommend that the Board be suspended – they did, however, inform Monsignor that he alone had the power to suspend the board. I believe (can’t confirm) that Monsignor knew this already, so why he sought input from another party is a question for Monsignor. If the ASO had even “supported” this decision I believe it did so based on limited information.
On Wednesday, July 29th I received a follow up call from the ASO. At this point I noted that an article had appeared in the Landmark in which Monsignor is quoted as saying that the suspension decision “Was a result of their (ASO) suggestions. I did not act on my own.” The ASO asked me to provide a copy of this article immediately, which I did. I believe the ASO has had follow up conversations with representatives of the St. Mary’s administration, but I am not privy to those details.
In recent weeks, I have been dismayed that there has been no communication from our administration on the suspension. The former school board drafted its own brief letter for school families – however, unsure how to proceed on this matter I consulted with the ASO and they suggested that it really is the responsibility of the administration to put out some communication. I was told that something would be in The Bell…that was two weeks ago. Today, I noticed that while there is no statement on the issue, the names of the former school board members have been removed from The Bell – there’s just a blank space where our names used to be. As one former school board member said to me “It’s almost like we never existed.”
So there you have it.
As a product of Catholic education and a member of the St. Mary’s community for 15 years, I am deeply concerned about the direction we are heading. This goes beyond the rectory issue or the school board suspension…we have serious issues to address to ensure that our Parish remains vibrant and that our school continues to provide our children with a quality education. For a very brief period I was fortunate to work with 13 individuals who truly understood this and were on a mission to better our Parish and school. I have no doubt they would have succeeded.
Lastly, there will likely be people who read this memo and say “that’s not what happened…he’s making this up…he’s not telling the truth…etc.” My conscience is clear as to what took place over the past several weeks and what I have said here today.
If anyone would like to discuss any of these events in detail, please feel free to contact me at 708-442-3134, (cell) 312-213-1366, or at rclyons193@aol.com. I believe in transparency, so call and ask me anything you’d like.
In my August 4th entry, I inadvertantly gave the wrong date for the first meeting. The correct date is this Sunday August 16th at 11:30 AM. The second meeting is Wednesday August 26th at 7:00PM. The third is on Sunday August 30th at 11:30 AM. I apologize for the error and any inconvenience it caused.
ReplyDeleteI volunteered late last year to be put up for confirmation as a new member of the St. Mary School Board. With one daughter already enrolled at St. Mary, another daughter close behind, and a wife (and St. Mary alum) who was already volunteering countless hours to make the school a success, I felt it was an excellent way for me to give back to our Parish and help to ensure the continued success and betterment of our school. Unfortunately, at my second meeting as a new Board member, I was shocked as I watched the “leader” of our Parish in action. I would strongly urge any interested or concerned parishioners, and particularly those with children enrolled at St. Mary’s, to request a copy of the 6/22 School Board Meeting Minutes for an accurate depiction of what happened that evening. And, given the fact I am no longer an acting member of the School Board, and therefore no longer beholden to due process, I would be happy to pass along a copy of those minutes to anyone interested (please email me scottsimmons@usa.com). As a lifelong practicing Catholic, including my twelve years of Catholic schooling, I have been around a lot of priests. I can say with certainty that I have never witnessed a priest act as did Monsignor that evening.
ReplyDeleteBut, the main point of my post is to corroborate Bob Lyons’ posting. His depiction of what unfolded and is unfolding is accurate, and there is only gaining momentum behind an effort to, well, stop Monsignor from further damaging our Parish. The Archdiocese is not only hearing us, they appear to be (thankfully) listening intently. As Bob mentions, the rectory topic was never on the agenda for the 6/22 meeting. In fact, prior to the meeting, Bob and I both agreed the rectory was not to be brought up because we had too many important things to cover. Furthermore, as a School Board Member, my opinions on the rectory matter were relegated to how the issue might affect the school (enrollment, recruiting, retention, etc.). Monsignor chose to address the topic that night during his alloted time to speak, and he was a very willing participant in and instigator of the events that unfolded and are acurately chronicled in the meeting minutes. He conducted himself, at times, in an utterly disgusting manner (that is my strong personal opinion).
This School Board had terrific ideas. This School Board had terrific energy. This School Board had terrific momentum building towards bettering our Parish School. Our hearts and minds were focused, and over the course of two months, we had gotten off to an excellent start. And then, it was all smothered by an unsigned letter suggesting the Archdiocese recommended to Monsignor that he dismiss the School Board. Hurt, angry, and confused, we sought answers from the Archdiocese. Well, we all know now that the Archdiocese not only DID NOT make the recommendation, but they are deeply disturbed at how this has all unfolded. This was Monsignor acting alone, based on false pretenses (there was no “lion’s den” scenario which he continues to suggest). He continues to play the victim, both privately and publicly, including shamefully speaking to the media. His post-meeting actions have been disingenuous at best, and untruthful at worst.
Our School will suffer as a result of this action. YOUR school will suffer. To say this is a sad state of affairs is an understatement. And to date, he has yet to address the Parish or school parents about the Board dismissal…..it’s been three weeks!
In the end, when any group (i.e. parish) lacks leadership, problems are bound to occur; the sentiment and mistrust within the Parish has been simmering for a while………let’s just hope that somehow, as Fr. Michal said during his homily last Sun, “we all come out stronger in the end.”
Jack, can you tell us what will happen after these meetings? Will the finance committee be meeting with Msgr.to make the decision? How will the decision be made - a vote, concensus among the group, or does Msgr. make the decision?
ReplyDeleteFor anyone that is interested, there is another blog concerning this issue -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/save-mary-park
Please remember to attend the upcoming Priest Residence Discussion Meetings. The correct Dates and Times are:
ReplyDeleteSun. August 16 - After the 11:30am Mass in the Parish Center,
Wed. August 26 - 7:00pm in the Parish Center
Sun. August 30 - After the 11:30am Mass in the Parish Center
Thank you!
a previous poster said:
ReplyDeletequote
"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."
Towards the end of today's first meeting concerning the rectory project (aug 16, after the 1130 mass), there was a big cry by both sides (apparently)for Fr Michael to say some words. He sheepishly looked down in his style and, also in his style, with a smile did a quick genuflection then went to the rostrum to speak. Among what I heard him say:
He said that he will be gone from St Mary's in a yr and a half or so, and Msgr Sarauskas will also be leaving in less than a year or so; You all, he pointed out, will remain here at St Mary's. So , he said we should have a solution that we all could live with.
I thought that was a pretty wise statement.
Then he topped it. He invited all present at the meeting to recite the Lord's Prayer. It was quite a sight and experience to stand up and recite, all as one, this bedrock prayer with people who for the last couple of hours were in a, shall we say , slight disagreement on this issue.
To me this last act helped put this issue in better perspective. I saw the commonality of us all. The part where Jesus reminded us to pray this day for our Daily bread also kept things in focus - the basics of life.
Another highlight of the first meeting: the godson and nephew of the late benefactor who gave the large donation for St Mary's stepped up to the mic. He received a standing ovation from all - pro and con of the admin's rectory design.
