It occurred to me when I was doing Zeal XX (see third blog post below this one) that I had not uploaded the rebuttal of  the St. Jan’s Renovation Supporters.   Zeal XVI was focused on the investigative reporting article by Jack Jones which was published in the Naples Record.  The article did not go unnoticed by a few of Fr. Ring’s and the project’s supporters.  First, Andy Beigel wrote a letter to the editor longer than the original article, claiming to represent St. Jan’s and setting himself forth as “President” of the Parish Council of OLOL.  Following his letter to the editor there were 5 more letters published in the next edition, one being from his wife.  This is the gist of those 5 letters:

• Joaquin Aymerich (why he and his wife are grateful and so donated to the project)
• Lynn Lersch to compliment the investigative reporter and the Naples Record for being willing to publish a story that “needed to be told and documented.” 
• Rachael O’Connor saying :  “the tone of the ‘article’ is screamin’ yellow”! 
• Marianna Beigel to complain about “shoddy journalism” (after they’d just published her husband’s tirade), and about logs in some eyes and splinters in others, etc. 
• Joan Hoeffel who contributes her own interpretation of other people’s motives, including that she sees those who dissent as railing against St. Jan’s (rather than against what is being done to St. Jan’s.)  Her answer was “let them find other churches, other priests and even other faiths.” 

Each, of course, has a right to his or her opinion.  However, the letter of most concern was from Andy Beigel who didn’t only set forth his opinion, but set forth seriously wrong information which needed to be corrected.  Therefore, I am publishing the correction below, which will be fairly self-explanatory as to what was in the Beigel letter, without again reiterating his errors.  But here is a sampling of what was just plain wrong from Andy Beigel, who was setting himself forth in the role of a spokesman for St. Jan’s:

• “I am currently the President of the Pastoral Council for OLOL.”
• “74% of those attending Mass were in favor of the renovations”
• “…nothing was demolished”
• “each person had the opportunity to express his or her concern”
• “decisions are made without input from the faithful…for well over 1000 years”
• “A special Pastoral Council meeting was scheduled, so that all concerned parties could come and express their concerns”

The parishioners’  letter set forth below counters each of these errors, and more besides.  There are a few typos, but I left them alone as the meaning still seems clear.  As you will also see in Zeal XX we are often dealing with outright lies, errors or selective omissions.  Thus, the misleading of the flock metastasizes.

Closing Arguments: At first this title brought fear to my heart; we are all so used to thinking “Closing of Churches” that it threw me for a moment.  But it wasn’t arguments to close St. Jan’s, but rather it represents that the Naples Record is done with the subject, having printed Mr. Beigel’s letter and five others, and then a rebuttal signed by 7 parishioners who opposed what was done to St. Jan’s Sanctuary and opposed the errors perpetrated by Mr. Beigel.  A few of the signatories to the parishioners’ letter to the editor told me that many more people read their letter, said that they agreed with it completely, but were afraid to sign.  I congratulate those who did sign, and sympathize with those who are afraid.  In future writing I will be dealing with the issue of intra-parish bullying. 

It is often said that “a picture is worth 1000 words”.  Try to keep in mind that these pictures show a cost (as best we know) of about $300,000.  The question isn’t only if the demolition/renovation at St. Januarius in Naples is worth the money, but was it worth dividing a parish, severing long time relationships, and deepening the alienation, for THIS?  (We regret that some of the pictures are fuzzy; people run in and run out trying not to get “caught” and that is the kind of fear that is so widespread when a parish is divided.  As better pictures become available, we’ll post here, so please check back.

(For reminders, the original pictures of the Sanctuary can be found in Part II, X and XVII of this series.)  This is what the Sanctuary looked like last week:

1. Overview from left Rear of Church

2. View from center, right side.

3. Close-up of Tabernacle

4. Presider Chair and Altar

 

5. Crucifix in Sanctuary

  

 

 

 

6A. Statue of Mary taken from St. Mary Rushville 6B. St. Joseph not shown

 

 

 

7. Rear of Church; Divider not repaired or replaced

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be remembered that 1) about three-quarters of St. Jan’s parishioners opposed these changes, 2) that they were not allowed to discuss their concerns at Care of the Community meetings, 3) that the faith community did not have a vote (but the Parish Council which is not representative of the parishioners and is mostly hand-picked by Fr. Ring did have the vote), 4) that the parishioners and summer visitors were solicited for contributions with false information regarding the chief donor, the purpose of the donor, and the requirements of the donor (Zeal post XV) 5) that the work that needed to be done (divider wall repair or replacement and adequately securing the Tabernacle–Zeal V) were set forth as part of the project but were not done 7) that no accounting for the project has been given to parishioners; they don’t know if their parish is in debt or not   8.  that greatly insulting actions against the parishioners were taken such as conducting demolition during Holy Week and making the Church unusable for the Triduum, 9) that secret plans were drawn up for a Sanctuary without the organ and the pastor entertained selling it for $3000, its having a worth of $75,000-$100,000 10) that donations by parishioners of railings, shrines and other art, for example, were unceremoniously trashed.  And more….but that is enough to at least convey the hostility of pastoral leadership toward many of the parishioners. 

A very key question that yet has no answer is why would a pastor who knows he is leaving and who had presided in the Sanctuary for nearly a decade, insist on making such dramatic and damaging change in the weeks before he left?  Perhaps those with less vested interest can candidly comment on the fruits of Fr. Ring’s work in the St. Jan’s Sanctuary.  But for the moment, relating to each of the pictures above, we will try to point out the parishioners’ many objections to the final result.

By way of background, the bright balloon shapes of the windows are not the actual experiences in the Sanctuary but are due to the scatter of light in the picture taking, so we won’t comment on that effect further. If you look back at the earlier postings of Sanctuary pictures, you will have a better idea of the appearance, which is unchanged.

Comments by picture #:

1. People have, most of all, complained about the Holy Eucharist being removed from the prominent center position behind the altar and shunted off to the side near the exit door.  They have remarked about the architectural imbalance of the squared-off back drop for the wall behind  the Tabernacle being at odds with the sweeping lines of what is un-affectionately called “The Ugly Christmas Tree-UCT.”  Complaints have been heard about how the enclosure of the UCT has a separating effect, and how its architectural style expresses no continuity with the architectural style of the church, even with the ill-matching of the yellows of the wood to the blues of the reinforced concrete.  There are complaints that the massiveness of the Tabernacle Wall and Table unbalances the entire Sanctuary.  It is a bit of a shock that a firm like LaBella would put their name on such a debacle.

