The Notre Dame Rally for 3/25 has been put on "hold" because of the meeting called for 3/28 in which Father & Newark are supposed to answer our questions. We encourage everyone to attend this meeting.
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
So why did Father call the "Emergency" Teacher Meeting for Wed?
Is it to warn the teachers to "know their place or ELSE?"
Is it to warn the teachers NOT to show up at the parents meeting?
Is it to tell the teachers to "stop their whining because they don't know anything?" (Even though they have worked for years at Notre Dame...Father Sheehan knows more!)
Is it to tell the teachers to stop supporting the Sisters and to keep their "traps...shut"?
Do teachers have the freedom of speech or will they be punished like the Sisters?
So, didn't the "people" in charge come off like fools. Hanbury was the biggest joke going. He seems to not to be able to do anything because of "Canon Law". Sheehan, knew he wouldn't answer any questions, the only thing he knows how to do is smirk and think to himself that he won. It took a lot of guts for Sr. Patricia stand up in front of all of them. Things got no place tonight. The fight still has to continue, those two sisters must be gotten back some way. We still need to keep trying. It is a disgrace. Mr. Media himself, Mr. Goodness just takes care of damage control and Sister Marie is as shallow as the rain puddle outside. They are all dispicable. I think a demonstration is in order down at Newark.
It was good to see us on NBC News last night! :) We need more media attention. Since "Canon Law" prevents Newark from doing anything and since hiring/firing are a "local" decsion...then the "local" people need to FIRE the "local" priest.
I agree with the previous view. Sheehan needs to go and we need to find a way. Goodness admitted to some people that things were handled wrong. Consolidation and firing the nuns should not have happened together. There has to be someone out there who can help us. And to the father who got angry and said we should all move on, he has no compassion, too. For the good of the children and school, why can't Sheehan rethink this thru and start from scratch and rehire the nuns. That should be the "new vision." But, this is a personal vendetta against the Sisters, dispite his denial. That smirk of his is reprehensible.
The petitions were handed in last night to Mr. Goodness who will deliver them to ArchBishop Meyers today. Over 2000 people signed our petition to remove Father Sheehan, reinstate the nuns and consider the future of Notre Dame with all these changes taking place. We can place a call toThe Most Reverend ArchBishop Meyers to intervene in some constuctive manner to remedy our school in light of the New Notre Dame philosophy with the consolidation and the replacement of the current administration. clare.
The fact that Father Armando still has his pre-K still amazes me. That fact was not brought up at last nights meeting. Isn't it in direct conflict with Notre Dame? Shouldn't he be telling his parishioners to send their children to the school they sponsor, NOtre Dame. Father Sheehan has to go. If anyone mishandled things, he is guilty. He refuses to compromise and reinstate the nuns. He is the only one to blame for this whole mess. Thanks to Mrs. Luppino for voicing her opinion. Why didn't the others on the board do the same?
Canon Law is man made and what law exactly prohibits Hanbury from intervening. We need to find a way to rid our wonderful school of Father Sheehan. His time is up.
This is pertaining to the meeting on Wednesday March 28.
The father who got angry the other night at the meeting, the one that "anonymous" refers to as having no compassion, was the only one making an adult comment, he was trying to tell all of you that you have to move on. We can fight this until we're blue in the face, it will not get us anywhere! We are dealing with the church, the biggest business in the world, and unfortunately, one of the best run businesses in the world, a business that hasn't changed since its beginnings!!!
I will preface the rest of my statement with this; my loyalties lie with the sisters, I have great respect for Sister Ellen, but more importantly, I truly like her! She's a wonderful lady. She's done a wonderful job with this school, and the children, and I WILL HATE TO SEE HER GO. But she IS going, and we have to figure out how to save the school that she started.
Change is inevitable, it is a part of life and sometimes not the most pleasant part. Did the sisters get a raw deal, you bet they did, but this kind of thing happens every day, it's time to get over this and get moving.
Do we want to save our childrens' school? Do we want to keep the teachers that SISTER chose to teach our children? Do we want Sister's legacy to continue, or do we want to see it go down the tubes?!?! Somehow, I don't think Sister wants all of her hard work for the last 20 or so years to just disappear because she is no longer at the helm. She put her soul into this school and letting it fall now would be nothing more than a slap in her face. And who will be doing the slapping? The people who are "fighting" for the school but not putting their children back in!!! A school needs a building, teachers and students. Without the students the most integral part is missing folks!! And hey, how do you think our teachers feel, think they want to lose their jobs???
And by the way, Fr. Sheehan is not the only one responsible, you're giving him way too much power, he CANNOT make these decisions alone, as admitted by Fr. Armando at the meeting, he made the decision right along with him, or weren't you listening???
I will close by giving the most basic example that I can (no disrespect meant towards the Sisters, I am certainly not comparing them to toilet paper!!)...But, if your favorite brand of toilet paper was suddenly discontinued, would you stop wiping your #!@ or would you switch to a different brand? See, sometimes you just don't have a choice.
