Parishioners and Parish of St. Mary’s
Church
6437 East Seneca Turnpike
(This Address is subject to change. Please see
page nine of this document.)
May 26, 2007
Bishop James Moynihan
Roman Catholic Diocese of
240
Re: Hierarchical Recourse In Response to Decree Of Suppression and
Confiscation
(Follow up to appeal letter
dated 5-1-07 for Administrative Recourse Process)
Dear Bishop Moynihan:
Members of the parish, pastoral and
financial councils of the parish of St Mary’s Church,
We believe that the procedural
actions used by the Bishop fail to meet the standards under Canon Law. In
addition, the decisions of the Bishop completely ignore the viability of St.
Mary’s. The proven vitality of the spiritual patrimony and the physical
patrimony of St Mary’s has been completely disregarded by the decisions
of the Bishop As a result, the parishioners of St Mary’s are denied the center
of their faith life and their place of worship in Jamesville.
At the time the May 25 2006 letter
was sent (Exhibit, 2), the
Vicar for Parishes failed to clearly explain the meaning of
“mission”. We have just discovered that “mission” is
not a canonical term.
We are dismayed that we never knew ow true status since May 25, 2006 (Exhibit 3). We feel betrayed by the Bishop who was not forthcoming m the spirit of canon law In addition to the facts as stated below it is now very clear to us that the parish of St Mary’s was always going to be, as the Bishop describes in the 4-30-07 article in the Post-Standard, “closed.” (Exhibit 4).
We now realize for the first time, one year after the fact, that our parish was
suppressed as of the letter May 25, 2006 sent by Rev. James P. Lang, Vicar for
Parishes (Exhibit 2).
“Before
issuing a singular decree an authority is to seek out the necessary information
and proof and insofar as possible to hear those whose rights can be
injured”, (c.50).
During the tune of gathering
information to be used to make decisions about St Mary’s, Msgr Yeazel
failed to give the necessary information about St. Mary’s to the
Diocesan College of Consulters, (Exhibit 5). The bishop then ignored the necessary information about St Mary s,
Jamesville, as detailed in November 19, 2006 letter from parishioners (Exhibit
6).
The pastoral Council President and
the Mission Possible Co-President drafted a letter after February 12. 2007, to
both Msgr. Yeazel and Fr Manno, and stated:
“When we became a mission of Holy Cross, it was
our belief that the make up of the mission would evolve. We further understood
that as part of a PCA [Pastoral Care Area] a plan would be proposed to the
Bishop and following his decision, we would further develop our format as a
mission church. These decisions regarding the PCA, we were told had not been
made in September, 2006. More information needed to be gathered and pieced
together to come up with a cohesive, workable good. plan for all parishes
involved to present to the Bishop.” (Exhibit 7).
This clearly shows that we were led to believe that we would continue to have our own identity Since we now know that “mission” is not a canonical term, we must assume the intent was to change the canonical status of St. Mary’s to a quasi parish (c. 1516.1) that has the same rights and obligations as a parish. We have acted as such these past months, even though we had no idea that our canonical status had changed. Nor were we aware that the Bishop had only one option in mind for us from the beginning of the process of restructuring being what he calls, “closure” (www.syrdio.org).
We are now exercising our rights under canon law, as parishioners of St. Mary’s, to appeal against the
suppression of our parish since the parish of St Mary’s Jamesville was
never lawfully suppressed in the letter of May 25, 2006. At the lime
that letter was issued:
1.
The
Vicar for Parishes failed to inform us of our rights under canon law.
2.
No
one made clear to us, our rkthts to appeal the suppression of our parish.
3.
The
letter dated May 25, 2006 does not meet the criteria of c. 51, that
states, “A decree is to be issued in writing with the reasons at least
summarily expressed if it is a decision.” The only reason given in the
letter May 25, 2006, is the right of the bishop to do so.
4.
The
bishop never sought or received consent from the interested parties regarding
the alienation of the assets of the faith community of St. Mary’s, as
required by (c. 1291.1). There
was no discussion of the alienation of the parish assets at the parish council
meetings or the finance council meetings Therefore the consent of certain
interested parties namely the undersigned parishioners which includes, members
of the Parish Council and Finance Committee was never obtained, as required by
(cl292)
Other procedural errors are also contained in the May 25, 2006 letter.