2.  This view shows the free-form steps, now only two (reduced from four) which impairs the view of children and small or infirm adults to fully see the liturgy.  Moreover, there has already been conversation that the free form steps, ascended and descended for lectoring, for example, are awkward and easier to stumble over due to the irregular shape.  Time will tell if this is just the newness, or actually an architectural defect.  However, in spite of Fr. Ring’s citing clutter in the Sanctuary as an excuse for his demolition, one should note the handrails on the wall behind the altar.  (The black horizontal lines which cut across the altar profile.)  These are handrails which follow a ramp up to the altar area, and the lighting causes shadows, almost as dark as the railings, to fall on the light wall, creating a hodge-podge of horizontal “cuts” across the field of view.  The presider chair (now elevated, while the Tabernacle is demoted) sits alone with those same lines and shadows creating distraction.  There are twice as many distracting lines on the left side, due to railings there on both sides of the ramp, and shadows from both.  The altar is a spoiler, but after the beautiful altar which the St. Januarians enjoyed previously, probably anything else would be a disappointment.  The prior altar, as best we know, has been demolished and pieces and parts plastered elsewhere, like on the ambo.  The replacement altar was from St. Andrew in Dundee and was literally falling apart and had to be reworked.  But it gave the Bishop a reason to come celebrate and consecrate a “new” altar, hardly something which happens often in the Diocese of Rochester.

3. The controversial ramp goes “up” behind the tabernacle.  Close behind this sacred space is a station for people to sanitize their hands.  Now it is unclear if Eucharistic ministers will also descend on the ramp, being out of sight of the congregation while carrying the Precious Blood.  This is a good opportunity to point out that the wall behind the Tabernacle, and the UCT wall both have a “fakeness” to them, like a movie set in a Western, where the storefronts are all propped up with a 2×4 brace.  There is a cubicle-quality cheapness (though not cheap) to such false dividers.  One can also see the seeming insignificance of the altar space as seen from the area of the church near the Tabernacle and its facade.  (The fan on the floor evokes a dissonant note too; perhaps A/C would have been a better investment?)  The scene is completed with a (white?) Sanctuary candle.

4. This picture gives a closer view of the altar and of the multiple bars and shadows that cut through the altar profile.  It is far more clutter and distraction, in some people’s estimation, than what Fr. Ring previously called clutter (which, sadly, included the Blessed Sacrament.)  Now people won’t have much to look at except the presider, but perhaps that was part of the purpose?  There is a sense of “congestion” in the available area for the altar.  As the Sanctuary begins to be used, what is becoming apparent is that there is less usable floor space than previously available.  Is that why the other two chairs, usually with the presider’s chair, have disappeared?  It isn’t just square footage, but how one can move around the space.  Can a priest step backward without stepping off the ramp?  Some believe that the ramp was a farce to try to prevent a Latin Mass from ever again being celebrated in this space.  Perhaps it seems far-fetched, but the hijackers of Vatican II have gone to greater lengths.  Part of the space reduction is the incursion by the choir and music area too.  Good news is that the organ is still there, and the pipes are behind the UCT.  But, as the instrument is positioned now, the organist doesn’t seem able to see the presider!

5.  Having a crucifix back in the Sanctuary can be a plus, but the planners found a smaller one than had been there, and the woods do not match well.  It seems that perhaps a smaller crucifix is used for scale because of the diminished Sanctuary space.

6. The statues of Mary and Joseph were taken away from St. Mary Rushville.  The Bishop continues to insist that St. Mary is still open, but there seems to be no hesitancy in letting the vultures descend on the bones.  Fr. Ring even expressed what seems a somewhat absurd opinion that having these statues in Naples would make the former St. Mary parishioners feel more comfortable there.  It belies a real lack of understanding of how people react in their spirits when they are continually subjected to what has been taken from them.  Or perhaps that is part of the intention?  Meanwhile, the statue of St. Januarius seems to have disappeared from the Sanctuary.

7. One of the few areas in which there was consensus was that the divider screen between the church and the parish hall needed repair or replacement.  People who gave were likely enticed by that being one of the promised renovations but it did not happen.  This photo shows the view into the parish hall, the state of the divider screen, and the tiny baptismal font in the middle of the aisle near the Paschal candle.  There is also no evidence that the Tabernacle has been secured, which also was important to do.  Instead of taking care of the most obvious needs, the Pastor’s decision was to spend on false walls, an unnecessary ramp, elevating the presider chair, lowering the Tabernacle, and for what purpose?  How much of this gives praise to the Lord, saves souls or serves people?

That brings up the final point which doesn’t show in any particular picture but is perhaps hinted at by all the pictures.  Why did Fr. Ring do this just before he left for St. Louis in Pittsford?  Is it just bad taste or did it have an element of retribution against a community that felt he had mis-handled the Fr. Emo sexual abuse situation, which held a parish forum and asked the Bishop to remove Fr. Ring, which had been silenced and suppressed during pastoral planning, and which has suffered as a step-child of St. Michael’s in Penn Yan for far too long?  You decide.

Meanwhile, it would be of interest for those who are perhaps too close to the current situation to hear from others with an independent view and willingness to share it.  Thank you.

 

As noted earlier, I skipped over a few parts of the story in order to get current but will be filling in the details in retrospect.  This is one I wish I had brought up sooner (if I’d had time) as I now note much speculation about what really happened with Danny Wegman.  I will share what I know, and also raise a few questions too.  But I think, overall, it will bring some clarification.

Bob Wegman lived on the west shore of Canandaigua Lake in the summers, and was a generous contributor to St. Januarius in Naples.   His widow, Peggy, continued to attend and be supportive.  Danny Wegman is situated further north but also on the west side, and although closer to Canandaigua sometimes also attended St. Jan’s.  His daughters, Colleen and Nicole were married there, and Danny Wegman contributed to refurbishment of the church for their double wedding.