ReplyDeleteHis initial remarks wanted it to be clear that his aunt did not specifically and explicitly earmark those funds for a priests residence. He said that he was 'offended' that in both the letter sent out and on the church website, I believe I heard him say, the impression is given that the benefactor so earmarked the money, despite his requesting a redaction of this reference previously.
I think I heard him ask the church admin to, again, redact and clarify this, but I only heard the response from the admin (the head of the finance committee) that some kind of memorial was planned for the kind benefactor.
For the record, I believe I heard, in today's meeting, that the text of the benefactor's will concerning this was that she gave the money to St Mary's to be used "for charitable purposes as [st marys] saw fit". Open ended and generous to be sure. But also not necessarily earmarked for a rectory, which I understood - a big diffeence in the communication.
I hope that the parish administration tries to do a better job in providing transparency. It was said at the 8-16 meeting in response for transparency that a person who wants to see a doc, must schedule an appt with the biz mgr (and with msgr?) and then review the doc at the church office.
ReplyDeleteThe supposedly ubiased moderator of today's event, joe morris, chimed in that he would not recommend that since the whole world cd see the docs.
maybe they can set up a password protected electronic file or even let the person copy the docs.
I'd be too nervous if someone were breathing down my shoulder looking at dense material.
I was suprised at many of the things I heard at the meeting, and I am against putting the Rectory in the middle of Mary Park. I personally think the best solution is to tear down the old rectory, (move all plants that the garden club has so lovingly cultivated) and build one multi-purpose building with sufficient space for offices and much needed privacy for our priests.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am glad to be part of a community that was respectful of each other's viewpoints. Father Michael said it best; he and the Monsignor will be gone before we know it, but our faith community will remain. We need to treat each other with dignity.
Advocate vigorously for your position, but do so in a way that is respectful. We all have a right to weigh in and say what we believe the best alternative is. As was pointed out by many of the people who spoke yesterday, suggesting alternatives is disresptful of our Monseignor. Together we may have a better solution.
Our fellow parishioners need support. It was clear to me that Jack, Allison and the rest of the two committees members seem to be having a difficult time with this. The 14 members of the school board that were released from service are hurt and upset.
In the end, the decision lies with the Monsignor himself. I believe the message got across to him that building this fall is premature. Communication will make us stronger.
Kelly Navarre
Another good exchange from the aug 16 meeting: I heard someone ask the head of the finance committee ....
ReplyDelete1) whether other options, such as re-using the current rectory spot, millies, or adjacent/nearby properties, even the original 2007 back-of-the-property option are still on the table
- finance committee chairman said YES, all options were still on the table (he said, while the chi diocese and others assume that the negotiations with the northern neighbors are dead, he was a 'never say never' kind of guy).
2) whether the parishioners could see 'the drawings' of each option (he might have been asking about the re-use of the current rectory)
- finance committee chairman said YES, the drawings can be made available to parishioners.
The guy - I think he was from a long standing st marys family - asked whether this all (seeing the drawing and the options details) can be done with a Nov expiration of the construction permits looming.
- finance committee chairman said YES, this can happen even with that timeframe; he said that the permit deadline can be extended. Further, I heard him say, no decision will occur until 'all the parishioners opinions are heard'.
Thinking about it, simply hearing everyone's opinion and promising sufficiently detailed 'drawings' of each option are two different targets.
The foregoing is what I heard. If anyone heard it differently or wants to add to this reporting, please do so.
clarification:
ReplyDeletei said--
"The supposedly ubiased moderator of today's event, joe morris, chimed in that he would not recommend that since the whole world cd see the docs."
Some of the text did not make the post. It should have been...
After a parishioner asked for the documents to be put online in a spirit of showing all info,
The supposedly unbiased moderator of today's event, joe morris, chimed in that he would not recommend that since the whole world cd see the docs.
I have always tended to like using the current rectory site for , surprise, rectory use. I felt in the 1970s people 'got it right' at that sight. The peaceful views from that building looking westward towards Mary Park provide productive meditation opportunities for priests. Putting in the flowing water, the bufferng trees, the patio, and the statue of St Francis makes for a sense of a fine retreat. Fix whatever we have to on that site - working equally hard for getting good prices - to make it work for multipurpose AND privacy (and see below). It is an inspired site for the use and one that any priest would like.
ReplyDeleteI never really thought there was enough room back there in the back of the property for a separate large dwelling - even if the neighbors said ok. Also, it is inefficient to support and maintain separate buildings and grounds - as was pointed out in the meeting by many on 8-16. I am sure with the proper kind of design with walls and back door we can get the needed privacy in a re-do of the current rectory.
Also, let's creatively think about the abundance of space for office use afforded by the parish center. That addition just made the basement oak room available for ALL the office needs currently being done at the rectory. In fact, that was one of the reasons proffered for that addition. Let's use the space and get even some more value for the money spent on the parish Center. The pictures with the Bishop and donuts can be had in the P Center. For temporary uses, we also have copious amt of vestibule space in the entrance to the PC that we currently use for book fairs and the like.
kelly said above--
ReplyDelete"As was pointed out by many of the people who spoke yesterday, suggesting alternatives is disresptful of our Monseignor."
Did she mean ...
suggesting alternatives is NOT disresptful of our Monseignor. ?
I did hear that a lot. One person came up and eloquently said that a faith community does not mean no differing opinions on where to put a building.
I was surprised at many of the things I heard at the meeting, and I am against putting the Rectory in the middle of Mary Park. I personally think the best solution is to tear down the old rectory, (move all plants that the garden club has so lovingly cultivated) and build one multi-purpose building with sufficient space for offices and much needed privacy for our priests.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am glad to be part of a community that was respectful of each other's viewpoints. Father Michael said it best; he and the Monsignor will be gone before we know it, but our faith community will remain. We need to treat each other with dignity.
Advocate vigorously for your position, but do so in a way that is respectful. We all have a right to weigh in and say what we believe the best alternative is. As was pointed out by many of the people who spoke yesterday, suggesting alternatives is not disrespectful of our Monsignor. Together we may have a better solution.
Our fellow parishioners need support. It was clear to me that Jack, Allison and the rest of the two committee members seem to be having a difficult time with this. The 14 members of the school board that were released from service are hurt and upset.
In the end, the decision lies with the Monsignor himself. I believe the message got across to him that building this fall is premature. Communication will make us stronger.
Kelly Navarro
I'm on the side of a new rectory for the priests. If you have spent any time in the current rectory/office building, you will see that it is not an appropriate space for the priests to live. Extensive renovation would be cost prohibitive.
ReplyDeleteI think all priests deserve a space of their own. The building as designed is not opulent, it will provide for private quarters for three priests and some common space. Priests are no different than you and I, they need a place to call their own.
Using the Parish Center and the Oak Room for office space are not options. Both the Oak Room and Parish Center foyer are used regularly during the day by the school children. Both spaces are used after the school day by various school activities. Given that, we need an office building and a rectory.