First of all the writer of the May 25, 2006 letter was unable to invoke the
correct canon. Canon 512.5 is devoid of all meaning because there is no such
canon in the Code of Canon
Law, 1983. It is disappointing to note that this type of error is present in a
decision of such fundamental importance to the faith community of St.
Mary’s.
In addition, apart from this
mis-citation, (erroneous citation of the relevant canon), this document fails
to express in any manner the reasons for this incomprehensible decision.
Finally, the parishioners of St. Mary s, whose rights
have been injured, have never been given a suppression decree, as required in the code (c.50.) Under our
rights a parishioners, (c. 57) we 1awfully request the decree. As the Bishop
knows, this is to be available to us in three months time.
We, the parishioners of St Mary, have been denied our procedural rights under canon law as named above.
Since we are novices to this, and we are so unclear about the procedures and
time frame necessary for recourse, and because we do not wish to lose our
rights m this matter, we seek recourse not only to you Bishop Moynihan, we are
also sending this to Cardinal Hummes.
Canon 212 clearly states that the Christian faithful are at liberty to make
known their needs especially their spiritual needs and their wishes to the
Pastor of the Church.
In addition hi thc procedural errors noted above, the spiritual and physical
patrimony of
Bishop Moynihan has required that there be “one priest, one church
building” (Exhibit 8 & Exhibit 9). As a result, the PCA recommendation number four which calls for
two sites: one at St. Mary’s and the other at Holy Cross, was never
adequately developed or responsibly presented to the Diocesan College of
Consultors for their consideration and recommendation to the Bishop.
The Syracuse Diocese has 168 parishes and 15 missions (183 total). Diocesan
records show that as of July 1, 2006 there were 158 priest (including
projected new ordinations) The closing of 40 churches in the next three years
(as well as the fact that 100 priests will be at or beyond retirement age seven
years later) will not help to meet, a few years from now, the litmus test set
up by the Bishop, “one priest, one church building.”
Using only the number of ordained clergy and the number of parishes as the
criteria for restructuring the diocesan parishes, does not take into
consideration the vitality of parishes or the spiritual needs of the 284,000
Roman Catholics who will continue to live in the seven counties in the 5,000 square-mile region of the Syracuse Diocese and who have the right to hear
the Word and receive the sacraments. (c. 212.2 & .3).
“Parishes should not be suppressed or merged with others unless they are evidently not longer viable. The impossibility of their continued life must be clearly demonstrated. A shortage of priests for pastoral leadership is not an adequate reason to suppress or combine parishes Canon law strongly recommends liturgies of the word and group prayer in the absence of sacred ministers (c 1248.2), clearly implying that the life and worship of a community must continue even when priestly leadership is absent. ‘THE PARISH IN CATHOLIC TRADITION History Theology and Canon Law” James A. Coriden at 73 (Paulist Press 1997).
The shortage of priests does not require the suppression of parishes. Canon law
provides for shortages of priest by several alternate arrangements, including
parishes entrusted to several priests “In Solidum” (c. 517, .1),
neighboring parishes entrusted to the same pastor (c. 516,.1), and by entrusting
parishes to deacons and lay persons under the direction of a priest
with the powers and faculty of a pastor (c. 51 7, .2), lay administrators,
etc., as well as utilization of liturgies of the word and prayer services in
the absence of sacred ministers
c. 1248).
Statistics from a national study of
parish reorganization clearly shows that more than 40% of merged parishes
reported a decrease in size (number of households). Only one in seven parishes
that were linked, (shared a pastor or assigned a parish life coordinator)
reported a decrease e in size. The statistics clearly show that parishes
assigned to a parish life coordinator were most likely to have experienced an
increase in number of households. (Exhibits 10 & Exhibit 11).
St. Mary’s is a vital, vibrant, financialy-sound parish with a
growing number of community members. (Exhibit 12)
despite the fact that St
Mary’s has had four different pastors/administrators in the past two
years with numerous changes in mass schedules. As we have stated in our letter
to Fr. Lang dated 11-19-06, St Mary’s parish does not meet the stated
criteria for closing (Exhibit 6).
