What Happened to the Plan?
There have been some very curious twistings and turnings in the road that led us to the Uniting in Heart 2030 Pastoral Plan. Let’s do a brief recap of the timeline, a needed step before proceeding further.
This whole project kicked off back in 2014. The Faithful completed surveys. The Diocesan Planning Committee visited and interviewed clergy, staff and parishioners at the parishes before its subsequent consultation with the Reid Group. The original Uniting in Heart plan was published in July of 2015.
You can view the full 2015 plan here.
The Voice of the Faithful:
When you read through the 2015 iteration of Uniting in Heart, it describes the needs, hopes, and goals of our parishes and communities. Parishes were asked to decribe: “who we are,” “who we want to become,” “what we do well,” and “what we could do better.”
2015 Goals:
The diocesan leadership shaped specific goals based on this information, including things like:
- Resources for sacramental celebrations (such as training for homilists, musicians, lectors, EMCs, formation in both English & Spanish etc)
- Commitment to evangelization (prayer, “welcome back’ events, formation)
- Train catechetical leaders (formation of catechists & school teachers, Catholic education, domestic Church / family, young adults/youth, vocation awareness, bilingual training, etc)
- Advocacy / good stewardship (direct services to the needy, etc)
- Good administrative policies
The bishop’s letter at the time seemed to give some weight to the opinions of his flock:
“This developmental process also will recognize the right and duty of the lay faithful to help shape the mission of the Church and the secular activities of society.”
The Catholic Moment, July 5, 2015
Notice that the plan embraces prayerful traditions, and lists concrete goals like helping the poor and immigrants and supporting families.
2015 Vision Statement:
The 2015 Vision Statement was formally entrusted to the Blessed Virgin, and highlighted, among other things family faith, welcoming parishes, deep devotion to the Eucharistic sacrifice,
It’s direct, openly devout, and specific.
It also looks nothing like the Uniting in Heart plan we have now.
An Overwrite?
Articles appeared on the topic of UiH every now and then between summer 2015 and spring 2019.
Suddenly, in May of 2019, Uniting in Heart took center stage again, this time with a whole new look, content, direction and vocabulary.
June 2019 brought the very first mention of the 3 Pillars of Mission, Community & Witness, and the Vision Narrative.
The old plan–with its consideration of the expressed needs of the Faithful, its focus on Mary, the Eucharist, the poor, family life, was effectively gone. The new plan made no reference to the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and no specific goals for Catholic life.
Instead this plan’s entire focus now was on a specific flavor of “missionary discipleship.” It spoke in a language of generalities rather than specifics.
Another voice.
If you read the two plans side by side, it would appear to be not so much a revision as a total rewrite–as if the original had been ripped up and a different process begun under the same name, but with a different starting point and different objectives. At least this is how it reads to us.
If so, would it not be fair to say that the voice of the Faithful was replaced with another voice?
The plan was still called Uniting in Heart. the name with which all the laity were by now familiar, a name that would, to the average person, obviously imply a continuance of the goals toward which they had contributed previously.
We encourage you to read both texts yourself and evaluate whether you think the final plan can be characterized as an organic development of the first, just with some revisions, or whether it represents a wholly different vision of the the diocese from the one previously advanced under the same name.
So this brings us to the current version of the plan (March 2020), which so far as we can tell has altered only in respect to the addition of a passing reference to the Virgin Mary, and the inclusion of the Eucharistic Lord. These were added to the plan after people pointed out these significant omissions.
Where did the new plan come from?
We’ve identified some factors that we think contributed to the shaping of the 2019 plan for the diocese.
Readers have already noted the distinctive stamp of Partner’s Edge, a division of TeamWorks International, and their product on UiH 2019. While the diocese did report that it was using a firm called Partner’s Edge, the full extent of what that would mean would likely be lost on the average Catholic. However, this is only one piece of the puzzle.
Our next posts will describe a few other factors that appear to be in play.
Users Today : 15
Total Users : 152647
Total views : 501089
Who's Online : 0
31 Replies to “What Happened to the Plan?”
Why continue to have a parish? Just have divisions like the NFL and call each team a cluster – with the “old parishes” farm clubs of the cluster. That way it can have the need for fewer “good old Bishops boys” in charge of the cluster.
Please don’t give them any more ideas. They have already created enough chaos and damage. It is well to remember that St. Augustine quote, “Peace is the tranquility of order.”
This is the season of the coming of the Prince of Peace. May He restore order and peace in all of our hearts.