Father Armando said he was asked what he thought. He said he had no problem with the sisters and really had limited exposure to them at all. He said what wonderful people they are.
He was asked what he thought but the ultimate decision was up to Father Sheehan. Also keep in mind that if Notre Dame closes, Father Armando will no longer have to give the school the 25% of the rental of his building that he has to now. He can keep it for his parish.
Although Father Riley was also involved, Father Sheehan was the driving force and he is the one who signs the checks. Not Father Armando and Father Riley.
Is it time to move on? Yes.
The signatures were collected and ignored.
I am appalled by the lack of any comment or interest from the Archdiocese. I bet that if any of the Priest’s had done something that Bishop Meyers didn't like, CANON LAW would not apply. They would jump in headfirst. It's easy for them to pick and choose what they bother themselves with.
I was ready to pull my kids out of Notre Dame and move to another Catholic school.
Now, I am so disgusted with the Catholic "Education" business that I won't even be doing that.
I want to support my Church financially, but will not due to the lies and lack of respect that we the parents were shown on Wednesday night.
As far as the situation with the teachers- yes I agree this is tragic. But you all must also realize that they are employees who will have to follow the instruction of the new principal. Not this Legacy that everyone keeps speaking of. The "Legacy" of Sister Ellen and Sister Patricia will leave with them on 6/30.
Do what you believe in.
For me, I'm done with the lies and lack of character that Father Sheehan and the representatives of Newark exhibited on Wednesday night.
In response to "anonymous", Father Armando did say that he was asked what he thought and that he had no problem with the sisters due to his limited exposure to them, but he also said, and I loosely quote, " I also made the decision, along with Fr. Sheehan and Fr. Riley to get rid of the sisters." Not that it means anything, but Fr. Sheehan also had very nice things to say about the sisters. (Just for the record, I am not a fan of Fr. Sheehan.)
A new principal is a necessity but your teachers are the people in front of that classroom with your children, not the principals. We have to trust that the teachers will do their jobs as they see fit, just as they do now. I'm quite sure that they don't always listen to everything that Sr. Ellen tells them, either.
And lastly, a legacy is something you leave behind or hand down, in this case, the school itself. It does not have to die because someone else has taken "it" over. It is our way as human beings to remember the people who have done wonderful things for us, those people that we respect and love.
In conclusion, I feel much the same way about my church these days, but my church is not that pile of bricks on Edgewater Ave., it is my belief in Jesus and what He expects of me.
You are right. The legacy of the Sisters at Notre Dame does not have to die if (God forbid) someone else takes over. This tragedy is more than that. It is about Christian justice and the wrong that these two nuns have had to endure at the hands of these "three" men. They have been treated like second class citizens. When you see injustice in the world you can do either of two things, look the other way or try to right it. These Sisters have been treated unfairly by the "good old boy's club". I can not look the way. I have to fight any way that I can to get them back. No matter what anyone says, the Sisters, teachers are the life and soul of ND.
1.) It is true that teachers are important, but who says they will stay (or be asked to stay)? If you lose 2 or 3 or 4 teachers...that means MORE new blood. The culture of the school will change (and who says it will change for the better). For those who have ever worked in a school...the principal IS the most important person (This can also be said for a small business who loses that key partner.) Principals "set the tone". They can inspire teachers or discourage them. Considering who is choosing the next principal...expect the latter.
2.)Father Armando's story is MUCH different NOW than it was when this story "first broke". It was even recorded in the paper that "he was unaware of any firings." So which story is it? Actually does it matter? One way or the other...at one point he lied. Should a priest lie?
3.) Look how Father Sheehan runs the school! IT is unorganized and unprofessional. He has been "involved" for only the last year and a half and look what has happened! 60 families left last year and many more are leaving this year. He is driving people away and he does not care. He has ignored the "demands" of dozens of parents (and thousands of petition supporters) so the "next time" he does something that nobody likes...no matter how sinister it is...do you think he is EVER going to listen to you? He will run the school his way and as you can tell...it is NOT in your or your child's best interest. (and if you don't like it...too bad according to him.) If Father Sheehan was a CEO of a public company...he would be out of a job. What has he done to SAVE Notre Dame? NOTHING.
4.) People who say "move on"..think "nothing" is going to change...that Notre Dame is going to keep its standards and run fine...that is a completely foolish and immature idea. Look at the response to the firings of the Sisters. We ARE supporters of the Sisters. They are the foundation of Notre Dame...if you think nothing is going to change...well..you're in for an awakening.
5.) A legacy is a nice idea and it would be true...that the sisters will be leaving a legacy IF THEY had the opportunity to choose and train the new leaders. Since the Sisters are getting "tossed out on to the streets" this won't happen...a new principal will come in and try to instill (Father's culture)...the new principal will destroy the old culture because they have not been indoctrinated. Notre Dame will be different...and who says the Sisters (or you) will be proud of what becomes of it?
6.) As one can tell...many of us WANT the Sisters at Notre Dame. This is WHY there is a fight. The "fight" is not about whether or not a few bathrooms are going to be ready. The fight is not about creating a new driveway to drop students off.