St. Mary’s has remained a strong and committed church community due
primarily to the involvement of its parishioners (Exhibit 13). Fr.
Manno, St. Mary’s Parochial Vicar, has recently commended u on these
efforts by stating that all he had to do was walk in the door and ‘say
mass’ for our recent Easter Vigil.
Fr. Finnegan stated that, “I don’t know of any parish which has the
level of commitment and volunteerism that is much the hallmark of this fine
parish and community of good and faith filled people” (Exhibit
14).
St. Mary’s has also demonstrated numerous outreach programs (Exhibit
15 & Exhibit 16)
and a strong religious education program with a rising Sacramental index,
including first communion and confirmation numbers. The Church and Rectory are
in good physiical condition, and the grounds are well-maintained
The Church is located in a suburb
where the Catholic population continues to grow and where young people remain
in the community as adults in high numbers. Also, new housing initiatives and
the expansion of several major nearby developments, will increase the
population in the vicinity of the church significantly (Exhibit 17).
A conservative total of 592 lots/units have already been approved and the
majority has already been sold/built. At least one additional Kindergarten
class has already been approved at the Jamesville Elementary and as
Kindergarten enrollment continues to grow, two additional classes may be necessary
by the start of the fall 2007 school year (Exhibit 18).
A parish is “a certain community of the Christian faithful stably
constituted in a particular church. . (c.515, .1). As John A. Renken
argues in his Commentary on Parishes and Pastors,
“It is essentially the parish which gives the Church concrete life, so that she may be open to all.” Jt must be a home where the members of the Body of Christ gather together, open to meeting God the Father, full of love and Savior in his Son, incorporated into the Church by the Holy Spirit at the time of their Baptism, and ready to accept their brothers and sisters with fraternal love, whatever theft condition or origins.” CLSA, “NEW COMMENTARIES ON THE CODE OF CANON LAW,” p.673 (Paulist Press 2000).
Canon law recognizes the need and value of the faithful to come together in a
regular association, with much of the characteristics of family, to share their
faith and support each other The parish helps us to grow in our faith by
interacting with and relying on one another over the daily-ness of our lives.
Indeed, canon law recognizes the import of membership in a parish when it
grants standing to parishioners to oppose the suppression of their parish. The communio of the parish, its successful outreach to the larger community, and its
right to a stable relationship with, and spiritual assistance from, its pastor
are accorded special importance in the canons. (c. 210, c. 212 .2, .3) These
relationships are not something that statically exist, but must be built up
over time and over a life-time. Destroying the fabric of a vibrant parish
community violates the acquired right of the parish and parishioner and is
therefore null and void.
Msgr Yeazel recently praised our
“mission possible” efforts and all of the good work that is being
done at St. Mary’s Church at his 4-30-07 listening session. We should be
studied for ow successful methods in “
Not only our spiritual patrimony but also our assets (patrimony) are at risk by
the decision of the Bishop.
The September 16/17, 2006 church bulletin insert from Fr Yeazel said, “All of St Mary’s assets will be put in an endowment for outreach to the Jamesville Community with service programs, i.e. Religious Ed., Youth Ministry, etc’ (Exhibit 19) We respectfully ask why this has not been done and when will this take place?
Once St Mary’s is suppressed, the parish assets would be available to pay
the debts of Holy Cross parish as noted below. Bishop Moynihan was quoted in
the 4-30-07 Post Standard when he stated that, ‘St Mary’s will
close July 1st [2007]. Its
territory, assets, debts, and records will go to
St Mary’s Church has no
debts. However at the 5-16-07 St Mary’s/Holy Cross Pastoral Council
Meeting, the Finance Chair of Holy Cross, stated that there is currently
$1,050,000 m loan debt related to the recent building of the new Holy Cross
Church. Another $400,000 - $500,000 in debt is currently in litigation related
to a new Holy Cross stain glass window. Holy Cross is currently accruing $6,500
in monthly interest fees as a result of this debt. Under trust law, even if
there were full and fair disclosure, a trustee cannot take the asset
from one Trust to pay for another or to pay for a secondary use.
This is a misuse of parish fluids
and it is certainly not
appropriate for the Bishop to initiate the suppression of vibrant parishes so
that their assets can be used to pay off the debts of another parish.
