Dear Sisters and Brothers,

 

All Things New - Just a brief update on where we are with the planning process. The ACC All Things New Planning Committee presented to the Committee for the Affirmation of Plans (CAP) on Monday, October 27th. The six members of the CAP team received our two plans earlier that month and after reviewing them, gave us a few questions that guided our presentation. Paraphrasing the questions and responses, I will give my take on what was discussed.
 

The first question was a general one on how we viewed the differences between the two plans for building one parish community – which things might make that easier and what things might make that more difficult. Our response was that having multiple Masses at one location (the two-site option) is more in line with what a parish is and is meant to be. No bishop would ever approve a new parish to be created somewhere if they told him there would be only one Mass there each weekend – at best it would be a type of Mission Parish. More buildings and more sites where Mass is offered will likely make it more difficult for people to view the new parish corporation as a unified whole. But having more sites (the three-site option) does enable greater ministry to communities, would likely be more financially consistent in the short-term, and be less disruptive for people.

 

The second question was about how likely parishioners from Foreston would go to other parishes outside the ACC should there be no Masses offered at St. Louis Bertrand. We responded, in part, that because Milaca and Foreston are so close geographically (less than two miles apart from city limits to city limits) the majority of St. Louis Bertrand parishioners live west of Foreston. This means a good number of the people are nearer to Foley, Gilman, or Duelm than to Milaca. Some of those people might still go to Milaca because of the connections that have formed in the ACC, or because of other community connections (e.g. their children go to Milaca for school); but others will find it easier to go to whichever church is closest. Others will be hurt by a closing and prefer to go to another ACC even if they have to travel farther. We used 60% as what we thought was a reasonable figure for how many might stay with the ACC, but an exact number is not really possible to know at this time.
 

The third question asked if there was conversation about retaining buildings/property in some way rather than alienating them (selling them) should there no longer be Masses in those places. We had discussed this in committee and in our parish hall meetings, and the majority of feedback we received was that it would not make sense in our case to continue to pay for buildings we are not using. We could use the locations for other things (offices or classes), but it still adds great cost and complexity to everything. Trying to retain buildings would make balancing the budget much more difficult – if not impossible – and most likely push us over the maximum 25% of plate donation for building costs allowed in the diocesan parameters.

 

After we presented, there was a period of discussion where the CAP members asked a number of other clarifying questions. Before the session ended, each member gave an unofficial indication of which option they supported. That ended with a pretty even split between the six members and an inconclusive result. They will continue to discuss among themselves and cast their final vote soon (or perhaps have already by the time you read this). If there is a tie, the Diocesan Chancellor casts the deciding vote. That result then gets forwarded to the Diocesan Bishop but is not finalized until all plans are affirmed. We are currently in a waiting period until we hear more from the Planning Office. I will update you with what I learn as I learn it.

​

Peace in Christ,

Father Timothy