The discussion should center around where to place the new rectory. I'm in favor of the original location. With modification of the design, could a rectory be placed near the original location without an easement? Tearing down the current rectory and building an office building with a rectory attached is an option to consider. It will cost more but is something to consider.
I believe the vast majority of parishioners agree that a new rectory is needed. The issue is building it in the best location.
So what I heard when the P C was being advocated, that it would provide some office space relief, was changed later?
ReplyDeleteIn solving problems that seem intractable sometimes one as has to think in an entirely different manner. One might see the assets to solve the problem that were not formerly seen. Everyone should think hard and soberly at the real office needs and combine that with any space that MIGHT be around in the existing campus. During the meeting I heard Mary school parents speak of the space that is available for office use in the school and in the library. I am not a Mary school parent, so I will defer to those with a more intimate knowledge of the space and its utilization.
Also, while on-campus priest residency is, and should be, a requirement of the problem, the office functions need not me on-campus. It was odd that the PASTOR , the head guy of the parish, originally left the st mary campus instead of the office workers. There MUST be some kind of space realclose to st marys for the office workers, in the cbd , for example. Like any business, it need not be owned, but cd be leased - I recall that the chi archdioc. said no more new property acquisition.
One (rhetorical?) question: IF ALL the office functions (after a sober reassessment of same) WERE to leave the current rectory, would the building that was made in the 1970s for three priests be sufficient?
I have not done a thorough tour of the place - just was in the front and basement areas. On the outside, it is a beutiful expression of a building in synch with its immediate local environement, including the earth tone building materials and it lower slung lines that sit quite comfortable and naturally next to the falling water, trees, st francis, and the large expanse of Mary park to the west.
Remember that the benefactor said that the money is to be used for charitable purposes as we saw fit - not *necessarily* a *entirely* new rectory per se. There are different ways of having adequate priest housing and supporting appropriate office functions, all while serving the will of that benefactor.
The wrap up of the previous post that I did not say:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, we all have been talking for lo these last few years, WHERE to we put the priests? Maybe we could have cried out, and still could cry out, WHERE do we put Hazel and her computer to churn out the Bulletin? Not as dramatic and charged, but it might get the job done. Isnt that we want to do, get the job done and move on to the church's mission, and interestingly reiterated by the non church going benenefactor, to do charitable works in this world?
Realize that we are basing our present parameters of the problem on the ill advised and still inscrutable decision by the former Pastor to live off campus a few yrs back. The church admin powerpoint presentation indicated as much - "for personal reasons went to live in an apt". This odd precedent was continued with his successor.
It is odd that we might trying to solve a problem that is based on false assumptions or foundations.
I BET-- When those candidate priests we heard reported say that they nixed st marys due to the accomodations were probably saying, quite correctly, that living in an apartment off campus is 'intolerable', and not that they do not have their own private this or that. Yes, priests should have what all have a private home. They have one now. Maybe we can do some TLC to it.
Let's give this solution a real good airing and not summarily reject it.
From what I recall from the meeting on Sunday, it was stated that adding on to the current rectory was estimated at costing over one million dollars. I am by no means an expert in the renovation world, but this seems quite high. I would be interested in hearing what type of renovation was considered for this cost. Why not just tear it down and build right on that site. Perhaps a separate entrance for an area (basement?) to be used for offices. Wouldn't this solve both problems within the same budget? Seems like a win-win situation to me.
ReplyDeleteIt was also stated that there are many "old building" issues to deal with at the rectory that contributed to the veto of this option. A question that I asked the panel at the Sunday meeting was what are these problems and how will the be payed for. If we keep the old rectory for office space, and build a new residence, these issues (whatever they may be) will still have to be addressed and paid for in the future. Something to think about long term. I was not given an answer, by the way.
One more thing regarding the meeting. If I heard correctly, it was mentioned after numerous inquiries that plans of the building could be seen by making an appointment with the business manager at the rectory. My husband and I inquired today, and were told by the business manager that she was NOT allowed to release that information and we were deferred to the General Council for the Archdioces, Maureen Murphy. We have not heard back yet...
That is a bit disconcerting and a disconnect between what I heard at the 8-16 meeting. In that meeting, it was said by the Fin committee head without any hesitation and reiterated by the moderator, morris, that one could see all the documents relevant to this project by simply making an appt with the biz mgr - and they pointed to her in the audience. In fact, he said for her to expect many calls.
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated above, I thought this was a bit of a disingenuous exercise since I , personally, would be off put to sit there in the office with someone looking over my shoulder. But at least the manner in which they proposed this seemed to be to give parishioners the info they need to understand more fully.
It is disconcerting since *information flow and availability* to more fully understand the issues and the wherefores is probably the one of the major problems in the whole affair.
The scope, size and consequently, the costs, of new building *and* renovations depend directly on the space needs.
ReplyDeleteAgain, has a sober and thorough reckoning of what St Mary's really needs been done? Then has a sober look been done at what is available already on campus, in the Oak Room, in teh P C, in the school? Also, we should be reminded that many companies in the private world are saving on desk/office space and trying to have employees work from home when possible. I bet some of the office activities can be done at home, too (the Bell, for example) - IF there is a will to do so, a will to save as much of St MAry space assets as possible which could translate into money savings.
The minutes from all Parish Council and Finance Committee meetings discussing the Rectory over the past three years should be disclosed to the parish. If there is nothing to hide, and if Mary Park truly IS the only solution to the Rectory issue, then this action should be a cleansing action. I, for one, am skeptical (hmmm....can you tell?).
ReplyDeleteMonsignor has very clearly stated that all avenues have been exhausted on this matter. I, and I'm sure many others, would like to be privy to how the process unfolded during PC/FC meetings. We've reached this point because there has been a lack of transparency to a critical decision for the Parish; things have been done in secret. So, with pandora's box now open wide, I believe full transparency is the only thing that could clean it out and close it back up.
quote--
ReplyDelete"Monsignor has very clearly stated that all avenues have been exhausted on this matter."
I was at the meeting on 8-16, and I did not hear a word from Msgr, tho he was sitting in the front. But I did hear the Finance committee head, who seemed to be acting as an official point person for the parish administration for the meeting, say that 'all options are still on the table' and that he was a never say never guy.
So what gives? Have all avenues been exhausted, or are all options still open?
At the meeting, I heard many people ask for Fr Mychal to speak; however, i do not recall hearing a chorus of 'let's hear something from msgr'.
Another question: I wonder why a chicago archdiocese rep was not there, somewhere, since I have heard that at least some of our requirements for this problem are coming from that bailiwick.
scott, what does PC/FC mean?
ReplyDeletePatris (not political) correct /
Filii correct ? :)
In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
PC - Pastoral Council
ReplyDeleteFC - Finance Council
For those who do not wish to go to the rectory to look at the plans. They can be requested from the village as a Freedom of Information Act request for a small fee.
ReplyDeleteAccording to an prior postm the rectory will not allow us to see it! Why should we have to pay for it? I will just deduct the fee from my parish contribution!