The fight is about helping two wonderful people that Father Sheehan hates (Isn't he a perfect example of a Christian?) The people who say "move on" don't seem to get the point. If our concerns are NOT addressed, then we WILL move on...to a different school. Notre Dame and our belief in it, is because of the Sisters. The fight is about the Sisters not a few bathrooms. We want Notre Dame to be run the right way...NOT Father Sheehan's way.
Without the Sisters, I (and I'm sure many others) DO NOT and will not support Notre Dame. That is the point.
Everything you say is true. Sheehan MUST go. He is destroying Notre Dame so his legacy can live on. Remember he needs the income from the Primary Building to keep St. Matthew's running. That is the bottom line. He cares about nothing else. It would be a disaster for his "good" name to lose the parish. Get rid of him!
one thought that keeps comng back to me today is WHY when there were three schools and three churches we needed to consolidate the schools. Now there are still three churches and two schools, we again are being made to consolidate on the schools side and not close one of the churches instead to save some revenue? Others in the community see this whole saga and are reflective of their beliefs as well as upbringings. There are many reasons why we chose Catholic education for our children but how long can we persevere with this when faced with such determination from the administrator Father Sheehan, when we as a community cannot see who is benefitting from these changes aside from the parishes that are involved. What is the long range plan of Notre Dame with all of these changes. I cannot see the vision. clare
The only long range goal from this debacle is to keep St. Matthew's afloat. The Archdiocese has its head in the sand. They are losing followers because pastors, such as Father Sheehan, do nothing to bring the people back into the fold. How they refuse to answer any questions is just unbelieveable. The Lord must be shaking his head in disgust just the way we are. These three pastors have no right to call themselves priests. They are just as cutthroat as any other CEO in the business world.
How come we haven't heard from the Irishman. Has he too given up the fight? I heard another school in Orange is also losing their principal after 30 years of service. Maybe we should hook up with them and fight together!
The meeting the other night was ridiculous. No one there had any "authority" to assist the school! Except of course Father Sheehan, but his true colors were defintely showing with the smirk on this face. Does anyone know where Bishop Flesey was? I agree that we can not give up the fight to keep Sister Ellen and Sister Patricia at the helm of the school. I applaud Sister Patricia for her remarks. What about a trip to Newark or to the parish in Franklin Lakes where the bishop presides? We need to speak with someone who can make a decision to correct this injustice. Does the archdiocese really believe that 130 children did not re-register because of the consolidation? Most of the parents I have spoken to have stated it is because of the termination of Sisters. If parents are interested in either a trip to Newark or Franklin Lakes, please let me know. Diane Birchwale
First, the Newark Archdioesce calls to say that the Archbishop wants to meet with the teachers (The teachers asked for the meeting.) Newark says the teachers MUST attend. So a note goes out to inform the teachers (and parents since after care is closed AND THAT DOES AFFECT US)
Now Newark calls back and screams and hollers...saying WHO ORGANIZED the meeting AND WHAT RIGHT DID THE SISTERS HAVE TO SEND A NOTE TO THE PARENTS about the meeting...(Ummm...hello...since there is NO after care...I DO need to know!)
Now Newark says that the teachers WILL NOT meet with the archbishop.(such a coward)
Gee...the Archdioecese is run just like Father Sheehan runs Notre Dame...complete chaos...and blame everyone else for their foolishness.
I am the father that stood up and said it was time to move on. I support the Sisters, however, the school is more important than two individuals. If everyone that is "screaming" about the Legacy took time to think about it they would see that pulling their children from the school does not perpetuate the Legacy, it only destroys it. I am appalled that someone that does not know me and who does not have the courage to sign his or her name to their comment has the audacity to state that I have no compassion. I am a parent that pays for his child's education just as the rest of us do, I am also a human being. I do not want to see two people that have dedicated their lives to children treated as such, alas, it is a fact of life that businesses make changes. Sometimes the changes are at the top, sometimes in the middle and sometimes at the bottom. Once a decision is made, it is neary impossible to reverse. It was quite clear at the meeting that whether we like it or not, the ArchDiocese has reached a decision that will not be changed. This decision, if people had been listening was made with the consent and knowledge of the Order that the Sister's belong to. I also heard Sister Patricia state, that the Sisters had been shafted, I believe was the term she used. However, when given the chance to state why they were not given contracts, she kept her right to privacy intact. That is of course her choice, her employer, the ArchDioseces is bound to maintain that privacy. Why did she not divulge the manner in which the Sisters were shafted,and why they were not brought back. And why in God's name are parent's that have already taken their children out of Notre Dame still acting as if they have a right to any say in the operation and administration of the school.
That night after the meeting I spoke to Father Sheehan, no friend of mine, I do not even know the man. I told him I understood that he made a choice that he felt was right. I also told him I thought that choice was wrong, and could have been made in such a way as to avoid what has since transpired.