Don’t worry. Our diocesan leadership is incapable of original thought. Unless “clusters” are specifically mentioned as an option somewhere in their store-bought, one-size-fits-all, USCCB-approved, decline-management plan, AND the overpaid consultants actually running the show authorize the implementation of said “clusters”, things aren’t going to change. Financially-weak parishes will only close once they’ve been utterly bled-dry and there is no hope that there are any boomers with checkbooks left in those parishes. Until then, our priests will be forced to drive all over the diocese offering mass for ten people at this parish and for six people at that parish, etc… until the last OSV offering envelope is dropped. Mark my words: It’s all about the money.
It’s pretty easy to predict these people and see things as they are (as hard as it is to stomach) once you substitute the “saving souls lens” (the true mission of the Church) with the “hoarding cash lens” (the mission of the ape of the Church).
Two words keep coming up a lot. Bureaucratic and corporate. An authoritarian, top-down, centralized, clustered approach works for a business. Can priests and the faithful thrive in this? I’ve spoken to many priests who are very unhappy with the plan. Many of them do not want to live and work like this.
Actually the top-down, centralized, clustered approach is perfect if your objective is to manage the decline of your business. It assumes everyone under you (including your customers) are stupid and easily manipulated. It ignores what grew the business in the first place and destructively believes the good old days could never come again. It is essentially a tool for cowards to drain what little gas is left in the tank in the hopes of covering present expenses while punting the responsibility for actually repairing the damage to their successors. The damage done to the Church is a profound lack of supernatural faith and no zeal to save souls. United in Heart will just be yet another obstacle to overcome as the faithful find alternative ways to stay close to the church’s teachings and her sacraments so as to achieve life’s goal: Heaven.
Dissenters of the information posted on this site have claimed this site is trying to tear down the church, but I see no evidence of this. I see people concerned about their church, their priests, their parishes, their diocese. I for one want to see my parish and all parishes of this diocese thrive and I disagree that this plan is the way to make that happen.
Well said.
I agree. It’s a typical move to say “You disagree with me, so I guess you want to tear everything down!” It’s not that black and white. Many people have grown to love their priests and they don’t like seeing them unhappy at the hands of their superiors. If the bishop wants to treat the church like a business, then let’s play along: Dispirited employees (clergy) creates low sales (souls who pitch money in the plate). A contrived gimmicky sales plan (United in Heart) + dispirited employees + low sales equals a future “Going Out of Business Sale” of diocesan proportions. Any questions?
Why were laymen instructed to not discuss any negative viewpoints to the plan at these meetings, and why were they instructed they could not even discuss negative viewpoints in private? Are we bound to obedience to the bishop to follow such an order? I would like to be shown by “Disgruntled Catholic” where in canon law the laymen under the bishop of a diocese are not allowed to disagree publicly or privately with information about a proposed plan by the diocese.
Can. 212
§1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
I say amen to this comment. I was at one of the afternoon meetings, and I can assure you that there was NO TIME OR OPPORTUNITY GIVEN FOR ANYONE TO RAISE HIS OR HER HAND AND SPEAK HIS OR HER MIND, OR EVEN TO ASK A QUESTION. We listened to bureaucratic gobblety-gook for about an hour and received glossy, expensive handouts full of statistics, and maps that turned out to be misleading at best. Then we were dismissed, with each of carrying home the written message that warned us not to speak in public or private against the plan (and by the way, it is rather disingenuous at this point for Disgruntled Catholic to try to spin that warning as “speaking out publicly (by attaching a name to it) or privately (by remaining anonymous).” We read it as the totalitarian warning that it was.
I am active in my parish, but I did not hear anything about these feedback sessions. Is it really true they were held on weekdays in the middle of the day when most of us would not be able to attend? Why was I not notified of these listening sessions? I did not see any announcements in my parish bulletin. Even if I had known, I would not have been able to attend if the days and times of these meetings are true.
Gee, why would the meetings be made so inconvenient? Were they merely to “check a box” and allow the Dividers In Heart to later say, “You had your chance to speak up”? It makes one think. And why the change in direction with the Dividing in Heart plan? Why the changing of the horse midstream, so to speak? Did the Reid Group not generate enough catchy slogans? Did they not sufficiently obfuscate the real purpose of the program, i.e. controlled demolition? So many questions…
Yes, the one I went to was in the middle of the afternoon of a weekday. Many in my group that came had to take time off from work to go. We almost didn’t hear about it.
Thank you to those who are digging into this Uniting in Heart 2030 plan. I think to most of us laymen this is all new information that is helping us really understand what was behind the announcements we heard a few weeks back.