ReplyDeleteAt the first meeting regarding the rectory, the nephew (and godson) of the generous benefactor , Helen Komaniecka, to St. Mary’s and his wife were present. The nephew told the audience and panel that on the parish website and in the letter and video there are false statements about how the benefactor wanted the funds to be used. In the letter it states, “…she directed the remainder of the funds to be used on a rectory.” The nephew stated that this is not correct and that the will states that the funds should be used for "unrestricted charitable purposes”. It was also revealed that his aunt was not a member of St. Mary parish and died 4 years ago, before the plans for the rectory were made public. Additionally, in the letter that was sent out to the parish, the amount of money that was given by Ms. Komaniecka is incorrect. It is stated that 1 million dollars was bequeathed when in fact the amount was $1,105,968.53. Although the nephew agreed that the money could be used for a rectory when he gave the check to Monsignor last January, he also asked that he be consulted and that the money not be used immediately. The nephew never heard from anyone, even to be thanked, until he received the parish letter like everyone else. After receiving the letter the nephew asked that the false statements be corrected. He was then surprised when he came to the meeting and those statements were still included in the letter and on the video presentation. In addition, Ms. Komaniecka’s nephew stated that his aunt was a humble woman who lived with her brother in a modest 900 square foot home in North Riverside . He stated that he did not think that his aunt would approve of the money being used for a 4500 square foot home for 3 people.
ReplyDeleteThe Save Mary Park group also wants to reiterate that we are not against the rectory! We believe that the priests deserve a comfortable home where they can live together. We are however, questioning the location, the size, the lack of communication to the parish and exploration of other alternatives.
Dear “Save Mary Park Group”:
ReplyDeleteI am stunned. Absolutely stunned.
First, a charitable purpose includes the erection of a rectory. I gather you understand this because your group now approves of the erection of a rectory. By the way, my wife and I can now sleep at night knowing that your group has approved of this. Thanks also for approving of a “comfortable home where they (our priests!) can live together” Again, that’s mighty nice of you!
Second, the fact that the bequest is unrestricted tells me AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT WILLS AND ESTATES that Mrs. Helen Komaniecka gave not only the gift, but, more importantly, DISCRETION as to how to use the gift to our monsignor and council. That means she relinquished complete control of the money to the discretion of our church leaders – not to me, not to your group, and not to her godson!!!! What you are suggesting, unbelieveably, is that we should supplant the discretion of our church leader and our council with that of the godson!! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? How dare you take the gift of Mrs. Helen Komaniecka away from her, particularly to suit your agenda. Please tell me you are not suggesting this!!!
Third, turning to your argument that you are “questioning the location, the size, the lack of communication to the parish and exploration of other alternatives.”, what authority do you have to question this? You seem to forget that we have a council, the express purpose of which is to handle these issues. The council is set up to avert the precise divisiveness that you have created here.
Fourth, I am now convinced, with your most recent post and from what I heard at the first discussion, that your “save mary park” campaign is a complete and utter sham. Your stated purpose is to save a park. What park? There is no park and there never was. No picnic tables, no playground, no baseball field, no wildlife et cet. It’s a vacant lot owned by the archdiocese. Calling it a park is ludicrous! And the fact that the authors of the “save mary park” campaign are close personal friends of the Sundrys causes me to believe that the campaign is ill motivated. If that is the case, and I hope its not, please tell me your relationship with God and your church is more important than your relationship with the Sundrys!! Or dare I ask?
JIm Urtis
Quite honestly Jim, I have no relationship with the Sundrys --- I have never met them. But this is not about my relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending my whole evening reading the posted comments, I could not believe the disrespectful tone and language that was being used,and we wonder about todays youth, guess who's teaching them. It's apparent that this argument can go on forever and no one will ever be satisfied. We should be happy that any priest would want to be part of this parish after such diplay. Father Michael has been a blessing, along with the Monsignor. He is afterall our HEAD priest, we may not always agree with him, but he does deserve our respect as our leader in church. As people have stated,"He is just a man", well, this man and his fellow priests need a home. Who are we to stand in their way?!! I have yet to see anyones child play at Mary park, other than a church or school function, I'm sure the neighbors would hate the noise. All I have left to say to those,"Cafeteria Catholics", who pick and choose what they want to believe for that day. PLEASE,PLEASE, may I suggest you find a more liberal church, since ST. Marys is to OLD FASHIONED and CONSEVATIVE, and let our chuch go on and do it's work, it seems that enough time has been wasted. I am more than happy to leave my name.
ReplyDeleteOne can respectfully disagree. However, if a whole school board, 14 people, 14 families, with StMarys (school) best interests as their focus, are summarily dismissed, THIS is not a respectful action.
ReplyDeleteIn the communication with the parishioners, in a letter and on the website, making it look like the benefactor earmarked the money specifically and explicitly for a new rectory is not respectful of the benefactor and of the parishioners of St Marys.
In fact, I am glad the previous poster brought up the notion of respect - this is the biggest issue in this rectory issue.
Please show the parish the main options very clearly and openly, the pluses and the minuses, see if there might be any constructive criticism, then the case will be made plainly. The church is the body of christ. The church is the community of catholic believers. Good hearted and well minded st mary's parishioners who might disagree with one option should be heard and their questions answered.
Respect is not owed, it is earned.
ReplyDeleteLet's call a spade a spade - this parish community has been lied to repeatedly. There can be no respect without honesty.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the space is called MARY Park. Is it named after Mary Smith or Mary Jones? I don't know. But I have always assumed it was named after Mary, the Mother of God. I find it ludicrous that a Catholic Church would even consider building on a space so named.
Back from vacation and some impressions on the recent posts:
ReplyDeleteThe negotiations with the northern neighbors, obviously teeming with antipathy, seem to have sprung legs of their own and have brought along baggage and freight that are not necessarily helpful and germaine to getting the job done - getting the best rectory for our priests for the money.
I hope that we do not build in the middle of Mary Park as a reaction to , or on the rebound from, such antipathetic tension-filled negotiations - the parish will be the worse from it. This is another reason to take a step back and more clearly delineate the options so that the rectory-office solution seems as compelling and logical as falling off a log.
"Mary Park is not a park but an empty lot" - number 3.0012 as Javert from Les Miz might have described this space. Hey, it does not even have playground equipment.
This is a very important difference in perception in this debate.
If one sees that space as a Park, and there are other good options to provide priests residence, then building in the middle of this space would be a scourge on the land and on the parish. If one sees this space as simply another buildable lot, what the hey, what's the fuss?
A park need not have playground equipment or picnic tables to be a park. It can be simply open and green and can still have as much or more value as space populated with such hardware. I am sure most Riversiders, - the bulk, presumably, of St Mary's parish - understand this view of space. In fact, green space is to Riversiders as snow is to eskimos. We see its subtle nuances and value. Nature abhors a vacuum. Observe Mary Park and one can see that it is full of the variety that nature provides, not the least if which is openness. It is not, in short, an 'empty lot'.
