An Open Letter to St. Philip Parish Pastor Fr. James Torquato, His Response, & The Committee's Latest

Exposing Fr. Torquato’s “Response” to Questions from The Committee to Save St. Philip School—A Synopsis

March 21, 2021

In a March 20 letter to the St. Philip Community, our Pastor, Fr. Torquato, gave his response to our March 10 open letter, which asked 25 questions regarding the proposed closure of St. Philip School, his administration of the Parish, and the state of School and Parish finances.

We hope you’ll read our full letter responding to Father Torquato’s response.

Here is a synopsis of our letter:

Father Torquato’s response answered none of our questions and specifically said NOTHING about:

• His complete reversal on the solution for the merged school—from keeping St. Philip School open for K-8 education to closing the School entirely;

• His complete reversal on the School’s financial condition—from “doing well” and “has a strong enrollment” to untenable and unsustainable;

• His complete reversal on the amount of Parish subsidy needed for the School—from likely to be far less “now and in the coming years” to so unaffordable it would ruin the Parish;

• His failure to account for $300,000+ in federal COVID relief funds received by the Parish and/or School;

• The estimated $800,000+ in Parish coffers;

• His total failure to openly and honestly inform parishioners on the SRCES Board process; or

• Whether it’s true he plans to sell off the Ascension worship site, and more.

Fr. Torquato’s “response” was nothing more than a continuation of the secrecy that delegitimizes the entire SRCES Board process. His letter shows that he expects the faithful of St. Philip to stay silent, question nothing, and simply accept the demise of our beloved School and whatever other secret plans may be in store for our Parish.

As parishioners and school families, we cannot and will not stand idly by as unsubstantiated decisions destructive of so much we hold dear are made in secret. Our Parish is at stake. Our community is at stake. Our children’s futures are at stake. It’s time we had a Pastor who takes seriously his duty to protect and preserve our Parish.

The Committee to Save St. Philip School

Exposing St. Philip Parish Pastor Fr. James Torquato’s “Response” to The

Committee to Save St. Philip School’s March 10 Open Letter

March 21, 2021

Dear St. Philip Parish and School Community Members:

Thank you for your continued prayers and support for our effort to save St. Philip School. Your dedication and commitment to our School are inspiring. We promised to keep each of you informed of our efforts and to ensure that the truth is spoken. The time has come for more truth.

On March 4, our Committee sent a letter requesting a meeting with Fr. Torquato. He did not answer. On March 10, we sent Fr. Torquato an open letter asking serious questions regarding the proposed closing of the School, the Parish’s financial condition, and Fr. Torquato’s administration of the Parish. Yesterday, Fr. Torquato sent a letter purporting to respond to our letter. Unfortunately, it responds to NOTHING and is just more stonewalling and secrecy—the furthest thing from openness and transparency.

As a result, we soon will do what we said in our open letter we would do if Fr. Torquato refused to answer us—ask Bishop Zubik, the Diocese, and the SRCES Board to investigate, answer our questions, and provide supporting documentation for its answers.

The following is a synopsis of how Fr. Torquato addressed the questions in our March 10 letter:

QUESTIONS FR. TORQUATO DID NOT ANSWER

Question 1, on the October 2020 agreement to keep St. Philip School open as a K-8 School.

Question 2, on his saying a month later that keeping St. Philip and St. Margaret open was the better proposal.

Question 3, on his saying at that time that St. Philip School is “doing well,” “has a strong enrollment” and that “the subsidy from the parish is expected to be reduced significantly.”

Question 4, on his December 2020 about-face, saying that Archangel Gabriel School was “the future.”

Question 5, on his failing to inform parishioners pre-decision that our Parish could not sustain the School.

Question 6, on whether he met with St. Margaret and Archangel Gabriel Pastors outside of regular SRCES Board meetings to formulate the plan to close St. Philip School.

Question 7, on financial data from the Diocese, which contradicted that provided by St Philip.

Question 8, on whether he questioned Fr. Poecking’s presidency of the board, given that his parish, Archangel Gabriel, has the most to gain from closing St. Philip School.