This is by way of background to show that the Wegman Family did consider St. Januarius to be part of their faith experience, and that they were supportive.  In fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, St. Jan’s experienced a serious shortfall, and a Wegman donation of approximately $20,000 bailed out the parish, and by implication OLOL and Fr. Ring as well.  It must have taken some effort to secure such a sum, as Fr. Ring told me once that the Wegmans are a “house account” for the Bishop.  So during Partners in Faith in 2003 they didn’t received the typical solicitation as did the rest of us, but (I was told) they were separately solicited by DoR and therefore the half that would revert to a parish would not do so.  Other than conversation, I have no way to verify this, but it would not be surprising that a number of “deep pockets” in DoR don’t directly benefit their local parishes except through the Sunday collections.

Therefore, there must have been some high level machinations to even be permitted to go after the Wegmans to fund Fr. Ring’s projects at St. Januarius.  Fr. George Wiant apparently knew them and had contacts, but it seems pretty clear that DoR was on top of this all the way.

Since I started sending the Newsletter to all DoR parisihoners in Fall 2009, the Wegmans have been on the list, and therefore they received volumes on the concern about selling the organ, about the Sanctuary opposition, about the surveys, and even letters from parishioners.  Mostly, the parishoners felt ignored, and Fr. Ring and Fr. George went full speed ahead.  They solicited funds from parishioners and from summer visitors alike with a letter that said:

Dear Parishioners:

We have been offered a unique opportunity. Numerous times conversations have surfaced about renovating St. Januarius Church: to restore the simplicity that was so beautiful when the church was first dedicated, to make the altar more safe and accessible, while bringing the altar, tabernacle, baptistry and reconciliation room (confessional) more into conformity with the Vatican II Liturgy.

The Wegman family, in memory of Robert Wegman, has generously offered to fund this, though also wanting parishioners involved, raising part of the money. The approximate cost of the renovation will be $300,000. We are expected to raise $30,000 from our parish. The Wegman family will provide the remaining funds. Such an opportunity is unlike to come our way again.

Economically, this is a very difficult time for everyone. Yet at least some things, like the partition separating church and hall which is falling apart, must be addressed.  We now have a unique opportunity to address not only that, and to improving lighting; we can also accomplish renovation/restoration that could serve us very well long into the future.

Enclosed are some pictures of the renovated altar and baptistry. Will you try to be as generous as you can to help with this unique opportunity, which holds the promise of not only renewing our building, but also renewing our experience of praying the Eucharist, and our celebrating the sacraments together? Please return your pledge card by August 15th. Your pledge will be due Sept. 15th.

In advance, we thank you for your support and generosity.

In Christ,

Fr. Robert Ring & Fr. George Wiant

Please note several points in the letters sent by the Pastor and Fr. George.  The reference to original simplicity is apparently not shared by those few parishioners who were at St. Jan’s when the new church was dedicated.  Leaving that aside, Fr. Ring (with handouts earlier, and with this explict statement) seems to be clearly stating that St. Jan’s (the parish he has pastored for about 9 years at that point, has not been in compliance with Vatican II.  Strange, because that was the first time it seemed many people were hearing that complaint.  (Let’s not get into the Vatican II disputed statements at this point; worth a different post.)

Next, Fr. Ring and Fr. George are clearly saying they have $300,000 pledged by the Wegmans.  Remember the exact words:  “The Wegman family, in memory of Robert Wegman, has generously offered to fund this, though also wanting parishioners involved, raising part of the money.”   Ask yourself, is it any wonder that people receiving this letter would believe the Wegmans had agreed to fund, and even to cover overruns.

It isn’t clear why we never heard from the Wegmans, either to request to be off our mailing list, or to protest that Fr. Ring’s letter to parishoners didn’t accurately reflect their donation intent. 

Most (but not all) of the “Rest of the Story” is reflected in a chance encounter with Danny Wegman, reported to parishioners in a Special Edition Newsletter in March, 2011.  Here that Newsletter is reproduced in its entirety.  Click to make it larger and more readable.

This would have been a logical place to end the portion of the Zeal story that deals with Danny Wegman and the Wegman Foundation, if it truly were “the end.”  However, after more than a month of quiet (no reaction to the Special Edition Newsletter) it was reported back to me from those in attendance at two different Care of the Community meetings, that

1. Cris Wensel (Fr. Ring’s DRE and gatekeeper) reported that there had been a $300,000 commitment by Wegmans but that because of my meeting with him in the aisle of Wegmans that he had reduced his donation to $50,000.  That attributed comment would be patently false, as Mr. Wegman informed me that he had NOT promised the $300,000 but only the $50,000 and that is consistent with DoR reducing the scope of the project in January 2011.

2. It was also reported separately that the Wegmans had reduced their donation because someone from St. Jan’s (“a mandater”) had banged on Peggy Wegman’s door on her birthday demanding Wegmans not fund the project.  I have personally spoken to a mandater who says he did see Peggy Wegman walking on her birthday, said hello, did politely request that Wegmans not fund the work in their mutual parish that was opposed by so many.  He did not go to her home, let alone “bang on her door,”  or “demand.”  Such exaggeration and spin  is not untypical of other “stories” that get told in OLOL.

3. At yet another Care of the Community meeing, Cris Wensel stated that Danny Wegman had contributed another $50,000.

4. Then it was mentioned that Fr. Ring had secured the funding from “another source” and people worried that he’d put a mortgage on St. Jan’s or used the St. Patrick;s money which got folded into OLOL with the amalgamation, or the final spend-down of the St. Mary Rushville treasury.

5. At another point it was said that Mr. Wegman had relented and was giving the full amount.

 6. At another time it was said that a private donor had stepped in to make the rest of the donation.  Speculation was Fr. George Wiant or Danny Wegman “anonymously.” 

7. At another point it was said that  Danny Wegman had relented and was going to give the $300,000 after all.

Since so many OLOL stories do not seem to agree with each other, and minutes with specifics are unavailable, we can’t say what is true and what is not.  So we rely for the moment on what Jack Jones in his Naples Record arrticle reported: “Ring has since acknowledged that the Wegman gift was a donation of $50,000, but said that since that time the controversy over the project has led to Wegmans and another anonymous donor to make additional contributions that will cover the $300,000 cost.” 

