www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sale of property: St John's Trumbull CT

I was asked to separate this topic from Holy Trinity's.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3551230

Article on the sale of St. John's property from today's CT Post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 55 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Nov 2005 | IP: Logged | ttp.//www.connpost.com/news/ci3551

Dear Angel Lady,

Everytime I try to access the link, I get a page cannot be found. I wonder if my IP is being blocked from that server. Could you be kind enough to copy/paste the article if copyright laws permit this?

Thank you.

In Christ,

Michael

Here is part of the article in question:

To me the real interesting item is that St. John's is getting $2+ million. The property that we are discussing is worth over $7 million. This "deal" sounds good until you begin to scratch the surface. This actually seems right on course with the Other closings and property selling His Grace Andrew has been involved with (Eparchies of Passaic and Parma). Don't I recall that the property sold in FL with the Holy Apostles closure was, so we have been told, sold way under market value. I understand property from Holy Ghost in Philadelphia (although they are still open) was sold as well as way under market value. It continues to raise alot of questions regarding the handling of finances within the Passaic Eparchy.

Now Job, watch what you say or you're going to get this thread deleted!

The Inland Wetland Commission of Trumbull CT met last night to discuss application 06-04 for St John Woods. The meeting was attended by over 100 concerned neighbors & parishioners of St Johns Church. During the rather heated discussion they were shocked to learn that Fr. George Malitz is the one who approached the developer & told him that we would be interested in selling some of our property. The acerage mentioned by the Commission was 22 not the 15 Fr. Malitz keeps referring to. So how much of the property is actually being sold?
We, the parishoners, are not interested in selling our property to a developer! Fr. Malitz has been lying to his parishoners for months just like he lied to the parishoners of Holy Trinity. After several impassioned pleas from the gallery, the Commission motioned for a continuance so they can further review the site.
I also found it interesting that several of the neighbors commented that St Johns Church is in financial trouble. Since Fr. Malitz has not provided the parishoners with a financial statement for the past 2 years we really wouldn't know. Looks like JOB has a valid point.

Thank You Angel Lady for the update!

It saddens me that people are still "shocked" to see this type of behavior. Anyone who followed the Holy Trinity closure which occured in their backyard should see what's coming. Fr. George, et al continue to throw out conflicting information (22 acres/15 acres/31 acres etc...(I don't believe St. John's even has 31 acres)) My understanding is the parishioners were originally told 2 weeks ago that as part of the plan the builder was building the new rectory, hooking it up to sewars, and paving the new parking lot. My understanding, although I have not seen it myself, but have heard the same thing from several who have seen it, was the "story" of the building a new rectory as part of the deal is just that. A story! The bulletin this week said the rectory is being built "at cost" (whatever that means). $2.1 million subtract out the eparchy piece (I believe 8%) build a new rectory, a new parking lot, and a new bell tower and that money is going to be wasted quickly. (I only have to wonder if the money will bring back Fr. George's wish for a marble floor in the sanctuary.)

I've come to the conclusion that we the people of the eparchy of Passaic will never hear the truth in these matters.
It is our responsibility to put our money in the envelopes, generate money through fundraising, give more money to the "Stewardship Appeal"- (oh wait- it isn't called "Stewardship" anymore is it?) and in general keep giving money whenever it is asked of us.
In return we get a glimpse of a promise of Eternal Life IF we follow the rules to the letter and don't cause much grief, and IF we stay faithful until the day our particular parish gets sold out from under our noses. After that we are no longer the eparchy's body in the pew. If we choose to start again somewhere else we may again catch that glimpse of Eternal Life. If we choose not to we are probably considered damned to Hell.
Can't win, can we?
Sam

It's a sin. Nobody can do anything about it.

It is a real shame...that scandal continues to be brought upon the Church and it is pretty clear there is no remorse for what is being done. There was no remorse about the closure of HT...if there was What is now going on 20 miles away wouldn't be happening...