Question 9, on why he recently called the $255,000 school subsidy for 2019-2020 “incredible” when it was $50,000 less than the year before, and, as he himself said, will likely be far less “now and in the coming years.”

Question 10, on why an estimated $300,000+ in federal COVID relief was omitted from the 2019-20 Parish financial report.

Question 11, on how much in additional COVID relief funds has been or will be requested beyond that amount.

Question 12, on how much parishioners have donated to his “Pandemic Appeal”.

Question 13, on what happened to a $50,000 grant to the School received in September 2020.

Question 14, on how much money is in the Parish savings account.

Question 15, on how much money has been spent on work on/in the rectory since his arrival.

Question 16, on an estimate of over $800,000 total in Parish coffers.

Question 17, on having no consultation with the Parish Finance Council on the school merger.

Question 18, on where the assertion that the Parish School subsidy could not continue came from.

Question 19, on knowing that our Parish would still pay a school subsidy with or without our School.

Question 20, on whether he even toured St. Margaret campus before voting to close our School.

Question 21, on whether he knew the estimated cost of repairs to both school campuses.

Question 22, on whether he knew the cost of adding capacity/amenities to St. Margaret School.

Question 23, on whether he and the board discussed how many students would be lost in the merger.

Question 24, on why he never told parishioners or School families of their canon-law rights to appeal.

Question 25, on whether he’s planning to sell the Ascension worship site.

QUESTIONS FR. TORQUATO DID ANSWER

None.

What Fr. Torquato’s letter actually says is baseless, misleading, and irrelevant. First, he claims “an ethical obligation” not to disclose “specific conversations” or “communications within the context” of SRCES meetings. This from someone who (i) failed to fight for and try to save our School, just days after writing that the best option would involve keeping our School open; (ii) omitted hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal pandemic relief from the 2019-20 Parish financial report; (iii) still has not provided a 2019-20 School financial report; (iv) has not disclosed work on the St. Philip rectory or the cost of that work; and (v) refuses to disclose other information about our Parish and School financial condition, just to name a few. It is more than a little ironic that he would now claim an “ethical obligation” to continue keeping secrets from us, the parishioners he serves.

Nor can Fr. Torquato’s claimed duty to keep secrets be squared with how open and transparent the process of closing our School supposedly was. The good news is, there is an easy solution to this: the SRCES can and should waive the vow of secrecy it apparently has extracted from its directors and free them to speak honestly about a closed and shrouded process. This would be fully consistent with the openness and transparency the SRCES has repeatedly touted—and is the very least we all deserve.

In the end, Fr. Torquato does not deny our letter’s detailed description of his communications—often with direct quotations—because he knows it is accurate. And it confirms that Fr. Torquato—unlike other pastors on the SRCES Board—made no effort to save our School. He all but gave it away, yet now disclaims any responsibility for having done so.

Second, Fr. Torquato says “many” St. Philip families have accepted the decision and are enrolling their students in the merged school, while only “[s]ome” have not. THAT IS FALSE. 80% of current School parents have signed mandates supporting our appeal to overturn the closure of our School. And as of this week, we know from the SRCES itself that only 105 students have registered in the newly merged school— roughly 30% of the more than 330 current students at St. Philip and St. Margaret Schools combined.

Third, Fr. Torquato says—with no support—that locating the merged school at St. Margaret and not St. Philip “is the best solution for continuing and providing Catholic elementary education in our local area.” Why? He gives no reasons. It cannot be the quality and condition of the respective buildings, their capacity to accommodate enrollment growth, or their location. Nor can it be the standards of academic excellence, history and rich heritage, commitment to faith and moral formation, or importance of the institution to its

surrounding community.

Fourth, citing ZERO EXAMPLES, Fr. Torquato claims he has done his “utmost to assist the school and the parish throughout this process.” Like what? He doesn’t say he fought for our school, tried to convince the SRCES Board that it should stay open, or anything of the sort. That’s because he didn’t. Indeed, he all but admits to his forfeiting of our School, noting “consensus” among the SRCES directors—and he was one of them—“in favor of the Saint Margaret campus.” In other words, Fr. Torquato voted to close our School.