Canon 123 does not permit the funds and assets of a juridic person to be used in violation of the intention of the founders and donors and acquired rights. Monies given for a specific purpose, to further the existence of St Mary’s parish and support the spiritual growth of the parishioners cannot be used for diocesan debt, or the debt of other parishes, they may only be used for the specific, intended purpose. (c. 1267, .3) Throughout the canons, the will of the donors is to be respected. (c.l300, c.1267.3, c.l284.2, 3°).
The Diocese may not take funds donated to St Mary’s parish for the benefit
of the spiritual development of its parishioners and apply them to old debts of
another church ‘As in canons 121, 122, and 123, the Church’s
commitment to the faithful fulfillment of the intentions of founders and donors
finds expression. Acquired rights must also be respected in the allocation of
goods and obligations upon the extinction of a public person’ CLSA, “NEW COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CANON
LAW”, Beal, Conden and Green, eds., p 172 (Paulist Press 2000).
St Mary’s church was established m 1899 In a 1941 issue of the Catholic Sun, it states that a church m the year 1681 was erected by a Jesuit, Father Lamberville, on the James Keogh farm. Twice more, the church burned and was rebuilt.
In the 1909 History of the Diocese of Syracuse it states that… “In
1889 plans were begun to erect the first Catholic Church in Jamesville. James
Ryan served as chairman of the building committee. Daniel Quinlan donated the
lot west of his house and the Gorman Brothers construction firm, (James, Timothy
and John) were hired for the project. According to the family of Daniel
Quinlan, (including Keoughs, Nelsons, Swans, & Prozaks, still living m
Jamesville), the land should revert back to the family m the event that the
property is no longer used for a Catholic Church. The church was completed m
1899 and the first Mass celebrated in April of that year The total cost of the
building was $3,499. Bishop PA. Ludden dedicated the church in September of
1899...
Funds for the construction were raised with the help of a “Fair and
Festival” held May 25, 1898 at Kortright’s Hall and $564.13
was raised. The tickets printed indicated that “solicitors must sell
tickets only to people of respectability”… records show a long list
of Jamesville Catholics and non-Catholics as well as donors from Catholic
parishes in Syracuse, LaFayette, Fayetteville, and Pompey. Money to pay for the
church was also raised by ice cream socials held in parishioner homes and
chicken and biscuit dinners at the church. The many farmers of the parish donated
the chickens, flour and potatoes to make these a success.
From 1919 to 1962 Jamesville supplied mission priests to
Through the years, the parishioners have made a number of specific gifts
for the spiritual benefit of St Mary’s parishioners, including a
baptismal font donated by John Albanese and Ray Schwinn and an organ in the
amount of $14,000 purchased in February, 1990 and many other valuable items
including, but not limited to, vestments and crystal and gold trim pieces.
Between 193 1— 1933, thirty six stained-glass windows were
installed with monies donated by parish families featuring many modern saints.
These windows have served as historical records of the many families of the
church.
The reasons given in public for the suppression, seizure and sale of the parish
and its goods must be true, otherwise the diocese would be guilty of
subreption. (c.63.1). The diocese must be a good steward and deal honestly with
its faithful.
We intend to take action to prevent any act that would result in the alienation
of the church building or church goods and property.
Certain acts relating to temporal goods are more significant than others and
require a more elaborate system of authorization. The Code of Canon Law clearly
distinguishes acts of administration (whether ordinary or extraordinary) from
acts of alienation of property whereby a juridic person divests itself of all
or part of its stable patrimony.
Canon 1277 reads as follows:
It is for the conference of bishops to define which acts are to be considered of extraordinary administration.
To place acts of extraordinary administration, as defined in the statues of
public juridic person other than the diocese administrators require, for
validity, the consent of the
Ordinary (c. 1281).
Canons 1291 and 1292, .1, .2, and .3, deal with the validity of acts of
alienation. In eases involving alienation of stable patrimony, permission from
the Holy See might be required, depending on the value of the property to be
alienated.