I will end this comment with one last question. Why do you all feel the need to write comments and then lack the conviction to put your name to your comment, or is there a large family living in the area that is named anonymous?
There are a few things that I disagree with in regards to the previous post:
1.) You talk about the Legacy. There will be no Legacy of Notre Dame whether students stay or leave. When there is a legacy, like a family business…a person is groomed into the culture of the business. They are trained and taught how things should operate. This will not happen at Notre Dame…there was no grooming of the next generation. The culture of Notre Dame has been shattered. There is barely anyone left to “promote” a legacy…with the firing of the sisters, all of the support staff and several (long term) teachers…who is left to pass on the culture of Notre Dame? How can a teacher who has only been there 3 or 4 years tell you what the culture of Notre Dame is? (Not to mention why would you fire teachers that have more experience than others? Ohh..forgot…Father Sheehan…money!) Now, one might state that if everyone didn’t pull their children out that most of these people would still be employed…but you are back to the sisters….the principal of a building sets the tone…they establish the culture. Think about any traditional family…usually grandma and grandpa keep the whole family together…if they “pass away” too early…the traditions are not learned and the family (especially the extended family) drifts apart. The Notre Dame you are getting is not the traditional Catholic school…all you are getting is a brick building…that’s all.
2.) You talk about the “decision” being made with the CONSENT of the sister’s order. You make it sound like the Order agreed with Newark. The “ORDER” had absolutely no power or leverage to go against the Archdiocese. The Dominican nuns are not happy or pleased, but what would you like them to do? They don’t own the schools, convents or have any stockpiles of cash. What would you like them to do?
3.) Any decision can be changed…ANY. The problem is that not enough people cared about Notre Dame. From business decisions to the Constitution of the US…anything can be changed. If enough people want it…they can get it.
4.) You talk about how the sisters had a chance to say how they were “shafted”…yet they “refused” to say how. Considering everything they had was verbal, how do you “prove” the verbal abuse? How do you prove that the priests lied? How do you prove that Father was insisting on changes that would hurt the education of your children? There was no pastor meeting to discuss the nuns termination…that was decided by one man…the early newspaper quotes…prove that….but how do you “show” it when AFTERWARDS the priests “change their story”. How do you show that you were fired for protecting children? (Father wasn’t planning on replacing any teacher that left, he was going to use aides to fill any teacher positions that left during the year. This would hurt your child’s education…the nuns fought and argued against this. Another example is when Father refused to pay for any substitute teachers when a teacher was out…he used aides to fill the position…in other words he took someone who was needed in one class and put them in charge of another….so TWO classes of children were “hurt” this way….a qualified sub was not used and there was less manpower in the original aide’s class. The nuns also fought for you…Father wanted to eliminate the multiple child discount…the nuns fought against this saying it was unfair to families. I don’t know about YOU…but I couldn’t afford $15,000 for my 3 kids’ education. Besides protecting our children, how about the concerns they raised over the consolidation? Father blames the nuns for going to the newspaper…it wasn’t them…it was the parents. But father blamed them and for publicly going against him….look what happened two weeks later…they were fired. Because the nuns never kissed his ass, he was always rude to them…should they keep a record of every insult or rude comment? The nuns WERE shafted. They were shafted because they protected YOU and YOUR child. If they would have just done all the things that father said the sisters would be fine….your child’s education would suck…but the nuns would still have their jobs.
5.) You say that if you’ve taken your child out of Notre Dame…that you don’t have the “right” to say how the school is administered. WHO ARE YOU to say who has the right to be involved and who doesn’t? ANY person who supports Notre Dame has a say in how it should be run. ANY concerned Catholic has a say in how it should be run. ANY caring parishioner has a say in how it should be run. ANY educator who cares about a child’s education has THE RIGHT to say how it should be run. Yes, you ‘pay” for your child to go there…but it doesn’t mean YOU OWN IT. It is a community school…a parish school…not your school.
6.) You also mention that people “lack conviction” since they don’t put there name on their posts. When we vote…we vote anonymously…does this mean we “lack conviction”? When we see something going on and we get involved and then walk away…does this mean that we “lack conviction” since we didn’t get ourselves on TV or in the newspapers? When you donate money to a charity and don’t take credit for it…does that mean you lack “conviction”? Did you ever think that maybe some of the people who are writing are employed or work with the Archdiocese and it could cause them problems? Did you ever think that SOME PEOPLE are overbearing and pushy…so friends of that person don’t want to damage the friendship so they post anonymously so as not to cause conflict? Why does it mater if they post anonymously? Are you planning on confronting the person because you don’t like their opinion? Why does it matter how they post? Even some of the greatest people in history, like Benjamin Franklin wrote articles anonymously!!! Just by participating in this blog…we are showing our conviction. In America, we have the right to the freedom of speech…the right to express OUR opinion…whether or not we “sign” our names.
25 comments:
So why did Father call the "Emergency" Teacher Meeting for Wed?
Is it to warn the teachers to "know their place or ELSE?"
Is it to warn the teachers NOT to show up at the parents meeting?