Fifth, Fr. Torquato points to the fact that when he arrived, St. Philip School “was already made part of the South Region.” If by that he means he had no duty to advocate for our Parish and School, that is a sad and shocking claim—and surely a surprise to those of us parishioners and School parents who have a very different understanding of a parish Pastor’s role. And, as the Committee’s impending appeal to the Vatican will make clear, that attempted usurpation of our School from our Parish violated canon law and does nothing to cure the invalidity of the Bishop’s closure decision.

Finally, Fr. Torquato maintains a supposed “need” for the Parish to provide a “significant” subsidy to St. Philip School going forward and points to “past” School subsidies as proof. In fact, the evidence refutes this, since (i) the past subsidies were paid in years where there were large retirement and other costs associated with higher-paid veteran teachers, and (ii) during the current school year, the Parish has paid only a $30,000 subsidy to the School and likely will pay little, if any, more than that prior to end of the school year.

All of this is just another distraction because Fr. Torquato does not answer a SINGLE ONE of our questions relating to finances. His refusal to mention the federal pandemic relief funds is especially troubling because he acknowledged the receipt of those funds in a late July 2020 bulletin, but later omitted them completely from the fiscal year 2019-20 Parish financial report and denied any knowledge of them in a recent email to a fourth-generation St. Philip parishioner and current School parent. And he won’t even tell us about his plans to sell Ascension. Why the secrets? Is it because the Parish is actually in a strong financial position, which would undermine the stated rationale for closing our School? We believe—in fact, we are convinced— that the answer is YES.

Like all of you, we are longtime St. Philip parishioners and St. Philip School alumni, parents, donors, and volunteers. We have asked serious questions to which we—all of us—have a right to know the answers. Did Fr. Torquato hope he could issue a letter he called a “response” and that no one would read it and notice it was anything but? We deserve answers—and if our own pastor won’t provide them, Bishop Zubik and the Diocese must because the fate of our Parish itself hangs in the balance.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

The Committee to Save St. Philip School

Father Torquato's Response Below:

An Open Letter to St. Philip Parish Pastor Fr. James Torquato

March 10, 2021

Via Email—jtorquato@diopitt.org

Dear Fr. Torquato:

Last Thursday, March 4, the undersigned members of the Committee to Save St. Philip School sent a letter requesting a meeting with you. We hoped you would provide answers to the questions that hundreds (if not thousands) of parishioners and St. Philip School (the “School”) students, parents, faculty, staff, alumni and benefactors have relating to the proposed closing of the School and the Parish’s financial condition, and convey your support for our efforts to save the School. Unfortunately, you have not even responded to our letter. Because you apparently will not meet with your own parishioners and St. Philip School parents, let alone acknowledge our request, we are compelled to present here the questions that we had hoped to ask you in person.

We are also sending this letter to Bishop Zubik, Father DiNardo, Father Kunz, Father Sioli, Father Gizler, the South Regional Catholic Elementary Schools (“SRCES”) Board members, the St. Philip Parish Finance Council members, St. Philip Parish Pastoral Council members, current School parents, and many of the thousands of parishioners, School parents, students, alumni, and donors, and others who have signed mandates supporting our appeal of Bishop Zubik’s decision to close the School or otherwise have expressed support for our efforts.

We are sure that you, as well as all those copied, will agree that the questions detailed below raise serious and important issues concerning the administration of St. Philip Parish (the “Parish”), the communication (or not) of vital information to the Parish and School communities, and the decision-making process resulting in the decision to close St. Philip School. Every member of the St. Philip Parish and School communities deserves immediate, complete, and honest answers to these questions, with documentation supporting the answers as appropriate. And if you are not going to answer our questions, we respectfully submit that the Diocese and Bishop Zubik should compel you to do so—or promptly investigate and provide the answers themselves.

Question: Is it true that in October 2020, you, Fr. Grecco (pastor of St. Margaret of Scotland Parish), and the principals of St. Philip and St. Margaret Schools reached a consensus or agreement on a school model that would keep St. Philip School open as a K-8 school? Is it true the agreed-upon model was then described and presented to a committee of St. Philip and St. Margaret stakeholders—as well as to SRCES Board President, Fr. Poecking—in an October 2020 meeting?