Canon 1291 reads as follows:
“The permission of the authority competent according to the norm of law is required for the valid alienation of goods which constitute by legitimate designation the stable partrimony of a public juridic person and whose value exceeds the sum defined by law. “
“Alienation is a transfer of ownership of property by sale, gift or
exchange.” It is not a mortgage, nor easement, nor lien nor an option to
purchase, nor borrowing or loaning with or without collateral, nor assuming a
mortgage on a piece of property nor the leasing of property. Such transactions,
however, may in certain circumstances, be canon 1295
transactions, discussed below.
Canon 1292, .1, reads as follows:
“Without prejudice to the prescript of (c 638, 3), when the ‘value of the goods whose alienation is proposed falls within the minimum and maximum amounts to be defined by the conference of bishops for its own region, the competent authority is determined by the statues of juridic persons if they are not subject to the diocesan bishop, otherwise the competent authority is the diocesan bishop with the consent of the finance council, the college of consultors and those concerned The diocesan bishop himself also needs their consent to alienate the goods of the diocese.”
Effective February 9, 2006, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
decreed that:
1.
the
maximum limit for alienation and any transaction which, according to the norm
of law, can worsen the patrimonial condition is $10,681,000 for Dioceses with
Catholic populations of half a million persons or more. For other Dioceses the
maximum limit is $5,341,000 (c. 1295).
2.
the
minimum limit for alienation and any transaction which according to the norm of
law, can worsen the patrimonial condition is $1,068,000 for Dioceses with
Catholic populations of half a million person or more. For other Diocese the minimum limit is $534,100.
3.
for
the alienation of property of other public juridic person subject to the
Diocesan Bishop, the maximum limit is $5 341,000 and the minimum limit is
$26,705 or 5% of the prior year’s ordinary annual income,
whichever is higher.
4.
both
the maximum and minimum amounts within the region are linked to the consumer
price index as determined annually the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and reported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to
the appropriate offices of the Holy See and to the Conference members.
5. the aforementioned dollar limits are m effect until March 31, 2008, at which time they are subject to change.
Three parcels of property including
the church, rectory and parking lot have a current fair market appraised value
of $668,000 The ball field was recently sold for $60,000 for a total of
$728,000 m stable patrimony (Exhibit 21) This
is another reason for the dual appeal as cited by canon law above (c,192.l and
.2) (Exhibit 22).
While our canonical status is in question
and until a definitive decision to this appeal is made, we respectfully ask
that the following be assured to the parishioners of St. Mary’s:
1.
We respectfii]lv request that mass be held on
Saturday evemng and Sunday morning at the church building of
St. Mary’s until a definitive decision is made to this appeal. Mass is
scheduled to cease for St Mary’s, as of
July 1, 2007.
2.
We ask that no alienation of St. Mary’s
patrimony take place until a defmitive decision is made to this appeal At a
5-16-07 meetmg, Msgr Yeazel offered to sell our church buildmg for $1 00 to the
town or any pnvate buyer We see this as a serious disregard for the physical
patrimony of St Mary’s, or at least a lack of respect for the situation
within which St. Mary’s
has been placed by the Bishop (Exhibit
16).
3.
Since
the bishop is plamung to close St Mary’s so quickly, (July 1, 2007) and
since ve have not received all correspondences related to the issues stated in
this appeal, we request that all replies to the appeal be sent to the following
address:
c/o
Kyle & Colleen LaTray
1. These requests show the urgency of this appeal as a result of the rapid movement by the Bishop to suppress St. Mary’s.
2.
In conclusion, we find that our rights, as found in Canon Law, have not been
protected by the Bishop in his move to restmcture the Syracuse Diocese.
3.
No suppression decree has been made available to the parishioners. It is our
right to have one.
Documentation is very sparse. We request that all documentation be provided.
It would appear that the diocese of
Taking the letter of May 25, 2006
at face value, it would appear
the diocese is relying on this as the instrument of suppression. If one were to
upset this argument (which we do not), this letter is woefully deficient under
canon law and fails its intended purpose for the reason outlined above The
suppression is null & void, using canons 1292.1, 50 & 51. In addition,
the grave disregard of the spiritual and physical patrimony of a vital parish
does not meet the mind of the Church as found in Canon Law, 1983.