How does one explain first the accusation that those who protested the sanctuary changes caused the contribution to drop, and then Fr. Ring’s later remark that the controversy led to Wegmans making additonal contributions?  It sounds like a contradiction.  Further, why the secrecy about an “anonymous donor” and is it really a donor or another financing method?  And since the diocese split the project, it would seem that all $300,000 wouldn’t just be spent on the sanctuary and lighting, so where is the rest of the money, especially for what had been most needed all along — the divider curtain in the back of the church?

I am the one who looked Danny Wegman in the eye, heard, restated and thus confirmed what he said to me.  I sent him a thank you for his good stewardship and I believe others did too.  If he changed his mind, it would be surprising but not impossible, but going from $50,000 to $300,000 seems unlikely for a good businessman, no matter how much wheedling Fr. Ring did.  And where are the financial statements showing the flow of funds?

If I’d published this part of the story after meeting Mr. Wegman “in the aisle” it would have ended with the 2-page special edition newsletter.  Now, with all the versions being spun, anything seems possible.  We may never know the truth, so reporting all the versions we’ve heard seems the fairest way to proceed.

As we draw toward the end of this saga, the results of Fr. Ring’s demolition project are beginning to show.  On August 14, the Bishop and he will come to St. Jan’s to “re-dedicate” the altar and sanctuary.  All the furnishings aren’t in place yet, but at least the plastic is down and one can get a look at it.  In time, parishioners will form their opinions.  Perhaps some who resisted it will accept it.  Perhaps others who vigorously defended the demolition will come to realize they trusted in vain. 

Why is DoR making such a big deal about a “re-dedication”?  I suspect it is because there are no “dedications,” that the diocese is one big parade of church closures, or sobbing grandmothers and wilted roses tied to doorknobs.  WOW!  A photo-op to refute the image!  But it is also like bragging about healing from a self-inflicted wound. 

The beautiful altar has disappeared and there is a table “altar” that is a hand-me-down from the now closed St. Andrew Church in Dundee.  We’ve heard that it had been falling apart (legs coming off) but it has apparently been fixed and patched to now be the St. Januarians’ new altar.  Whether the larger treasured altar is in basement storage or departed on a dump truck is not known.

Then there is what the Bishop most argued for — a ramp behind the altar.  Fr. Ring had complained of clutter and moved the tabernacle (CLUTTER!  OUR LORD?)  So now there are railings which cut across the plane line of the altar in a distracting way.  There is no clear need for the ramp except, perhaps, ensuring that it would be most difficult to ever again celebrate The Latin Mass in this space.

Oh, and somewhere in this new space we hope there’s an organ.  Maybe the pipes are hiding behind what the parishoners call “The Ugly Christmas Tree” or maybe not.  Fr. Ring wrote in last Sunday’s OLOL bulletin (yes, he is now pastor of St. Louis but doesn’t seem to be able to keep his hands off OLOL) that the statues of The Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Joseph will be moved from Rushville to Naples.  It shows how out of touch he is with how people react.  He opines that it will make parishioners from the (now closed and defunct from treasury draining) St. Mary Church in Rushville “feel more at home” in Naples.  Absurd.  What it will more likely do is remind them how their own church was wantonly and unfairly closed (even though the Bishop never changed his pronouncement that it isn’t closed) and how St. Mary’s was dismembered by OLOL.  Great “homey-ness!”  What is even more absurd is the concept that statues can make people feel more at home!  If I wanted to be at home, I’d stay home.  What would make people feel better, I suspect, would simply be a faithful Mass in a loving community.  But that seems too much to ask.

What else might be picked up and inserted in the new Sanctuary?  Guess it will depend on how many garage sales are in Naples before the “re-dedication.”  Meanwhile, what is shown below are pictures of St. Jan’s before the demolition began, the “Eye-Candy” LaBella drawing which changed the whole appearance of the window lighting, but which wasn’t even in the project, and the current partially furnished view. 

The bright spot is from the skylight.  It looks like LaBella forgot to take into account that skylights create light going somewhere.  They should have been able to figure where.  But that might have been a distraction from their new entry into hydro-fracking.

St. Jan's Altar & Sanctuary Before Demolition

St. Januarius Altar & Sanctuary Pre-Demolition

 

LaBella's "Eye Candy" Architectural Rendering

St. Jan's Reconstructed Altar & Sanctuary

Feel free to “VOTE”  below with your comments whether you think $300,000 or thereabouts (still undisclosed and unaudited) was a fair investment for conversion of what WAS into what now IS…..thanks.

No, you haven’t missed parts XIII, XIV and XV of this series.  They are still in work.  But to keep information fresh, let’s fast-forward to this week’s Naples Record and note the unusual interest a community newspaper has in its local Catholic church.   It was written by an investigative reporter, Jack Jones.  Since I am a member of Our Lady of the Lakes, OLOL, but not St. Jan’s, I was mostly contacted about whether or not I had really sued Fr. Ring for defamation (yes, I did, and a fuller story in posted in the letter to Andrew Cuomo, Shepherds Shearing Sheep, Part #8.) 

The reporter also asked me about numerical sources of information I’d published.  He must have been satisfied, as he used some of  it in his article.  But the remainder of the 4 column article is really input from the people of St. Jan’s, an outpouring of their thoughts and concerns.  Only one other person is mentioned in a quote in support of Fr. Ring, and that is the person he hired as project manager for the Sanctuary demolition (hardly an objective view.)  I will have much more to say in the intended Zeal posts XIII (How Rome got a failing mark under canon law), XIV (LaBella refused to answer; is getting into hydrofracking), and XV (What Danny Wegman said in the middle of the supermarket aisle).  Stay tuned.  But, for now, you might like to see what is being written in the environs of Naples.  You will have to click on the picture to make the text readable.

I was pleased, but not surprised, to find so many of the facts stated in the Newsletter “It Really Matters” validated by appearance in this report, and articulated by a variety of people, including that over 70% of the St. Jan’s parishioners did not want these changes, and including FINALLY corroborating that Danny Wegman had given only $50,000 when  Fr. Ring in his solicitation letters was claiming $300,000.  The reporter did an artful job of eliciting the denial by Fr. Ring, and then showing copy of the solicitation.  It was  wonderful to see a description of the reverence with which Catholics hold the Tabernacle, even though explained in more secular terms.    