A quick comment that the space was not accorded park designation by Olmsted in his original plan. I have not seen that this is true, but even if true, the st marys people of the 1970s who knocked down that rectory and which birthed mary park actually were acting in an *olmstedian* manner. If you see olmsted on the road, kill him - with apologies to the Buddhists. The original plan has been hacked away at for over a century. What needs to be done is act within Olmsted's spirit. And mary park is in this spirit.
Another point on the use of the space as a park: the space has been used this way, as 'a park' for over two generations since the 1970s. This is what most people see, and have seen for so long (me for 22 yrs), when they see that corner area. Isnt there some sort of real estate law or a guideline that says if a piece of property is used in a certain way over a significant amt of time, even if discrepant from the legal description of the property, then this changes the attribute of the property? I am not saying this we are literally applying this law here, but one can at least *perceptually* apply it here.
***"By what authority" do we make our observations, the SAVEMARYPARK group - or anyone, for that matter, such as myself, or other posters?
The authority is from caring thoughtful members of st marys who as a whole constitute the parish and in the end , the church; the authority is "self evident", to borrow from jefferson; the authority is from God. We have a dynamic interactive relationship with the councils of st marys, the pastor and with the chi archidicese. People who post here and who share their opinion - such as the godson (that there should be some parsimony in parsonage, for example), too - are trying to add to and enrich the viewpoints of the decision makers in this affair, the msgr, the council and the greater archdiocese.
RESPECT – from its etymological roots – “look at/examine … again”. I think there should be more respect from both sides of the debate, to (re-) look at the options to house the priests and provide for office space – with care, incorporating all viewpoints of st mary's parish.
I am a former St. Mary Student. I choose to remain anonymous, but I still hope people will take the time to read this pretty long comment, especially those that are sided with the Mary Park Rectory. I am trying very hard not to say anything I would regret. I am very much against the new rectory.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point out that this problem is not only about Mary Park (even though this blog site is for the park), but also the school. What has Monsignor done to the school? He's fired the whole board and he's made the school have a new mascot. Guess what that is? THE SPARTANS! What kind of a name is that, the St. Mary "SPARTANS", the blue "SPARTANS?" How bout the St. Mary DEMONS! The Blue DEMONS! Now enough about the school, because I know this page is about the Park.
The park is a place where many events take place. I can list many of them. Picnics, recess, and gym and many more! I know some kids go here to play after school. They toss a football around and stuff.
Monsignor says that there is not enough room in the rectory for him to stay? That is crazy! There are tons of offices in the rectory. You don't need as many offices in there as there are! 2 people can fit in one room together. Two priests (sorry Father Michael, you are awesome) do not need one giant building! And I heard many people say think about the future, well the future I see is barely anyone going to church, a disliked Monsignor, and many many many disheartened and angry families.
Mary Park is where many memories lye, many children play, and one of the most loved parts of St. Mary's. Now, since I am about to rap this comment up I'd just like to say a few last things. Go ahead, all you people that are posting here, "You're disrespectful, you're not suppose to be using this kind of language." First of all, I don't see very much bad language; second of all we aren't being disrespectful, we are protecting what we love; third of all the youth doesn’t learn the language from here because a lot of them aren’t on here, their parents are, and there is barely any bad language on here!
Monsignor can’t just come into the parish and redo everything the way HE wants it. He is supposed to talk to the community and ask them if this is okay. Did he do this? No. He decided by himself what he was going to do with the very generous donation. He was going to benefit himself and not the community. He was going to benefit himself instead of the school. He was going to benefit himself instead of the parish!
I’m very sorry that this comment turned into a sort of rant but it had to be said and I’m glad that I said it. Anybody can post something bad about this comment or any of the other ones above me that are against Monsignor’s decisions. You say what you want, but if YOU really think about it, not us. Monsignor definitely went about this the wrong way. We are trying to get our word through to him but he wouldn’t listen, so families resorted to this blog.
So I am sorry to those families that are mad about this big problem but it had to be done. Now I wish you all good day or good night.
I just posted the above comment. The former St. Mary student one, and would just like to correct myself that I would like a different location for the new rectory. I'm not totally against the idea just against the Mary Park location. What about the empty lot just across the smaller parking lot next to the church? Think about it...
ReplyDeleteIt is important that the community see the elevations plans. The new rectory will face Herrick Road. Longcommon will be stuck with a whole lot of garages and siding. It will completely change the look of Longcommon Road and not in a favorable way. I am 100% in favor of a new rectory, but let's build one that St. Mary's can be proud of.
ReplyDeleteI was not able to attend the meeting yesterday. Can someone tell us what the parish admininstration's answer was to the roadblock to get documents noted in a previous post (the chicago archdic said that any and all info requests must go thru the downtown attorney)?
ReplyDeleteany other items to report?
I wish I could have attended the q and a yesterday. I would have liked to ask the question,
ReplyDeleteHave we really asked the question,
'where can we put the st mary office functions and what would it take to re-do the current rectory to address any other issues?' ?
I agree completely with Margaret; we need a new rectory but it shouldn't be an eyesore.
ReplyDeleteI have also heard from someone familiar with the project that the west elevation (the side facing Longcommon) will have little or no architectural detail--beyond a three-car garage, an entry door and a large, blank wall covered with siding. If this is the case, the west facade will be a visual afront to everyone who passes by along one of the busiest streets in town.
As far as the front facade, it looks like a post-modern mash-up of Victorian, Queen Anne and Arts & Crafts styles. The design is more appropriate for a Disney resort than a parish rectory. What's more, how does the design of the proposed rectory complement the church or the existing rectory? If one goal of this effort is to have a parish campus, then the buildings should at least look like they belong together. Similar exterior materials and repeated architectural motifs would help to unify the collection of buildings.
Consider how the other churches in Riverside, along with their associated buildings, enhance their surroundings by providing attractive focal points at various intersections around town. Will the larger community be grateful to the parish for the new rectory or will they wonder "Why did they build << that >> and why did they build it << there >>?"? I know property rights absolutists will dismiss this claim, but our parish is a prominent institution in Riverside and the respect and goodwill of the community should not be taken lightly.
Recall that when the church was remodeled a few years ago we had the opportunity to review drawings and a scale model. Where are the drawings, the models or the 3-D renderings to show us all sides of the proposed rectory?
To learn why the design and placement of buildings matters, see James Howard Kunstler's "Geography of Nowhere" or Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck's "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream."
Respectfully,
Dan Murphy (on Selborne)
I think the single most important fact to come out of last night's rectory listening session was that Sunday collections are down approximately $40,000 ytd. When Monsignor said at the now infamous June 22nd School Board Meeting to 'take your envelope and leave', we listened.
ReplyDeleteI hope that the church elders think of the distinctive place in a distinctive space of Riverside that st mary's sits.
ReplyDelete"Places said to have a strong "sense of place" have a strong identity and character that is deeply felt by local inhabitants and by many visitors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_place
I recall seeing a book (or a movie) which featured Riverside among other towns with a strong 'sense of place'. The main characteristic of Riverside is the pleasing marriage of built and open elements in the landscape *as* *a* *whole* - as a unified field. "Campus" means "field" in latin. St Mary's is a unified field, a campus, and so also is Riverside. The 1970s placement of st mary park, the convent, and the rectory fit nicely into the bigger campus or field of that part of town.
to put a wrapper on the 'sense of place' post:
ReplyDeleteThe lot currently used as and perceived as 'mary park', might be better considered an empty lot in most other towns. But in riverside it sits well as a park - for the aesthetics, the school kids, the parishioners - and the priests.