Thank you for digging in and doing this research. It’s enlightening!
I find it hard to refer to this “news source” as credible when you won’t say who you are. I actually think you’re a bit of a coward to do this. I don’t believe you have the right intentions at all. And I think it’s super comical that you’re actually stirring people up to believe you, when you yourself have absolutely no idea what you are talking about lol
Do then enlighten us all. What exactly are we all talking about with UIH? If the wolves do not know whereof they speak…and perhaps they do not. And if people cannot give what they do not have, there is only one remedy, namely that those diocesan officials who know about matters should thoroughly enlighten the wolves, myself, and the whole diocese really. I cannot speak for the wolves, but feel rather certain they would be overjoyed, whoever they are, to be enlightened about the matter. It is rather like a game of cards. To call their bluff, the diocese must show its cards so to speak.
“Overjoyed whoever they are” as if it is not you who speaks such slander.
What’s the slander? For a statement to be slander, it must be false. Which statement did Doc make that was false? For a statement to be slander, it must also damage a person’s reputation. Whose reputation has Doc injured? Mere CRITICISM is not slander, especially if it is true. If you have proof that something Red Wolf has said is untrue, then produce the evidence.
Why would those running this blog say who there are? Have you not read the posts and comments stating the fear of people in this diocese, including the priests themselves?
This site has given voice to the Faithful who have had no voice until now. This isn’t about tearing down the church or the diocese. This is about understanding what is happening and why. If the current state of diocese is dire and changes need to happen in order to sustain the diocese for the future then the diocese should come out say exactly what they are doing and why, instead of silencing the priests, the diocesan workers and even attempting to silence the Faithful.
This is insightful, and this has been stated by other readers elsewhere in these comments. The diocese (the bishop, specifically, and his messengers) need to be honest about the real endgame of “Uniting In Heart”, to wit: the closure of parishes and deconsecration of churches. This process of accelerationism which has also been noted by commenters is part of the plan- a shattered parish is an easily shuttered parish, as one reader put it. Other justifications (many of which are wholly disingenuous) notwithstanding, the main purpose of the mass migration of pastors is to reset, destabilize and then see who can weather the storm. Those who can’t raise sufficient funds… lights out. It’s a cruel, inorganic means of achieving attrition but – quite by design- is one that leaves the bishop “blameless” and leaves the faithful without recourse under canon law. But it fails to pass the smell test in so many ways, and fails the requirements of charity altogether.
You’re doing a great job tearing people apart for no reason! Keep going, you’re doing God’s work and being a true disciple of Christ! Good for you! You obviously know what you are talking about lol. The sad thing is people are actually listening to you and thinking you are correct lol
“No reason” is I think not quite fair. If the Hartford scenario referenced in an earlier post is indicative, people may not lose only beloved pastors or the independence of the parish, but the parish all together along with its building. And they are not apparently being offered a terribly great deal in return. While I am not a lupine author, and have always been more partial to blue really rather than red, I am rather inclined to defend him or she or them (perhaps it is a wolf pack).
When you say “You obviously know what you are talking about lol.” it is an obvious sarcastic assertion that they do not know what they are talking about. But then again the fact that the laity do not know the ins and outs of this affair..well that really IS the problem isn’t it?
And what is the source of this paucity of information. If one “does the math,” the source of the lack of clarity is not the ..erm….lupus ruber. And what is more, save the production of justifying information, would it not be equally fair to claim that UIH is actually more likely to tear people apart, for no known reason?
I think you’re so passionate because it’s you. Which is fine but for someone that calls for so much transparency I’d like you to be just as honest! For someone that proves to want the best for the church, I’m surprised you’re not a priest yourself!
I don’t think I’m the only person buying that Red is not your color. Where is the wolf pack defending this isn’t you? Where the wolf pack after they make these posts? Sounds like they get pleasure letting everyone go at it and just watching lol.
That which begins in error generally end there alas. I can honestly before God say I am not the wolf, nor one of the authors ( or the author whichever it actually is). Bias admission though, I really must admit that I do thoroughly detest and distrust bureaucracy. It has perhaps colored my sympathies…. red..as it would seem.
How are they incorrect then? lol
Maybe people are listening to it because there is truth in it? lol
What’s this about a Lily grant in the timeline picture? How did this come about? How much money was the grant for? What were the conditions for the grant? Did the plan have to be implemented within a certain time frame in order for the funds to be released?
Hear, here. This is a trail worth following. Stay with it, Red Wolf! You have attracted enough attention to have some naysayers… I’d say that means you’re over the target!