"Facts" Concerning the Salt Lake City Situation - ONE & TWO

Note: The Metropolitan's "facts" are highlighted.

1. The present organizational structure of the Community is an anomaly and is not covered by the Uniform Parish Regulations of the Archdiocese.


It is in no way the fault of this unique, and not anomalous (to the Metropolitan's mind), community that the recent UPRs of the ARCHDIOCESE (there is, by the way, a similar situation to ours in the Archdiocesan District) were passed without proper representation and proper CONSIDERATION for the needs of ALL concerned. (Yes, we know that the authors of the UPRs, who sold the laity out COMPLETELY, addressed these problems in the usual cavalier way of banana republics - by telling us we were not ALLOWED to object whether we were represented or not.)

Based on this “fact”, the Metropolitan, along with a small minority in this community, seeks to:

• rescind the expressed wishes of the founders of this community, who put procedures in place designed to maintain unity in a unique religious and secular situation; 
• demand HALF this community's assets for a minority of less than 15% as measured by THEIR OWN SURVEY, with questions that they themselves composed; when the numbers didn't meet their expectations, they sought a back-door route, continuing to do so in spite of growing opposition to this action;
• brush aside civil property matters with regard to this community’s collectively owned assets;
• ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority of faithful stewards in this community, who steadfastly honor the intent and sacrifices of their ancestors.

2. The article which most closely identifies with correcting the Salt Lake City matter, which has two houses of worship under one parish council, is found in the Uniform Parish Regulations of the Archdiocese in Article 23, which states that a parish shall have only one church edifice. This article alludes to the administrative structure of a parish, as well as the canonical and spiritual.

We don’t need or want this sort of “correcting”. Again, this community is unique; this fact was recognized by discerning bishops in decades prior, and should be so decades hence, until such time as this community chooses, with the proper MAJORITY, to follow the established local procedures for such action.

The administrative structure of this parish had worked quite well until the clergy, under these "new rules" tried to stifle the voice of the majority with regard to governance. They did so in order to satisfy their overarching need for control, and to satisfy the insular ambitions of the very few. Insofar as “the canonical and spiritual”, yet again the Metropolitan alludes to canons never cited.

Finally, we would ask what the Metropolitan means by asserting (again, with no proof) that there has been spiritual impairment in this community for the previous 100 years? Is the Metropolitan implying that our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents - those brave, pious souls who gave so much to the Church - were and are spiritually impaired?