Another untrue statement by Fr. Ring is his blaming canon law and building codes for his having to make the changes!  This is untrue.  And without good reasons to do what he has done, then the parishioners’ allegations as “retribution” become more credible.  Further, the article demonstrates the persistent lack of care for the individual, grouped together as ‘they’ [who] “just hear what they want to hear” and the whistling in the cemetery with the comment “Ring said he’s certain that church members – including many of his current crtitics – will endorse the changes.”  That is just one more way of ignoring people, who say what they mean and mean what they say.  I was sorry to see the reporter leave out the information about the forum of St. Jan’s parishioners who wrote to the Bishop demanding Fr. Ring’s removal (which was ignored, and then Fr. Ring was given another 6 years as pastor!)  I was also sorry to see that he didn’t mention how over 100 St. Januarians mandated a canon lawyer to try to prevent their amalgamation in OLOL.  But obviously there were space constraints, and everything couldn’t get told.

Personally, of course, I can’t help but note that Fr. Ring doesn’t see me as a parishioner of OLOL (which I am) and whose soul he as pastor was charged with saving, but as “adversary” which, of course, is a term in church-speak which means the devil.  It is a shame when people, especially in power, can’t dialogue and disagree without ad hominem attacks.  That is why I brought a defamation lawsuit, because I perceived I was being defamed.  And I would do it again, if necessary.  At least it resulted in his stopping for a while, and perhaps other people like mandaters were spared a little bit of the verbal abuse for a little while. 

The reporter writes of scurrilous … allegations between myself and Fr. Ring.  All I can say is similar to what Christ said in John 18:20-23 when He was before the high priest: 

Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said.” When He had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike Me?”

To paraphrase, what I would say is: “I have spoken openly to the world.   I have said nothing in private that I didn’t put in Newsletters, lawsuit filings, affidavits for denunciation or on this blog.   I have presented the truth and Fr. Ring has not refuted a single statement I have made about him or about what he has done.  If what I have said is “scurrilous” testify to the wrong.”

[Emended for Clarification:  There are certain facts and truths about Fr. Ring which I have discussed only with advisors, such as attorneys or spiritual advisors, but under confidentiality, and which I have not published, nor  have  intention to publish, and none which could even remotely be considered "scurrilous".  None of these was discussed with the reporter.] 

Thus, if  “scurrilous” is an appropriate word  for the “allegations between Harris and Ring” such allegations would seem to be in one direction,  from Fr. Ring in his interaction with the reporter, which serves to alert me that the language such as presented as claims in the defamation lawsuit may still be going on, again validating what has gone before.  For the record, I would have no trouble testifying under oath that I have made NO scurrilous comments verbally or in writing about Fr. Ring. 

Note the scurrilous definition: from the American Heritage Dictionary: 

scur·ri·lous  ADJECTIVE:

1. Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed.
2. Expressed in vulgar, coarse, and abusive language.

In my perception, such claims are made for flock-control.   But, as Fr. Ring notes himself, attendance and contributions have fallen off in OLOL.  He avoids taking personal blame for the disaster OLOL has become.  He claims it as a reason to close churches.  But it wasn’t true at St. Mary’s ,which had more non-restricted funds than any of the OLOL parishes.  Was it just a target, like STA?  Whoops, getting off-subject.  More soon….

Update: 

The story of the St. Jan’s Sanctuary was interrupted for the public service announcement that the demolition had taken place (Part X) and we first posted archive pictures and a sad cartoon, not intending to raise discussion about what needed renovation or what one’s personal preferences are in church design, but to punctuate the long, arduous and unfair process the people of St. Jan’s have suffered through.  The pictures of the destruction were next posted as a meditation reminiscing on Psalm 74, among other relevant Scriptures (Part XI). 

Yes, in spite of parishioners’ strong desires and pleading for Fr. Robert Ring to wait at least until after Easter, he went ahead with the demolition beginning on the Monday of Holy Week, and completing the jack-hammering by Good Friday.  St. Jan’s parishioners had to celebrate Easter in the Parish Hall because of Fr. Ring’s refusal to wait even a week.  We again raised the question how any priest, who had shepherded a people for nearly a decade, could wreak such destruction in what was then 64 days prior to his departure (now 55, and counting) without even apparent respect for the desires of an incoming pastor (still unnamed).

In the Comments to Zeal Part X, we pointed out 16 problematic issues and tried to bring front and center the disrespect for the pain of a large majority of parishioners, and for which they have no mechanism to be heard. When the bishop’s reply contains half-truths and ignores facts, and when one isn’t even allowed to speak at a Care of the Community meeting, it says as much as the pictures do.   Remember — all this is happening in a parish in which attendance has dropped now 47% since Fr. Ring arrived on the scene, and in which even more people are likely to leave in anger and frustration.  There is a science to destroying churches and in getting the laity to aid and abet the plan —  a science which is well-honed in the Rochester Diocese.

The main issue on which we now focus is how the whole process in parish, diocese and even Rome is not responsive to parishioner input, fails to investigate the truth of complaints, and is negligent even in the process which has been given to the faithful to exercise their rights under Canon Law.  

I requested and received copies of what the petitioners submitted to Rome.  Rather than rehash much of what has already been said in the Zeal series, we will excerpt for the sake of some brevity, and leave out the names of the petitioners, because of the abuse suffered by earlier petitioners resisting amalgamation of parishes, abuse suffered at the hands of the Chancellor, Pastor, and OLOL Pastoral Council.

First Stop:  Apostolic Nuncio, Washington D. C.

For those not familiar with the process to Rome, we want to explain and share the experience, to hopefully help others, since the process is often shielded from eyes which have a genuine interest in the proceedings.  Here’s what we’ve learned.  The petitioners, after receiving a letter from Bishop Clark which left no room for hope, re-appealed to him as they are required to do before their appeal could be submitted to Rome.  They then had to wait until the Bishop either replied to their re-appeal (or the period for his response expired, in which case a negative response is presumed) before they could appeal to Rome.  

Nevertheless, because of the imminent and irreversible damage threatened to the St. Jan’s Sanctuary, the petitioners were permitted to request an intervention when Bishop Clark did not respond in the required time to the first (October 2010) appeal.  That is exactly what petitioners did in mid-November 2010, as permitted under Canon Law.  This submission was done by parishioners of St. Jan’s and not through a Canon Lawyer.  Because the people have a right to make their submission under Canon Law, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of the receiving party to respect and respond to those rights.  If the people themselves can’t be heard, then do they really have any rights supported by the Church? 