In view of all of the foregoing, we
respectfully request that the Congregation issue a decree declaring the Decree
imposed by Bishop Moynihan dated 4-27-07 to be null and void and of no
juridical effect or otherwise reverse, rescind or revoke the Decree for lack of
adherence to the norms of the Code of Canon Law and in that it lacked basis in
law and in fact.
Sincerely in Christ,
Parish Council Members
(Signed: 6 individuals)
Finance Committee Members
(Signed: 10 individuals)
Members of the Parish
(Signed: 22 individuals)
Cc: Cardinal Claudio Hummes
Cardinal Sambi
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
St. Mary’s Church
P0 Box 441
Jamesville, NY 13078
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
His Eminence Claudia Hummes, OFM, Cardinal, Prefect
Congregation for the Clergy
Palazzo Dello Congregazioni
Piazza Pio XII 3
00193
Re: Hierarchical Recourse
Dear Cardinal Hummes:
The purpose of this letter is to
begin the administrative recourse process against Msgr. J. Robert Yeazel in the
On October 6, 2006 Saint Mary’s
Church in
In June 2006, Bishop Moynihan directed that planning begin for reconfiguration in the Diocese of Syracuse. In his directive, the Bishop stated “We will need to work together to invite many to ministry, to offer creative solutions to complex challenges, and to be committed to a changing Church.” as well as stating that “Our focus is on creating or maintaining “viable” parishes.” This is in accordance with his 2001 letter, “Equipping the Saint for the Work of Ministry” (attachment #2). He asked each Pastoral Care Area (PCA) to provide plans on how that area could function with half the number of priests. The PCA planning teams were made up of the Parish Council President, Vice President, and Trustees from each parish. We were informed by Msgr. Yeazel that the churches in our PCA were: Saint Mary’s, Holy Cross, Our Lady of Solace, and Saint Therese (attachment #3).
During the discussions it became apparent that Saint Therese and Our Lady of
Solace, who shared a single priest, were unable to work together. At that point
Msgr. Yeazel decided that Saint Mary’s Parish and
Holy Cross Parish would continue to meet apart from Saint Therese Parish and
Our Lady of Solace Parish to formulate a plan for Saint Mary’s and Holy Cross.
He proposed that Saint Therese and Our Lady of Solace submit their own plan (attachment
#4). Our Lady of Solace and Saint Therese both remain open today.
The
In late October 2006, Msgr. Yeazel
canceled the last PCA planning meeting and submitted an incomplete plan, which
failed to address the points required by the Bishop from each PCA (attachment
#5). This document was used by the
When parishioners received a copy of the incomplete plan submitted by Msgr. Yeazel, the PCA planning team from St. Mary’s took it upon themselves to write additional documentation to support option four of his plan (attachment # 7). This was the only option that recommended Saint Mary’s Parish remain open. Because Saint Mary’s Parish failed to meet any of the 13 triggers to start a conversation on merger or closure that the Bishop created at the beginning of the reconfiguration process (attachment # 8) and was a vibrant, growing, financially solvent faith community, we felt this was the only viable option. At that time, however, we were not aware of the many paints requested by the Bishop and the 13 triggers, as Msgr. Yeazel only gave us a truncated list in his June 2006 letter (attachment #8). Our supplemental documentation, therefore, addressed only those six questions put forth by Msgr. Yeazel to the parishioners of Saint Mary’s in his letter.
In late September and early October, Msgr. Yeazel held “listening sessions” at St. Mary’s Church. These sessions were meant to be opportunities for the parishioners of St. Mary’s Parish to ask questions about becoming a mission and well as to voice opinions on the upcoming reconfiguration. At both sessions Msgr. Yeazel spoke for over half the allotted time and allowed only fifteen to twenty minutes for parishioner questions and concerns.
It has only recently come to light that
There has been a serious lack of stewardship and fiduciary responsibility regarding our financial patrimony by Msgr. Yeazel. On Monday, May 7, 2007 Msgr. Yeazel attended a meeting with a group of Saint Mary’s parishioners. At this meeting he stated he would be willing to sell the church for $1.00. Since the time of our closure on June 30, 2007, Msgr. Yeazel has not confirmed that our monies have been held in endowment as promised by Msgr. Yeazel previous to closure (attachment #10). In addition, a fonner pastor of Saint Mary’s, Father John Daley, left a large bequest to the parish. We have never received word that this money, totaling in excess of 100,000, has been placed in the endowment fund for the parish of Saint Mary’s. We have attempted to contact Msgr. Yeazel to discuss these issues but have received no answer (attachment #11).