Question: Is it true that just a few weeks later, in early November, you wrote that “[w]e believe that the proposal of having Saint Philip School as Grades K-8 and Saint Margaret School as Grades Preschool – 5 is, in fact, the better proposal to keep Catholic education viable for both parishes”?

Question: Is it true that you also said at that time that St. Philip School “is still doing well even now—and still has a strong enrollment”; that “the subsidy from the parish is expected to be reduced significantly now and in the coming years”; that the “Diocese was very generous in forgiving the entire $1.2 million Legacy Debt of Saint Philip Parish in 2020”; and that the “situation at Saint Philip School is stable” (emphasis added)?

Question: Is it true that you made it known to any or all members of the SRCES Board—either in Board meetings or in private conversations with, or communications to, Board members—that you did not want a school at the St. Philip site? Is it true that you made it known to any or all members of the SRCES Board—either in Board meetings or in private conversations with, or communications to, Board members—

that you/the Parish could not financially support a school at the St. Philip site? If yes to either question, when did you make this known to any or all members of the SRCES Board?

Question: Is it true that in December 2020, you asked the SRCES Board whether closing both St. Philip and St. Margaret Schools was still an option, and further stated to the Board that a combination with SRCES Board President Fr. Poecking’s parish school, Archangel Gabriel, was “the future”?

Question: Is it true that, prior to the February 12, 2021, decision announcing the Bishop’s decision to close St. Philip School, you did not specifically advise and inform the Parish or School communities that (a) you had told the SRCES that the Parish could not sustain the School or (b) the Parish could not in fact sustain the School? If not, why not?

Question: Please reveal the contents of your meetings and conversations with Fr. Poecking, President of the SRCES Board, and Fr. Grecco, St. Margaret Pastor (and, possibly, others), regarding the future of St. Philip and St. Margaret Schools, particularly on or after November 9, 2020, and prior to or on December 4, 2020. During that time or otherwise, did the three of you come to an agreement or understanding—or was an agreement or understanding imposed upon or suggested to you, Fr. Torquato, and/or to Fr. Grecco—that, upon merger of the two schools, St. Philip School would close and the new school would be situated at the current St. Margaret School, on condition that the soon-to-be new St. Raphael Parish approved of this arrangement?

Question: Is it true that you were presented with or informed of budget and financial data and projections for St. Philip Parish and School prepared by the Diocese and Roy Cartier, the Diocese’s Assistant Superintendent for Finance? If so, when were you presented with or informed of these data and projections? Is it true that these data and projections related to the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, not the most recent 2019-

20 school year? Is it further true that the Diocese’s/Mr. Cartier’s data and projections conflicted with and/or differed from those you and Parish/School personnel independently had prepared and determined? Please provide us with the Diocese’s/Mr. Cartier’s aforementioned data and projections.

Question: Given that SRCES Board President Father Poecking is the pastor of Archangel Gabriel Parish, whose school directly competes with St. Philip School for student enrollment, did you ever question—as the St. Philip pastor—whether Fr. Poecking should have any role in the process of deciding whether to merge or close St. Philip School?

Question: Is it true that for the current school year (2020-21), to date the Parish has paid St. Philip School only a small fraction of the subsidy budgeted for this school year, which would reflect the presently sound financial condition of the School? How much specifically has the Parish paid the School in subsidy payments for the current school year? Have you reported on this to the Parish and School communities? If not, why not? Please provide documentation that shows any subsidy payments the Parish has made to the School for the 2020-21 school year.

Question: Why, in the Week of February 14, 2021 bulletin, do you refer to the $255,000 school subsidy paid during the 2019-20 school year as “incredible” and “enormous” without also mentioning that:

(a) that subsidy payment was $50,000 less than what the Parish paid the school the previous year (2018-19);

(b) the $255,000 subsidy paid last year largely reflected retirement-package payouts to several recently retired, higher-paid, veteran teachers at the School;

(c) the Parish likely will not come anywhere close to paying $255,000 in school subsidy this school year; or

(d) the Parish long has budgeted for and paid similar if not greater subsidies to the School?