Is it to tell the teachers to "stop their whining because they don't know anything?" (Even though they have worked for years at Notre Dame...Father Sheehan knows more!)
Is it to tell the teachers to stop supporting the Sisters and to keep their "traps...shut"?
Do teachers have the freedom of speech or will they be punished like the Sisters?
(The teachers need a union to protect them.)
So, didn't the "people" in charge come off like fools. Hanbury was the biggest joke going. He seems to not to be able to do anything because of "Canon Law". Sheehan, knew he wouldn't answer any questions, the only thing he knows how to do is smirk and think to himself that he won. It took a lot of guts for Sr. Patricia stand up in front of all of them. Things got no place tonight. The fight still has to continue, those two sisters must be gotten back some way. We still need to keep trying. It is a disgrace. Mr. Media himself, Mr. Goodness just takes care of damage control and Sister Marie is as shallow as the rain puddle outside. They are all dispicable. I think a demonstration is in order down at Newark.
It was good to see us on NBC News last night! :) We need more media attention. Since "Canon Law" prevents Newark from doing anything and since hiring/firing are a "local" decsion...then the "local" people need to FIRE the "local" priest.
I agree with the previous view. Sheehan needs to go and we need to find a way. Goodness admitted to some people that things were handled wrong. Consolidation and firing the nuns should not have happened together. There has to be someone out there who can help us. And to the father who got angry and said we should all move on, he has no compassion, too. For the good of the children and school, why can't Sheehan rethink this thru and start from scratch and rehire the nuns. That should be the "new vision." But, this is a personal vendetta against the Sisters, dispite his denial. That smirk of his is reprehensible.
The petitions were handed in last night to Mr. Goodness who will deliver them to ArchBishop Meyers today. Over 2000 people signed our petition to remove Father Sheehan, reinstate the nuns and consider the future of Notre Dame with all these changes taking place. We can place a call toThe Most Reverend ArchBishop Meyers to intervene in some constuctive manner to remedy our school in light of the New Notre Dame philosophy with the consolidation and the replacement of the current administration. clare.
The fact that Father Armando still has his pre-K still amazes me. That fact was not brought up at last nights meeting. Isn't it in direct conflict with Notre Dame? Shouldn't he be telling his parishioners to send their children to the school they sponsor, NOtre Dame. Father Sheehan has to go. If anyone mishandled things, he is guilty. He refuses to compromise and reinstate the nuns. He is the only one to blame for this whole mess.
Thanks to Mrs. Luppino for voicing her opinion. Why didn't the others on the board do the same?
Canon Law is man made and what law exactly prohibits Hanbury from intervening. We need to find a way to rid our wonderful school of Father Sheehan. His time is up.
I agree, Mrs. Luppino had many good points.
Unfortunately, Father Sheehan seems to have made up his mind.
The "guests" were a sad joke.
This is pertaining to the meeting on Wednesday March 28.
The father who got angry the other night at the meeting, the one that "anonymous" refers to as having no compassion, was the only one making an adult comment, he was trying to tell all of you that you have to move on. We can fight this until we're blue in the face, it will not get us anywhere! We are dealing with the church, the biggest business in the world, and unfortunately, one of the best run businesses in the world, a business that hasn't changed since its beginnings!!!
I will preface the rest of my statement with this; my loyalties lie with the sisters, I have great respect for Sister Ellen, but more importantly, I truly like her! She's a wonderful lady. She's done a wonderful job with this school, and the children, and I WILL HATE TO SEE HER GO. But she IS going, and we have to figure out how to save the school that she started.
Change is inevitable, it is a part of life and sometimes not the most pleasant part. Did the sisters get a raw deal, you bet they did, but this kind of thing happens every day, it's time to get over this and get moving.
Do we want to save our childrens' school? Do we want to keep the teachers that SISTER chose to teach our children? Do we want Sister's legacy to continue, or do we want to see it go down the tubes?!?! Somehow, I don't think Sister wants all of her hard work for the last 20 or so years to just disappear because she is no longer at the helm. She put her soul into this school and letting it fall now would be nothing more than a slap in her face. And who will be doing the slapping? The people who are "fighting" for the school but not putting their children back in!!! A school needs a building, teachers and students. Without the students the most integral part is missing folks!! And hey, how do you think our teachers feel, think they want to lose their jobs???
And by the way, Fr. Sheehan is not the only one responsible, you're giving him way too much power, he CANNOT make these decisions alone, as admitted by Fr. Armando at the meeting, he made the decision right along with him, or weren't you listening???
I will close by giving the most basic example that I can (no disrespect meant towards the Sisters, I am certainly not comparing them to toilet paper!!)...But, if your favorite brand of toilet paper was suddenly discontinued, would you stop wiping your #!@ or would you switch to a different brand? See, sometimes you just don't have a choice.
Father Armando said he was asked what he thought. He said he had no problem with the sisters and really had limited exposure to them at all. He said what wonderful people they are.