First, one simply doesn’t send a package to Rome.  It must go through the proper channels, and that means the Apostolic Nuncio in the U.S. who forwards the materials by diplomatic pouch to the proper Congregations in Rome.  It has been our experience that the Nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, and his office have been diligent in doing what they have responsibility to do in these circumstances, as best we are able to assess.  They receive the materials (documented through US Mail receipts) and they promptly acknowledge to the senders that the materials were received, and the Nuncio confirms that they are or will be sent to the addressees in Rome.  The correspondence is quite standard, and we don’t reproduce the correspondence with the Apostolic Nuncio, for that reason.  But for those intending to use such a route, we simply mention that the sealed copies to the proper dicastery in Rome are accompanied by a set of the same materials for the Nuncio’s information.

Cardinal Llovera

To Two Dicasteries (Congregations)

Cardinal Piacenza

It is our understanding that writing to Rome directly is futile, and correspondence must go through the Apostolic Nuncio.  Many of the laity have not seen such correspondence before, so we share excerpts in the spirit of helping all to become more informed on how the process works.

The petitioners believed that two dicasteries or congregations  in Rome had “competence” (i.e. jurisdiction) in these matters.  Their request for intervention was addressed to both dicasteries.  It is common practice when two dicasteries have competence that they will decide among themselves which should take over the case.  Below are excerpts from the first letter sent, asking for intervention, and which was accompanied by petitioners’ signatures.

The petitioners then gave details on many significant points contesting the renovation/demolition, which have already been recounted in earlier Zeal posts.  Appeal for timely intervention was made, lest irreversible damage occur.  There were 7 pages of content, with multiple exhibits indexed, and citations of relevant Canons for a number of the complaints.  (We don’t reproduce most of the complaint detail here, for the sake of brevity, and for the protection of petitioners.)  However, there is one section, #9, to which Rome’s attention was directed, and which conveys both questions of motivation and pleas for urgent response.  It was written before the announcement of Fr. Ring’s departure to St. Louis in Pittsford, but a departure that was not unexpected.  In retrospect, his pressing this project forward was even an indication that he was likely to be moved two years early, as it seems most doubtful that he would ever want to celebrate Mass in the Sanctuary he is advocating.

Setting aside the remainder of the input and commentary, the petitioners also proposed an alternative, expecting that people of good will would strive to find a resolution for the good of souls. 

The signed letter was accompanied by petitioner signatures, addresses and necessary information. 

The letter of re-appeal which had gone to Bishop Clark in November, and his answer in the negative in late December 2010, are both reproduced in Zeal Part X.  The year 2010 closed, with nearly seven weeks having passed since the request for urgent intervention, without having heard anything from either the Congregation for the Clergy or from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the submissions. 

Demolition was scheduled to begin the first week of January, 2011.

As a reminder, comments and corrections are most welcome.  May the Truth always prevail. 

After publishing this installment of Zeal, I was reminded that there was yet another mailing of the entire package a second time, to both Dicasteries, through the Apostolic Nuncio’s office, because neither Dicastery had acknowledged receipt.  That second mailing went to the Nuncio on December 18, 2010, and he confirmed that he again forwarded to both Dicasteries in Rome.

Your sister in Christ, Diane Harris

This is a brief interlude in telling the St. Jan’s Sanctuary Story, to show the “Happy Easter” present 

Fr. Robert Ring delivered this week to his parishioners

of nearly 10 years. 

St. Januarius, Naples NY two weeks ago

St. Januarius  in Naples, NY– Easter  Sunday 2011 (in cartoon)

Happy Easter from Fr. Robert Ring, Fr. George Wiant and Bishop Matthew Clark

Yes, you are understanding correctly.  The damage is done.  Father Ring, who has been pastor of the St. Januarius flock for nearly 10 years, abetted by Fr. George Wiant and Bishop Matthew Clark, has caused jackhammering of the St. Jan’s Sanctuary, even though knowing well  the resistance from a large majority (3 to 1) of parishioners; even though there is question about where the money is coming from; even though there is no liturgical reason to do this destruction.  

Fr. Ring has offered Mass from the St. Jan’s Sanctuary for nearly 10 years, yet he has pushed through this demolition at the last minute, so that 64 days before he leaves his flock has to celebrate Easter Sunday at a construction site.  He was asked to please wait until after Easter and he refused.  So, incredible as it seems, the jackhammers began on Monday of Holy Week and have completed the damage in time for Easter Sunday.  

Isn’t it surprising that a pastor and a bishop won’t wait for a new pastor to arrive, but rather will burden the new pastor with a Sanctuary in which neither of them is required to celebrate Mass, and with an injured and disgruntled flock to try to bring to healing?  And that is healing which Fr. Ring himself didn’t do over a decade!  What disregard and lack of trust they seem to manifest toward the next pastor! 

These actions culminate what appears to have been a very damaging pastorate; although, who knows?  There are still 64 days left for more destruction.  When we get the actual pictures, we’ll be sharing on this blogsite.  Meanwhile, please still pray for the people of St. Jan’s who have suffered so much, and for the people of St. Louis who may also be in danger.

In Part VI, we described Fr. Robert Ring’s efforts to raise $30,000 from St. Jan’s parishioners, and the mis-attribution that such fund raising was required by the Wegmans (untrue) to supplement their donation (untrue) of $270,000 to $300,000 (untrue) for an altar/sanctuary memorial to Bob Wegman (untrue). However, at the time of the fund raising it would still be 7 months before parishioners would know the truth. In Part VI, we also described the definitive work of a parishioner group (which produced survey results consistent with a prior newsletter survey),  proving that the ratio of parishioners in opposition to the Sanctuary Renovation to those in favor was approximately 3:1 against. That careful parishioner survey work was also validated by an outside consultant.

Meanwhile through summer 2010 and into the fall, the “Concerned Parishioners” and the Newsletter It Really Matters continued efforts to expose the truth.  This Part VII summarizes some of what was written in the newsletter, and illustrates some of the work that might be taken on in a community when its shepherding fails, or is terribly misaligned to (i.e. out of tune with) the flock.  Hate the architecture or love it, but please at least respect it means so much to those who have worshipped there  and supported their church for so many years.