Very true however these guys don't seem to play by the rules. How many Canon Laws were broken when Holy Trinity was closed?

I don't believe (and I definitely am not a canon law scholar) any letter's of the law were violated. The eparchy is run by canon lawyers and live by the letter of the law. Unfortunately, not by the spirit of the law. It is more of a moral issue than a legal one. Canon Law, as I have looked at it, appears to be geared toward protecting the bishop. For as much as we hear the Church being "the people" under the guidance and spiritual direction of the bishop, reality doesn't make that so. At least from what I have looked at, and others I have spoken with who have better knowledge of Canon Law, the church rhetoric is often "flowery" toward the laity, the Roman Curia even has a congregation for the laity, but when push comes to shove the bishop can do whatever he pleases and there is no recourse. It is more powerful than being a Supreme Court Justice since it is one person with absolute power. The bishop is an appointment for life (we often hear about mandatory retirement at 75 but my understanding is that does not apply to Eastern Bishops (I think there is discussion on that but we can see bishop Andrew is now 80 and still doing what he was doing 20 years ago in Parma)).

I almost forgot...Basil, good luck on your journey as you begin your new life with the OCA!!!! It warms my heart when I see former parishioners associated with Holy Trinity and St. John's in CT formally, make the move back to the Holy Orthodox Church and enter communion with them. And not lean toward the RCC. I believe you know as I do, we are at a crossroads. Do we take the path of least resistance and make the "Catholic" choice and go to the RCC? or Do we remain faithful to the eastern church and go Orthodox? I personally believe you have made the right choice.

I dont agree with comments about teh bishops. If you are convinced that the bishops is not doing the business of the Eparchy as he should then bombard the Cardinal Prefect for the Oriental Church in Rome. Provide him with facts of what you conside has been doen wrong. However, one or two complaints will not get anything done but if many people all complain, they will get the idea that all is not well in the Eparchy.

A few years ago I met an Australian Monsignor from Rome, who mentioned that 'Rome' was getting worried about the volume of letters arriving daily from Australia complaining about the bishops. JPII men were moved into the vacancies and it was not easy, as those who had become powerful were not going easily. They fought back evey inch of the way. However Pope's men have been put into key positions and the volume of complaints has died down to a trickle.

You do have recourse to a higher place. Just get organised to do this and keep at it.

ICXC
NIKA

I can appreciate what you are saying Pavel...But I can tell you this...from the Holy Trinity issue alone Rome received (I have copies of these correspondances) approximately 1" thick package of letters that over time (approximately 1 1/2 years) had been sent to the bishop himself, his college of consultors, the papal nuncio, Other eastern catholic bishops in America etc...these packages of various letters outlining the specifics of the situation did go to the Oriental Congregation, and other various members of the Roman Curia (Cardinal Ratzinger and JP2 as well)...I have been told by a good source that Rome requested that Andrew submit his resignation since he was well past 75 and it could be done without scandal...Bishop Andrew Refused and is still there. So they have been well in the loop on what is going on...unfortunately, my take on it is An Eastern Bishop is head of his Church and regardless of how much pressure Rome puts on him, he can do as he pleases and can not be forcefully removed from his church...That being said...I agree with that from an Eastern perspective...the problem here is that the bishops are imposed by Rome...which gives the appearance that they are doing what Rome wants...if we were to really take an eastern stance then the bishop would be elected by his clergy (what priest would elect (for lack of a better word) a tyrant for his boss)and we know in the canons of the Orthodox Church a synod is able to remove a bishop who has brought scandal upon the church. This type of scandal has gone on for approximately 20 years. I remember, when Bishop Andrew was in the eparchy of Parma it even reached the ABC Evening News...if that and the 15 years or so of scandal after that did not constitute 'scandal' I don't know what would.

All of this being said...I would encourage the members of St. John's in Trumbull, CT, Resurrection in Smithtown, NY and St. Andrew's in Westbury, NY and any other parish to continue writing to Rome. The pressure couldn't hurt.