He was asked what he thought but the ultimate decision was up to Father Sheehan. Also keep in mind that if Notre Dame closes, Father Armando will no longer have to give the school the 25% of the rental of his building that he has to now. He can keep it for his parish.
Although Father Riley was also involved, Father Sheehan was the driving force and he is the one who signs the checks. Not Father Armando and Father Riley.
Is it time to move on?
Yes.
The signatures were collected and ignored.
I am appalled by the lack of any comment or interest from the Archdiocese. I bet that if any of the Priest’s had done something that Bishop Meyers didn't like, CANON LAW would not apply. They would jump in headfirst. It's easy for them to pick and choose what they bother themselves with.
I was ready to pull my kids out of Notre Dame and move to another Catholic school.
Now, I am so disgusted with the Catholic "Education" business that I won't even be doing that.
I want to support my Church financially, but will not due to the lies and lack of respect that we the parents were shown on Wednesday night.
As far as the situation with the teachers- yes I agree this is tragic. But you all must also realize that they are employees who will have to follow the instruction of the new principal. Not this Legacy that everyone keeps speaking of. The "Legacy" of Sister Ellen and Sister Patricia will leave with them on 6/30.
Do what you believe in.
For me, I'm done with the lies and lack of character that Father Sheehan and the representatives of Newark exhibited on Wednesday night.
We live in the USA.
We can make choices.
I choose not to subscribe to the drama anymore.
In response to "anonymous", Father Armando did say that he was asked what he thought and that he had no problem with the sisters due to his limited exposure to them, but he also said, and I loosely quote, " I also made the decision, along with Fr. Sheehan and Fr. Riley to get rid of the sisters." Not that it means anything, but Fr. Sheehan also had very nice things to say about the sisters. (Just for the record, I am not a fan of Fr. Sheehan.)
A new principal is a necessity but your teachers are the people in front of that classroom with your children, not the principals. We have to trust that the teachers will do their jobs as they see fit, just as they do now. I'm quite sure that they don't always listen to everything that Sr. Ellen tells them, either.
And lastly, a legacy is something you leave behind or hand down, in this case, the school itself. It does not have to die because someone else has taken "it" over. It is our way as human beings to remember the people who have done wonderful things for us, those people that we respect and love.
In conclusion, I feel much the same way about my church these days, but my church is not that pile of bricks on Edgewater Ave., it is my belief in Jesus and what He expects of me.
P.S. why is everyone on this site anonymous??
You are right. The legacy of the Sisters at Notre Dame does not have to die if (God forbid) someone else takes over. This tragedy is more than that. It is about Christian justice and the wrong that these two nuns have had to endure at the hands of these "three" men. They have been treated like second class citizens. When you see injustice in the world you can do either of two things, look the other way or try to right it. These Sisters have been treated unfairly by the "good old boy's club". I can not look the way. I have to fight any way that I can to get them back. No matter what anyone says, the Sisters, teachers are the life and soul of ND.
1.) It is true that teachers are important, but who says they will stay (or be asked to stay)? If you lose 2 or 3 or 4 teachers...that means MORE new blood. The culture of the school will change (and who says it will change for the better). For those who have ever worked in a school...the principal IS the most important person (This can also be said for a small business who loses that key partner.) Principals "set the tone". They can inspire teachers or discourage them. Considering who is choosing the next principal...expect the latter.
2.)Father Armando's story is MUCH different NOW than it was when this story "first broke". It was even recorded in the paper that "he was unaware of any firings." So which story is it? Actually does it matter? One way or the other...at one point he lied. Should a priest lie?
3.) Look how Father Sheehan runs the school! IT is unorganized and unprofessional. He has been "involved" for only the last year and a half and look what has happened! 60 families left last year and many more are leaving this year. He is driving people away and he does not care. He has ignored the "demands" of dozens of parents (and thousands of petition supporters) so the "next time" he does something that nobody likes...no matter how sinister it is...do you think he is EVER going to listen to you? He will run the school his way and as you can tell...it is NOT in your or your child's best interest. (and if you don't like it...too bad according to him.) If Father Sheehan was a CEO of a public company...he would be out of a job. What has he done to SAVE Notre Dame? NOTHING.
4.) People who say "move on"..think "nothing" is going to change...that Notre Dame is going to keep its standards and run fine...that is a completely foolish and immature idea. Look at the response to the firings of the Sisters. We ARE supporters of the Sisters. They are the foundation of Notre Dame...if you think nothing is going to change...well..you're in for an awakening.
5.) A legacy is a nice idea and it would be true...that the sisters will be leaving a legacy IF THEY had the opportunity to choose and train the new leaders. Since the Sisters are getting "tossed out on to the streets" this won't happen...a new principal will come in and try to instill (Father's culture)...the new principal will destroy the old culture because they have not been indoctrinated. Notre Dame will be different...and who says the Sisters (or you) will be proud of what becomes of it?
6.) As one can tell...many of us WANT the Sisters at Notre Dame. This is WHY there is a fight. The "fight" is not about whether or not a few bathrooms are going to be ready. The fight is not about creating a new driveway to drop students off.