Here are just a very few of the articles and actions over summer 2010.  First, in June 2010, there was clarification in the Newsletter that what was being said misrepresented the USCCB’s “liturgical requirements.” That article in Vol. 5 #6 said:

                                                                                                                                                                                                One member of St. Jan’s, JH, took the initiative to interview parishioners about their feelings about the proposed Sanctuary demolition/renovation, and shared his results which we publicized in It Really Matters. We were also told that Fr. Bob Ring did not receive well this input.  He refused to consider the comments without the names of those who commented but, because of what had happened with the mis-use of the mandater list six months earlier, Fr. Ring was not trusted with those names. 

We also wrote about the basic flaw of cluster pastoral council decisions:

“The debacle of the Parish Council vote to change the sanctuary at St. Jan’s is a prime illustration of what is wrong at Parish Council, especially Parish Council for a Cluster.  A Parish Council is only advisory to a pastor anyway.  It’s not as if they have any power.  But those who take a seat at the table do have a responsibility, and that is not just to rubber stamp what the pastor wants.  He still has the power to do what he wants, but that doesn’t entitle parish council members to avoid doing their homework, listening, speaking the truth and realizing the responsibility they have to other parishioners.  Otherwise, when all is said and jack-hammered, the pastor can always say that no one on the rubber stamp council ever objected.  It might be true.  For the most part, they are his hand-picked “me-too-ers.”

Then we wrote about “The Real Tragedy” and how the misuse of funds to remove cement steps flies in the face of a true sense of priority, especially considering the plight of Catholic Schools:

Over the intervening months, many points of argument appeared, all to be ignored and the people to be “lorded over”  by the powers that be.  In concern for the scandal of such a waste, and for the greater need, we wrote:

All input from newsletters, surveys, petitions, and quiet / respectful parishioners beseeching for pastoral care were again ignored, as rights were trampled in another headlong thrust to spend other people’s money, to do unnecessary damage, to deeply divide community.  That has been the track record of the pastorate so far, and it was still going to be.  The only thing missing was Bishop Clark’s anointing of the irresponsible behaviors of a shepherd in effect singing off key, or at least in a different key than what most of his flock were baa-humbuging.  The anointing was yet to come.

In the next installment, we’ll revisit what Bishop Clark had to say, when implored by parishioners not to let this travesty occur.  And we will see the persistence of excuses, not reasons, for the damage being done to a House of God.

As of this writing, the jackhammers have  arrived, and the side “shrines” by a local artist have already been destroyed, dragged off for someone to use in his or her garden.  The organ is still there, covered.  We hope when the cover is taken off that it will still be there, and concrete-dust free and unaffected.  La Bella still doesn’t have a building permit, but it has a demolition permit, and perhaps that is what it is all about anyway. 

It calls us all to contemplate what kind of pastor, after nearly 10 years of his pastorate, does this to his own people 73 days before he leaves, destroying their Sanctuary and place to worship in time for Holy Week and Easter?  May God have mercy on his  soul. 

And may the next shepherd have a heart attuned to the flock, and a voice which they can trust and follow. 

In July and August 2010, Fr. Robert Ring solicited donations in a letter to parishioners and summer visitors which claimed that the Wegmans were donating $270,000 or $300,000 (depending on how you read it) and that it was to be a memorial to Robert Wegman. It also left the impression that Wegmans were requiring that parishioners come up with $30,000. All of the foregoing has been denied by Danny Wegman, but the funds were “de facto” raised on what is now said to be an untrue basis, and no visible effort is apparent to correct what had been so misleading. The consequence of such fundraising method is that donors seem to have a basis to demand return of funds. Below is the full copy of the Fr. Ring and Fr. Wiant letter, which is still on the OLOL website.

Things to notice in the Fr. Ring (and Fr. Wiant) letter:
• there is no connection to “simplicity when the church was first dedicated.” This church has never looked as is now being proposed.
• Vatican II liturgy is again misrepresented, if not hijacked.  The church was BUILT in 1967; i.e. “post Vatican II.”
• That the Wegmans will “provide the remaining funds” is untrue.
• How does it “renew” our experience of “praying the Eucharist,” when Jesus in the Tabernacle is bumped off to the side?

“Out-ed” Mandater Consequences

The “outing” of mandaters, as wrong as it was, had a good consequence too. Those who had collected mandates had also been very careful not to disclose identities, even of mandaters to each other. But we know that the Lord works all things to the good, and once the Newsletter, It Really Matters, told all parishioners that Fr. Dan Condon, Chancellor, had released the names, there was no point in mandaters any longer being secret from each other, although it was left as each mandater’s individual decision. Since the opposition knew who they were, many mandaters now could openly admit they were mandaters and work together. Even the outrageous actions of Fr. Condon and Fr. Ring did actually have a uniting force. Hence, there was more of a bonding among the mandaters, more open conversation, more rallying at St. Januarius to try to save the church from demolition of its Sanctuary.

Thumbs Up or Down?

As a result of mandaters more freely coming together, and better communications to share the truth, a group of 7 parishioners (mandaters and non-mandaters) offered to work collaboratively with the Sanctuary Steering (aka ‘Demolition’) Committee on a mutual survey. It was refused by Fr. Ring at a meeting in concert with a retired priest (Fr. Wiant) and five other parishioners who were at the Care of the Community (CC) when it was taken to a vote. It was odd, one thinks, that a vote would have been taken of a group with no power to vote, and which was forbidden to even discuss the renovation issue, and at a meeting for which this agenda matter of a vote hadn’t been announced in advance. But, of course, Fr. Ring would have known how those few present would vote, giving him an opportunistic way to dismiss the matter from further consideration; i.e. IF the parishioners had not taken the matter further.