Of course, if there truly are compelling reasons to site the rectory there, and if there are not other reasonable alternatives, then this is a different story. Let the story be told clearly and convincingly - marypark is worth it.
I am opposed to the current plan to build a rectory in Mary Park. It is my opinion that Mary Park is a resource to the school and the parish that should be enhanced, not destroyed. Also, at a building cost of $122 per square foot, we will end up with a cheaply constructed rectory. Our priests deserve better. We have other alternatives that should be carefully explored. Additionally, I resent being lied to in the newspaper and in the rectory letter and video. I am embarrassed to be a member of a parish that would resort to lies and deception to achieve its goal.
ReplyDeleteArchitects and builders talk about the "design life" of a building. In other words, structures in this country are no longer built “for the ages”; they are built with the expectation that they will be useful for only a limited time and then demolished. I expect our church will be standing 100 years from now, the current rectory for decades to come, but what about the proposed rectory?
ReplyDeleteGiven the projected construction cost of $122 per square foot, what level of quality in terms of materials and workmanship will that buy? The cost to build has been discussed, but what about the projected costs for maintenance or the intended design life of the building? Will it last 20, 50 or 100 years? Will the roof need to be replaced in 10, 20 or 30 years? What sort of siding will be used; wood, vinyl or cement board? I’d rather see the parish prudently spend more money for a lasting and sustainable rectory, than spend less now for a rectory in need of expensive repairs--or even replacement—later.
I suspect the projected cost of rehabbing and expanding the existing rectory is so high because few builders want to rehab an existing building. New construction is far more profitable (with fewer surprises) and that has lead to the mindset that buildings are consumable, disposable products—not permanent fixtures of the built environment. Have parishioners who rehab existing buildings been consulted for a second or third opinion on the cost of rehabbing and expanding the current rectory?
In the end, the rectory as built can only speak for itself through its location, design, materials and workmanship. It will not be able to offer any excuses, explanations or back-story. We can’t put a sign on it that says “This was the best we could do with a difficult set of constraints.” So, I hope that what gets built (or preferably re-built) is enduring, ages gracefully, and is a source of pride for the parish for generations to come.
Dan Murphy (on Selborne)
POST 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteKevin Tabor reflection…..
So many “anonymous opinions/statements out there” on both sides of this “Priest’s Residence” issue my question is why? Do you really not believe in what you are posting on the website? I ask this question because; my father taught me to step up to the plate if you want to swing the bat. The moral of that story is you cannot do that without being seen or accountable for the end result. We cannot mend fences/division among the parish without knowing what and who were are dealing with. I commend everyone of those engaged fellow parishioner’s who have been passionate enough to stand up in the front of the crowd or sign their name to their statements on the blog sites and state their case. There really is no right and wrong opinions. We form our opinions based largely on how we were raised as Catholics and individuals and we all are entitled to state them freely.
It’s troubling and inappropriate to see the vicious personal shots being fired by both sides on this issue. The “School Board Dismissal” issue although alarming, disturbing & disappointing is a separate issue from the “Priest’s Residence” however, it does need to be addressed but not at the current meeting’s about the “Priest’s Residence”. Although there are those who argue, that it’s more indicative of a management/communication style and one of the reasons we are where we are at today.
What needed to occur and in “my opinion” still needs to occur, is for Monsignor and the Finance Committee and any other volunteer’s with complimentary skill sets to offer is to “research and present all reasonable alternatives” to the parish community as a whole. I wonder aloud if this process had occurred originally, would there be so much turmoil/anger or need for these meetings period. What’s frustrating and confusing are the astronomical numbers presented for remodeling the current residence and the perceived cursory look at Millie’s lot option that send a condescending feel to the audience. Almost like an after the fact, feel to the parish community as if we do not matter or care. We do matter and we do care, we will all be footing the bill for either one additional residence/property or a rebuilt residence for many years down the road.
My position is, if we were willing to accommodate the Sundry’s request for a “Berm” at $15K we most certainly can afford to get (2) additional artist renderings / drawings at $1,000 - $1500ea in order to make a more informed decision. I also, struggle with the “simple fact” that permits are in hand already and we are just now being presented with an opportunity to provide input. Knowing that this is the “final step” in any project before commencing, leads many to believe that these meetings are a “hopefully pacify the parish community after the fact” ploy. This has been further supported, by avoidance commentary from the Finance Committee to audience member’s direct questions on whether they are open to alternatives at this juncture. We all know that ground has not been broken yet that’s the obvious, what we don’t know is what the committee’s position/next steps are. That in a nutshell is causing anger and discord.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that the work the Finance Committee and Monsignor have done to date, has not been strenuous, time consuming or without challenges. I commend them for their effort. I have learned throughout life that the best results come when additional input from all available valuable resources is sought.
POST 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteOur parish certainly is blessed with plenty of talented individuals to tap into, some of whom have volunteered their expertise on this and many other projects.
Note: Can we please stop the senseless and petty blaming of the neighbors for all of our current Priest’s Residence problems? Not only is it not fair it’s not completely accurate (I don’t blame them for not showing up at these meetings). Where’s the upside for them? The fact is they exercised their “legal rights” from a document “both they and the Church” willingly signed off on. I would bet that if anyone of us had invested the time and money they did into rehabbing that convent residence with the chapel restrictions, all of the associated Village Code issues, we would have done the exact same thing which is to exercise/protect their rights according to the spirit of the agreement/covenant.
I feel strongly, that the “Priest’s Residence” is an important and much needed thing for the parish. At the same time, I’m not getting a comfort level for whether enough research was done on the financial, physical location and longterm repercussion aspects of this project. I keep coming back to the existing Rectory and the (2) options not only the (1) option that has been talked about for that property a) remodel and add on & b) knock down and build new on a beautiful piece of property already filled with trees and other foliage for privacy. For the record, large basement windows and an elevated entry would solve the lighting issue for any office space in the finished lower level; let’s get creative and open up our minds a little.
A little food for thought, “Blind Faith and Blind Trust” in today’s world take on a whole new meaning. Although different by definition they are intertwined as far as our Faith is concerned. We all have learned and many have been impacted I am sure from the Bernard Maddoff’s of the world. To that end also as Catholics from the “documented and systematic cover up” over the past decade our own Church has been involved in that has shaken our faith to its very core and cast a “black eye” on Catholicism globally not to mention an unprecedented cost to clean-up. These types of incidents have forced a change forever, in how we look at people and organizations and hold them accountable. A byproduct of this, is the requirement for openness of information and checks and balances to ensure compliance. It is not only appropriate to ask questions and request documentation regarding agenda’s and transparency of information of all of our Committee’s and our Pastor, it would be utterly irresponsible not demand that as members of our parish community.