The fight is about helping two wonderful people that Father Sheehan hates (Isn't he a perfect example of a Christian?) The people who say "move on" don't seem to get the point. If our concerns are NOT addressed, then we WILL move on...to a different school. Notre Dame and our belief in it, is because of the Sisters. The fight is about the Sisters not a few bathrooms. We want Notre Dame to be run the right way...NOT Father Sheehan's way.
Without the Sisters, I (and I'm sure many others) DO NOT and will not support Notre Dame. That is the point.
Everything you say is true. Sheehan MUST go. He is destroying Notre Dame so his legacy can live on. Remember he needs the income from the Primary Building to keep St. Matthew's running. That is the bottom line. He cares about nothing else. It would be a disaster for his "good" name to lose the parish. Get rid of him!
one thought that keeps comng back to me today is WHY when there were three schools and three churches we needed to consolidate the schools. Now there are still three churches and two schools, we again are being made to consolidate on the schools side and not close one of the churches instead to save some revenue? Others in the community see this whole saga and are reflective of their beliefs as well as upbringings. There are many reasons why we chose Catholic education for our children but how long can we persevere with this when faced with such determination from the administrator Father Sheehan, when we as a community cannot see who is benefitting from these changes aside from the parishes that are involved. What is the long range plan of Notre Dame with all of these changes. I cannot see the vision. clare
The only long range goal from this debacle is to keep St. Matthew's afloat. The Archdiocese has its head in the sand. They are losing followers because pastors, such as Father Sheehan, do nothing to bring the people back into the fold. How they refuse to answer any questions is just unbelieveable. The Lord must be shaking his head in disgust just the way we are. These three pastors have no right to call themselves priests. They are just as cutthroat as any other CEO in the business world.
How come we haven't heard from the Irishman. Has he too given up the fight? I heard another school in Orange is also losing their principal after 30 years of service. Maybe we should hook up with them and fight together!
The meeting the other night was ridiculous. No one there had any "authority" to assist the school! Except of course Father Sheehan, but his true colors were defintely showing with the smirk on this face. Does anyone know where Bishop Flesey was? I agree that we can not give up the fight to keep Sister Ellen and Sister Patricia at the helm of the school. I applaud Sister Patricia for her remarks. What about a trip to Newark or to the parish in Franklin Lakes where the bishop presides? We need to speak with someone who can make a decision to correct this injustice. Does the archdiocese really believe that 130 children did not re-register because of the consolidation? Most of the parents I have spoken to have stated it is because of the termination of Sisters. If parents are interested in either a trip to Newark or Franklin Lakes, please let me know. Diane Birchwale
Diane ,
I am happy to join you....
Chrissy Guido
I'm ready, now!!!
What is everyone on vacation? We can't forget our goal.
First, the Newark Archdioesce calls to say that the Archbishop wants to meet with the teachers (The teachers asked for the meeting.) Newark says the teachers MUST attend. So a note goes out to inform the teachers (and parents since after care is closed AND THAT DOES AFFECT US)
Now Newark calls back and screams and hollers...saying WHO ORGANIZED the meeting AND WHAT RIGHT DID THE SISTERS HAVE TO SEND A NOTE TO THE PARENTS about the meeting...(Ummm...hello...since there is NO after care...I DO need to know!)
Now Newark says that the teachers WILL NOT meet with the archbishop.(such a coward)
Gee...the Archdioecese is run just like Father Sheehan runs Notre Dame...complete chaos...and blame everyone else for their foolishness.
How sad! I guess everyone has given up. Too bad he won!
I am the father that stood up and said it was time to move on. I support the Sisters, however, the school is more important than two individuals. If everyone that is "screaming" about the Legacy took time to think about it they would see that pulling their children from the school does not perpetuate the Legacy, it only destroys it. I am appalled that someone that does not know me and who does not have the courage to sign his or her name to their comment has the audacity to state that I have no compassion. I am a parent that pays for his child's education just as the rest of us do, I am also a human being. I do not want to see two people that have dedicated their lives to children treated as such, alas, it is a fact of life that businesses make changes. Sometimes the changes are at the top, sometimes in the middle and sometimes at the bottom. Once a decision is made, it is neary impossible to reverse. It was quite clear at the meeting that whether we like it or not, the ArchDiocese has reached a decision that will not be changed. This decision, if people had been listening was made with the consent and knowledge of the Order that the Sister's belong to. I also heard Sister Patricia state, that the Sisters had been shafted, I believe was the term she used. However, when given the chance to state why they were not given contracts, she kept her right to privacy intact. That is of course her choice, her employer, the ArchDioseces is bound to maintain that privacy. Why did she not divulge the manner in which the Sisters were shafted,and why they were not brought back. And why in God's name are parent's that have already taken their children out of Notre Dame still acting as if they have a right to any say in the operation and administration of the school.
That night after the meeting I spoke to Father Sheehan, no friend of mine, I do not even know the man. I told him I understood that he made a choice that he felt was right. I also told him I thought that choice was wrong, and could have been made in such a way as to avoid what has since transpired.