But the seven parishioners, who believed it was necessary to know the truth of support or lack of support, went ahead and did the survey on their own initiative and at their own expense. Their methodology differed from the prior survey done by the Newsletter in some substantial ways; nevertheless, the results were astoundingly similar. There was only one question on the Parishioners’ Survey, and it wasn’t about Mass Times, the pipe organ, the pastor, or staff. It was simply a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” reaction to the renovation plan. The respondent was to choose one or the other response, and had the option (but not the requirement) to write additional comments if desired. Over 95% of respondents chose to comment, some were brutal and harsh regarding the proposed renovations and the pastoral leadership. The simple question was:

I support the modification of the St. Januarius Altar and Sanctuary for these reason(s):  ______________________________________________________

 ______________________________________________________

or

I am opposed to the modification of the St. Januarius Altar and Sanctuary for these reason(s):

______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Another difference from the Newsletter’s survey was that respondents had to sign the parishioners’ survey, and give their contact information. That way, it was possible for the committee to contact every person who did not return a survey (or who hadn’t indicated they didn’t want a survey) to press for 100% return, regardless of opinion. Thus, they were also able to ensure there was no double voting, and if a comment couldn’t be read they could call the person for clarification. The Newsletter Survey had received 42 responses, representing 33 households. The Parishioners’ Survey received more than twice that response: 114 usable responses, representing 77 households, an extraordinary return. The Parishioner Survey took place in July/August 2010.

Preventing Bias or Error:

The Parishioner Survey Committee also took special measures to prevent bias or error. (It has been a problem in OLOL that when Fr. Ring doesn’t like the results he just ignores them and/or claims bias.) Envelopes were only opened in the presence of at least two committee members, and a log number was immediately assigned. A copy was also immediately made to be sure that every response had to be tracked and accounted for. The extra effort was worthwhile and outside review of the results added extra credibility.

Yet, even though the methodologies differed, when all the results were tallied, the results of the Parishioner Survey were surprisingly close to the Newsletter Survey. The Parishioners Committee, which conducted this Survey work, was able to protect the identity of the respondents.

Parishioner Survey Results: Truth of the Matter:

The 114 (adult) respondents comprised 77 households. The response rate of 77 out of a net deliverable 239 households represents an excellent response rate of 32.2% (most consumer surveys are considered a success at 3% return rate and 5% is extraordinary!)

The results were dramatic, showing that 72.8% oppose the proposed renovation; only 27.2% are in support, virtually the exact opposite of what Fr. Ring and the Sanctuary Steering Committee claimed after informally showing the drawings. Moreover, these results were also consistent with the Newsletter Survey which showed: 79% said the altar should not be lowered; 72% said it is not a good use of funds to remodel the sanctuary; 75% said the altar /sanctuary should be left alone (average: 75%). This consistency was in spite of the fact that two very different, but valid, survey methodologies were used, strengthening the reliability of the conclusions of both.

Serving the People

The Parishioner Survey Committee did a great service for the present and future attendees of St. Januarius. They did what Fr. Ring should have done — collaborated on a definitive survey. He should have had a hunger to know and respond to what his flock wants and needs. He should have engaged in discussion over the results of the work. He should have found inclusive ways for resolution instead of further alienating the flock. In short, he should have pursued truth, fully, faithfully and responsibly. Instead, others had to do the job for him.

Distribution of the Parishioner Survey Results:

The Parishioners Survey Committee which produced the Survey made the results widely available to the parishioners, to Fr. Ring, to Fr. Wiant, to the Parish Council, to the Bishop, to the donors, and to other relevant parties. Members of the Parishioner Survey Committee had asked to present their results at a Care of the Community (CC) meeting in September, which was inexplicably cancelled. They asked to speak at the October 6th CC meeting and that too was cancelled. After canceling the October 6th date, Fr. Ring, without even consulting the Survey Committee members as to their availability or convenience (most were not available), set an arbitrary meeting date of October 4th at 7PM, for a presentation of the Parishioners’ Survey to the OLOL Pastoral Council. The council, as mentioned above, had already received the survey summary as well as the consultant’s input and analysis. The parishioners were apparently not going to be allowed to present to their own community, only to the rubber-stamping Pastoral Council.

Alternative Presenter

The Parishioner Survey Committee members were almost all unable to attend the meeting date which had been dictated to them without a fair attempt to find a convenient mutual date (after two other dates which had been convenient were cancelled by the pastor). Those parishioners decided to ask their third party consultant, PerformancePlus, which had reviewed all their work in good faith, and had, in addition, validated serious and divisive issues facing St. Jan’s, to make the presentation to the Pastoral Council and Fr. Ring. It also seemed that perhaps a professional presentation would be less laden with emotion. After using his allotted 15 minutes, the consultant had received only one ‘clarification’ question, and NO challenges, NO claims of bias. Fr. Ring asked no questions, and there was no conversation among the Pastoral Council members. They seemed not even to consider the results with any energy or interest, but voted to recommend to the Pastor to go ahead with the Sanctuary demolition. Afterwards, the parishioners, who had done so much work in good faith, were criticized for not having presented the results themselves, were called biased, and the consultant’s input and suggestions were ignored.

There was a summary of the project by Jerry Luzum, of the Sanctuary Steering Committee, which said in part what is shown below. Things to note:
• Why was an appraisal made of the value of the property (some folks are very concerned that their church might have a loan or mortgage being made against it, and no one has set their minds at ease.)
• Note also the words related to the $30,000: “Provided the parish provide part of this total.”
• It may interest some readers to know that the Diocese has a 15-step process, but parishioners were NOT kept informed of the process or progress.
• Final drawings have still not been shown to the parishioners. It is believed that neither the eye-candy drawings shown in early 2010, or the drawings recently posted to the OLOL website dated March 2009 are the correct drawings.
• The two meetings referenced were handout meetings of liturgical arguments, not discussion and discernment.
• The claim of 75% approval by parishioners (because of all the other surveys), is believed to be blatantly untrue, but it continues to be promulgated by Mr. Luzum’s letter on the OLOL website, and relied on by the Bishop. The consequence? A project going forward that is believed to not be based on reality.

Pastoral Puppets and the Consequences:

Once again, the Pastoral Council acted as a puppet group to the pastor, to rubber-stamp the recommendation he was expecting them to make, i.e. whatever he wanted to do. No minutes are circulated from the Pastoral Council, and there is no evidence of any thoughtful, minority opinions. It is one thing to have a parishioners’ group with the caring and commitment of those who did the Survey, but it is quite another to have a Pastor who wants to hear the truth, let alone act on it. Much is wasted by poor stewards, but it is an insidious, demeaning and hurtful waste when it is people’s time and effort and faithful caring.

This is how a project, unwanted by parishioners, moves ahead in the Diocese of Rochester. 

Next time:   Appeal to the Bishop.