Prior to closure one of St. Mary’s Parish Corporation
trustees, Dave Thompson, decided to become a parishioner of
On Friday, June 29, 2007 a locksmith entered Saint Mary’s
Church and started to change the locks on all the doors. As the appeal to the
At the late September — early October 2006 “listening
sessions” and following meetings Msgr. Yeazel implied
that the religious education program for grades 1-4 would remain at Saint
Mary’s Church for the residents of Jamesville (attachment #10). For years the
children of Saint Mary’s have been dismissed from school for one hour during
the day to attend classes in the church. This put no strain on the parents and
all teachers were volunteers. At the beginning of the 2007- 2008 school year
parents received a letter stating that they would need to bring their children
from
From the time Saint Mary’s became a mission of
Our appeal was filed in May of 2007 with the Congregation for the Clergy. Masses were continued at Saint Mary’s Church until June 30, 2007. Since that time Msgr. Yeazel has refused to make Mass available to his parishioners at Saint Mary’s. The Bishop has never responded to any requests for weekend liturgies during the administrative recourse process nor asked Msgr. Yeazel to do so (see appeal Congregation Pro Clerics Prot. N. 20071311, Apostolic Nunciature of the US File No. 5922).
When the parishioners of Saint Mary’s first entered into the
vigil upon closure in June 2007 it was recommended by a canon lawyer that
communion services should be held. In place of Masses, we held prayer services
until December 24, 2007. On December 24, 2007 we held our first Communion
service. As the Mass should have continued and was not, it seemed that a
communion service would be a proper laity led alternative allowed by the
Msgr. Yeazel has also been remiss in his duties to the physical patrimony of the parishioners of Saint Mary’s. In 2004 estimates were obtained for repair of the church roof. In July 2006 the steeple and entryway roof needed to be replaced. Bids were received and one was accepted from Clarks Home Improvement (attachment #16). In a letter dated June 21, 2007, Msgr. Yeazel stated that these roof repairs had been started (attachment #17). As of today, no repairs have been made on the roof of the church. When the roof started leaking this winter, several parishioners had to make patch repairs as necessary. The roof of the rectory is also damaged and has not been repaired to date.
On January 14,2008 members of Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church entered Saint Mary’s Church and spoke to two parishioners about renting the space. They asked for Father Bob, and looked at both the rectory and the church building. They said they were looking for a place of worship to hold services (attachment # 18). While our first appeal is in process the suspension of administrative acts does not allow the building to be rented or sold.
After 217 days of vigil Msgr. Yeazel,
along with Bishop Moynihan, arrived at Saint Mary’s Church building at
approximately 10:00am on January 30, 2008. They arrived at our church building
along with several unmarked police cars and plain clothed officers. The St.
Mary’s parishioner holding vigil asked them for identification. Our parishioner
felt he had no choice but to leave (attachment #19). This is in direct
opposition to canon law, which states that a stay is in order until the
A press release was issued on January 30, 2008 by Bishop
Moynihan saying, “Historically, the
As a result of the above, we now submit ow petition to you seeking the assistance of the Congregation for the Clergy because of Msgr. Yeazel’s disregard for the administrative recourse process and our physical and spiritual patrimony. We continue to seek the following:
For the last seven months we have proven our ability to
sustain and manage the Saint Mary’s parish through 100% involvement of the
laity and without assistance from a priest or member of the diocese. All we are
seeking is a priest to say Mass and perform sacraments. We do not understand
why Saint Mary’s, a vital, financially solvent, and growing community should be
closed, since we are not a burden on the diocese. We strive to meet the
directive put forth by Bishop Moynihan in 2001 to make the laity more involved
in order to reduce the burden placed on priests. We suggest using the
In conclusion, we are submitting this petition to begin the
administrative recourse process against Msgr. J. Robert Yeazel
in the
We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely in Christ,
Saint Mary’s Parish Council and Parishioners