I will end this comment with one last question. Why do you all feel the need to write comments and then lack the conviction to put your name to your comment, or is there a large family living in the area that is named anonymous?
There are a few things that I disagree with in regards to the previous post:
1.) You talk about the Legacy. There will be no Legacy of Notre Dame whether students stay or leave. When there is a legacy, like a family business…a person is groomed into the culture of the business. They are trained and taught how things should operate. This will not happen at Notre Dame…there was no grooming of the next generation. The culture of Notre Dame has been shattered. There is barely anyone left to “promote” a legacy…with the firing of the sisters, all of the support staff and several (long term) teachers…who is left to pass on the culture of Notre Dame? How can a teacher who has only been there 3 or 4 years tell you what the culture of Notre Dame is? (Not to mention why would you fire teachers that have more experience than others? Ohh..forgot…Father Sheehan…money!) Now, one might state that if everyone didn’t pull their children out that most of these people would still be employed…but you are back to the sisters….the principal of a building sets the tone…they establish the culture. Think about any traditional family…usually grandma and grandpa keep the whole family together…if they “pass away” too early…the traditions are not learned and the family (especially the extended family) drifts apart. The Notre Dame you are getting is not the traditional Catholic school…all you are getting is a brick building…that’s all.
2.) You talk about the “decision” being made with the CONSENT of the sister’s order. You make it sound like the Order agreed with Newark. The “ORDER” had absolutely no power or leverage to go against the Archdiocese. The Dominican nuns are not happy or pleased, but what would you like them to do? They don’t own the schools, convents or have any stockpiles of cash. What would you like them to do?
3.) Any decision can be changed…ANY. The problem is that not enough people cared about Notre Dame. From business decisions to the Constitution of the US…anything can be changed. If enough people want it…they can get it.
4.) You talk about how the sisters had a chance to say how they were “shafted”…yet they “refused” to say how. Considering everything they had was verbal, how do you “prove” the verbal abuse? How do you prove that the priests lied? How do you prove that Father was insisting on changes that would hurt the education of your children? There was no pastor meeting to discuss the nuns termination…that was decided by one man…the early newspaper quotes…prove that….but how do you “show” it when AFTERWARDS the priests “change their story”. How do you show that you were fired for protecting children? (Father wasn’t planning on replacing any teacher that left, he was going to use aides to fill any teacher positions that left during the year. This would hurt your child’s education…the nuns fought and argued against this. Another example is when Father refused to pay for any substitute teachers when a teacher was out…he used aides to fill the position…in other words he took someone who was needed in one class and put them in charge of another….so TWO classes of children were “hurt” this way….a qualified sub was not used and there was less manpower in the original aide’s class. The nuns also fought for you…Father wanted to eliminate the multiple child discount…the nuns fought against this saying it was unfair to families. I don’t know about YOU…but I couldn’t afford $15,000 for my 3 kids’ education. Besides protecting our children, how about the concerns they raised over the consolidation? Father blames the nuns for going to the newspaper…it wasn’t them…it was the parents. But father blamed them and for publicly going against him….look what happened two weeks later…they were fired. Because the nuns never kissed his ass, he was always rude to them…should they keep a record of every insult or rude comment? The nuns WERE shafted. They were shafted because they protected YOU and YOUR child. If they would have just done all the things that father said the sisters would be fine….your child’s education would suck…but the nuns would still have their jobs.
5.) You say that if you’ve taken your child out of Notre Dame…that you don’t have the “right” to say how the school is administered. WHO ARE YOU to say who has the right to be involved and who doesn’t? ANY person who supports Notre Dame has a say in how it should be run. ANY concerned Catholic has a say in how it should be run. ANY caring parishioner has a say in how it should be run. ANY educator who cares about a child’s education has THE RIGHT to say how it should be run. Yes, you ‘pay” for your child to go there…but it doesn’t mean YOU OWN IT. It is a community school…a parish school…not your school.
6.) You also mention that people “lack conviction” since they don’t put there name on their posts. When we vote…we vote anonymously…does this mean we “lack conviction”? When we see something going on and we get involved and then walk away…does this mean that we “lack conviction” since we didn’t get ourselves on TV or in the newspapers? When you donate money to a charity and don’t take credit for it…does that mean you lack “conviction”? Did you ever think that maybe some of the people who are writing are employed or work with the Archdiocese and it could cause them problems? Did you ever think that SOME PEOPLE are overbearing and pushy…so friends of that person don’t want to damage the friendship so they post anonymously so as not to cause conflict? Why does it mater if they post anonymously? Are you planning on confronting the person because you don’t like their opinion? Why does it matter how they post? Even some of the greatest people in history, like Benjamin Franklin wrote articles anonymously!!! Just by participating in this blog…we are showing our conviction. In America, we have the right to the freedom of speech…the right to express OUR opinion…whether or not we “sign” our names.
Signed,
Anonymous (3rd cousin, once removed) :)
Post a Comment