This is an important time for the St. Mary’s Parish Family to get past this needless bickering, and exit intact as the Strong Family/Parish that everyone was proud of before this all started. Let’s take off the blinders and not lose sight of the ultimate goal, to continue to strengthen the school system our faith and sense of community. Certainly, part of that process is to provide a private, collaborative & spiritual residence for our Priest’s. Let’s not let selfish Pride, predicate/corrupt the decision making process on either side.
Let’s all be part of the solution! Not the problem.
Peace
Mr. Urtis
ReplyDeleteI believe all the parishioners in the community are releived that you and your wife are able to sleep again in your home with the 4000 square foot addition built at a cost of $100/ft as your wife reminded us all at the last "listening session". Thank you for finally getting the message that our group is actually for a residence after only 3 months of discussions. Nobody is "out of their minds" as you so eloquently put it in lawyer speak I'm guessing. There are in fact, 2 different agendas at play here. Yours which is to not question anything about the decision making process to spend over $500K and presumably $1.1million of "PARISH MONEY"- it's not Monsignor's, not the Finance Committees. The other agenda, which is to respectfully request ( which is exactly what initially occurred) information on process and options weighed. We the parishioners have every right to question any and every Parish Committee's decisions, as stated by Mr. Tabor previously. For you to suggest the agenda we follow is a sham and makes our committment to our faith, religion or God any less than yours or anyone else's is pathetic, petty, and uninformed. Maybe you should take a break until you can objectively and with an open mind participate in this discussion forum.
I attended the last session and I did not have the moxie or whatever to stand up and ask at the end if there were any way that people could make their opinions known to the people making this decision (msgr, FC, Chi Arch? any others?) before the decision is made.
ReplyDeleteI did ask this after the session and spoke to FC chairman Jack Wilk about this and he gave me his personal email address. I do not want to publish this here now without his permission.
So, does anyone know what the (email) addresses are for to get any more parishioner points of view across?
I would think anyone with words to speak should do so now. That mid-Novemeber contruction permit is looming closer and closer. THe between the lines I even heard after the session suggested that the Chicago archdiocese is getting impatient for a place for priests to live here.
I am on record to say that there already is a rectory and we have an office space problem more than a rectory problem, and that the problem seems to be based on a shaky, even false assumptions - based on the previous pastor leaving the premises for 'personal reasons' - as the parish administration's powerpoint even said, and the current pastor continuing this odd exit.
I also brought up afterwards the disconnect that I heard about - in this space - between freely accessing relevant documents and the roadblock raised up by the chicago archdiocese (CA). Mr Wilk clarified that the CA went ballistic (my term, but a pretty accurate summary of his body language) when they heard about this promise. It seemed that he was saying that the CA was ballistic about *only some* of the documents such as the will, I think, and that others docs, such as designs are still freely accessible.
ReplyDeleteThe immediate questions are:
If the CA is so important of a player in all of this (despite the mantra that kept repeating that msgr is the decider), then why didnt they have a rep there during those sessions? WHO is the CA - that is, who to whome can we direct our questions and whatever statements ?
One of the last people to speak at the last q and a session on 8-30 was a practiced construction person, foley, I believe he called himself, who said that he thought that we could re-do the existing rectory to accomodate our priest housing requirements for considerably less than the $1.5m that was reported by the parich admin.
ReplyDeleteI dont think he was even suggesting removing (some or all) of the office function either. I think we should try to soberly assess all office functions, and see what can be moved to the private home, to the basement, to the school, to the new parish center, even to the church itself (my daughter had worked with the previous music director as a violinist for masses, and she regularly met with her in the church. THink about it, the chruch, a great space for respectful work is not used 24-7.
Let's not get caught up in discussing moving offices in the school and gym. Spend time in both and you will see how well utilized the school and gym are. Re-tasking those spaces are not an option to resolve this problem.
ReplyDeletequote:
ReplyDelete"Let's not get caught up in discussing moving offices in the school and gym."
What about the basement, the church, someone's home (the one doing the Bell, eg), or finding other solutions such as renting out space at sundstroms, or at the former laundry mat space on burlington - they are all close to the parish.
How much and during what times are the offices used?
A THOROUGH vetting of office relocation should be done , should have been done. If it has been, can someone point me to the document that details the analysis?
This THOROUGH vetting of office location is worth it one values:
*keeping st mary park for all the great uses it has and can have in addition to its aesthetic value,
*saving millies lot for a rainy day,
*not having the extra economic burden of maintaining two buildings
Obviously, a priest should be on the premises 24-7 - so I dont know how the previous pastor and the current pastor jumped ship intead of finding suitable places for the offices (unless they wanted, and want, to make a better case for the need for a whole new rectory and be living proof of the problem).
Regardless of what happens to Mary Park, I would like to thank Susan Schoen, Michelle Cronin, Colleen McMahon, Rita Domeier, Liz Carey and Maura Doherty for creating this blog. It has given St. Mary's a voice when it seems we have none and a source of information when information is hard to come by. It's not always easy to stand up for what you believe in and I am glad that they did.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to so a quick summary of the rectory options as a quick checkpoint for my mind. It would be useful to add total initial and long term costs to each option if this is available. A nice chart of pluses and minuses would also be helpful. anyone, feel free to add or correct...
ReplyDelete* (1) separate building behind the current rectory to house rectory.
Presumably, the office functions would stay at the current rectory. Not sure about how the extra space (originally designed for priests residence) would be used there.
This is what the rectory committee opted as their first choice.
* (2) new building in the middle of marypark this became the new choice of the rectory committee after the neighbors exercised their veto power on choice 1.
Presumably, the office functions would stay at the current rectory. Again, not sure about how the extra space (originally designed for priests residence) would be used there.
* (3) re-do the current rectory to get it up to code and to satisfy the privacy requirements for three priests. Office functions would stay here.
* (4) raze current rectory and put up new multipurpose (rectory and office) building in its place
* (5) new building on Millies Lot for rectory. Office functions stay at current rectory.
* (6) Use existing house in a nearby or, ideally, adjoining lot. Office functions would stay at current rectory.
The option I was pushing *to seriously be vetted* was a variation on (3) above. Find other spots for office function in and nearby to stmary's campus thereby freeing up space in the current rectory, which was designed for three priests, as a rectory. Put some TLC in the current where needed.
As someone said in one of the meetings, if the current building is such a wreck where it needs a ton of code work, wdn't this work have to be done anyway - even if a new rectory building is constructed?
We have now reached the moment of truth. The three sessions are complete, and it appears we will now wait for the smoke to rise from wherever it is that Monsignor lives. If nothing else, the three sessions proved where the vast majority of parishioners fall on the issue: Yes....we want a quality home for our priests. No.....we don't want it in Mary Park. It also proved that we as a parish have a strong voice, though we're not yet sure if our leader will listen. While, in my opinion, Monsignor has failed miserably in his leadership to this point, there is always time to move in the right direction; listening to the Parish on this important issue would be a good step. Addressing (with HIS OWN voice) the Parish on another important matter (the school board) would be a good step. I'm choosing to feel very cautiously hopeful....
ReplyDeleteyes, thanks, to all who stepped forward to allow this vehicle to happen. All we can do is respectfully express ourselves to the deciders so that they have our input.
ReplyDelete(And, of course, yes, there's always old st pats, st barbaras, xavier; I am reluctant to say this since it plays in the absolutist, either-or, binary line of thinking already put forward by msgr's "love it or leave".)
Also, everyone: please send your polite respectful comments and input to stmarys in case no one comes to this blog. I am not quite sure where to send them, but I suspect if you send to st mary's standard email site, or if you jot on paper and drop it off at the office, I would think it would get to the people who are doing the deciding, msgr and the committees.
does msgr have an email address?
stmarys public email address is...
maryriver@stmaryriverside.org
Yes, in case anyone was counting it was at or over 4 to 1 *against* building in mary park at the meetings I attended (1st and 3rd), and the moderator had to cut out comments due to time.
On this issue, in this town of Riverside where St Mary's parish resides, where open green space is prized, building in a park - in an area that has been used as a park for over thirty years - does not *seem* to be the correct solution.
I know it is not a democracy obviously. hey, everyone, let me remind you that our secular US govt is not a democracy either. It is a representational form of gov't whereby the people delegate their decisions to their representatives. We do not count noses on every issue in the secular world either. The leaders make the decision. They do try to plumb the spirit of 'their people', too, as msgr has said he is duly trying to listen to his people. Fr michael said it well when he said he and msgr will be gone, but the st mary parishioners will remain.
The Church, catholic, universal, in the end IS its people, where two or more are gathered in the name of Love as Jesus said. More than nose counting, after Easter, it is all about the Spirit.
Thank you, MRT, for your wise words regarding this issue. I feel your words have been well thought out, and you have helped us all see the issues in an organized and sensical manner.
ReplyDeleteWell, the meetings have come to a close and we have no clear path forward regarding next steps or additional analysis that needs to be completed. I fear there will be no additional analysis, review or consideration of alternatives. The next step will be to orange fence Mary Park and call in the back hoes. Then we''ll be stuck with Moncaesar's Palace and a parish torn apart.
ReplyDeleteA quick bit of background: I am a 22 yr riverside resident and st mary parishioner with three kids who have gone through, and are going through, the RE program at st marys. We , myself, our family, do not know , nor have ever met, the northern neighbors. I care about st marys as my home church as I would my own home. I want our priests to have on campus residence and to also spend parish money wisely, money from both the kind and humble donor, and from the rest of us. I want to retain st mary assets and not see us lose st mary assets when other alternatives might be available.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the pleasant experience I have of mary park each time I go to church on Sunday while seeing it from the church steps as well as each time I pass by it, I have had some very nice experiences at Mary Park. One such time was when Cardinal Bernadin said a mass there. It was only a short time after he was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer. I think it was to bless the new Parish Center - or was it to kick off the capital campaign for the same?
Anyway, I brought my dog, a brown chow chow, a lion of a dog, to this outdoor mass and he was sitting near the makeshift aisle going towards the makeshift altar at the center of the park. Well, I have a video of this, and on the video one sees a line of high ranking chicago archdiocese officials processing down this aisle, with tall vertical mitres and headpieces looking VERY serious. Then we see Cardinal Bernadin with a very easygoing look in contrast with those preceding him. The video shows the stern faces, then of Cardinal Bernadin looking down at the aisle (at my dog), where he revealed a bright twinkling kind of smile and a nod to me. That day, Cardinal Bernadin seemed quite at home in mary park.
Another time I witnessed, first from the church looking on MaryPark, then closer in,
a VERY moving ceremony: the Msgr was leading a procession with the other st mary priests, the deacon, the altar servers, the parishioners, and the eucharist in a very respectful and prayerful line to the center of Marypark from the church The group was singing a beautiful latin hymn slowly and distinctly with each step in the procession.
The view that I had initially from the church was extraordinary, which saw this whole scene all at once almost like a hollywood movie, replete with the light filtering through the trees of mary park and the latin chorus of the prayerful participants as they slowly filled the open space of mary park.
I felt at the time that THIS is catholicsm, st marys-of-riverside style: a blending of holiness, meditation, and of mystery from one kind of sanctuary, the brick and mortar church, seamlessly leading to the other kind sanctuary, with a statue of St Francis looking on, of mary park.
It left me, and I dare say anyone else witnessing this, with feelings of quiet holiness and awe. I also felt proud to be a st mary parishioner. For those who saw this from the street, for those who who never have ventured into a catholic church and who may even have a bunch of prejudices on the church, what a sight this must have been, and how interesting and distinctive this must have seemed. Let’s try to keep this asset if-at-all-possible.
Let me reiterate that this ceremony was led by Msgr.
mike tom*c*k
speaking of msgr, WHO is msgr's boss and where, and from whom, is he getting his orders, orders for a rectory of thus and such size and orientation *by a certain time* ?
ReplyDeleteI have heard noises that 'the Archdiocese' is 'putting pressure' to get this 'done' and also have heard noises that they are dictating details of the rectory solution and nixing certain options.
My point is that the msgr does not appear to me to be acting alone in this matter. At a minimum, anything he decides on as a solution needs to be approved by *someone* somewhere*. In addition to the st mary finance committee (and the pastoral committee, too?) providing what seems to be advisory INPUT, there seems to be someone, somewhere above msgr setting standards and expectations on this matter. I would like to know what those standards, expectations, and, most importantly, *deadlines* are in this matter.
Can anyone clarify for us who is putting the pressure on msgr to get this done and what the standards are? I bet the view of those in chicago is that marypark is simply an empty lot and do not see its importance here.
Does anyone know what the (email) address is of the 'higher ups' in case anyone wanted to express concerns in this matter?
The email address is archbishop@archchicago.org.
ReplyDeleteI would like to share a prayer:
ReplyDeleteDear Lord Jesus,
We thank You for all that you have bestowed upon us in the richness and beauty that is the St. Mary Community shown through its people, its leaders and its physical surroundings.
We ask YOU for Your grace, Your wisdom and Your guidance as the members of this community struggle to do the right thing, with regards to Mary Park, the Priests' Rectory, the School Board.
Help us to know Your will in all matters.
Remind us of Your presence and help us to view our situation through Your eyes and Your perspective.
Help us to remember that our life here on earth no matter how hard we work to make our surroundings beautiful, cannot compare in beauty and majesty to the house that You have prepared for us in heaven; our eternal home.
Help us to be the faith community who looks to YOU for guidance in all that we do; the things that we say to each other, the way we treat each other, the decisions and choices that we make.
Please provide us with the courage to pray for those who have hurt us; as You prayed for those who persecuted You.
Open our eyes & hearts to our shortcomings - pride, selfishness, spite - so that we can ask for Your forgiveness and the strength to ask for forgiveness from each other.
We entrust ourselves, our issues, our problems, ALL that we are, to Your loving care knowing that You are the ONE that we can trust in ALL things.
In your precious name we pray, AMEN.