Question: We understand that the Parish and/or School received federal pandemic relief funds (PPP or other) in 2020. When were those funds received? Is it true that the amount of those funds was in excess of $300,000? Is it true that the fact and amount of the pandemic relief funds the Parish and/or School received in 2020 have not yet been reported publicly to St. Philip parishioners or the St. Philip School community in bulletins or otherwise?

Question: Beyond the funds received in 2020 referenced in the previous question, have the Parish and/or School applied for and/or received additional federal pandemic relief funds? Are the Parish and/or School in the process of applying for such additional funds? Do the Parish and/or School presently plan to apply for such additional funds? If yes to any of these questions, how much money in such funds have the Parish and/or School received, asked for, or plan to receive?

Question: To date, how much money has the Parish collected through its “Pandemic Appeal” campaign begun in the fourth quarter of 2020? You have publicly reported the percentage of Parish families who have contributed to this “Appeal,” but have you reported the amount collected to the Parish or School communities? If not, why not?

Question: In your Notes in the Week of September 20, 2020 bulletin, you reference a $50,000 grant provided to the School. What happened to that grant money? If it has not yet been used on or for the benefit of the School as directed, why not?

Question: We understand that the Diocesan Deposit and Loan Program account referred to in the 2019-20 Parish financial report published in the St. Philip Parish bulletin in early December 2020 is the Parish’s savings account. According to that report, that account held over $230,000 as of June 30, 2020. As of March 5, 2021, how much money was in that account?

Question: Many St. Philip School families and Parish members have seen contractors entering and exiting the St. Philip rectory for many months. What work have these contractors done on, in, or related in any way to the rectory since your tenure as pastor began? How much money have you spent on that work—whether it is for renovations, furnishings, décor, electrical, plumbing, or any other work done on, in, or related to any aspect of the St. Philip rectory? Did you report this spending to the Parish Finance Council, the Parish Pastoral Council, the Parish at large, the School community, or the Diocese? What, if anything, did the Diocese say or do in response to your expenditures?

Question: We believe the funds the Parish presently has in its savings account, together with (i) the Parish Share overage it was allowed to keep (as reflected in the published 2019-20 Parish financial report), (ii) what the Parish has received in federal pandemic relief and through the “Pandemic Appeal” campaign, and (iii) the aforementioned $50,000 grant, amount to more than $800,000 at a minimum, and likely approach $1 million or more. Given this, how can you credibly claim—as you did in the Week of February 14, 2021 bulletin, just before the Bishop announced his decision to close St. Philip School—that lower parish contributions and the payment of subsidies to St. Philip School have “depleted our parish’s financial reserves”? Please show us how you reached this conclusion and who gave you the data that support it.

Question: Is it true that you did not consult with or receive meaningful or any input from the Parish Finance Council regarding the St. Philip School merger discussions, and led the Council to believe St. Philip School would not be closed in connection with a merger?

Question: Why didn’t you engage the entire Parish and School communities once you determined—if in fact you genuinely did determine—that financial reasons supposedly required the School to close and/or prevented the Parish from continuing to support it?

Question: In the Week of February 14, 2021 bulletin, you say that you’ve “been told” that the Parish school subsidy “can no longer be continued if the parish itself is to continue.” Who told you that? Does the Parish Finance Council agree with this assertion? What is the basis for this assertion? Please provide us with the data, reports, and projections that support this assertion.

Question: Is it true that, at least as early as December 2020, you knew that regardless of where the new merged school would be located, St. Philip Parish still would be obligated to make a substantial six-figure subsidy payment to support the school? If yes, why didn’t you tell parishioners and School families about this until after the Bishop’s decision was made—well over a month after the Board voted to close St. Philip School, and two months after the Board clearly signaled the likelihood that St. Philip School would close?

Question: Did you and/or other members of the SRCES Board thoroughly tour both the inside and surrounding recess and parking areas of both St. Philip and St. Margaret School campuses, especially in regards to (i) existing traffic safety involving pick-up, drop-off and recess for students; (ii) existing barriers to strangers easily accessing outdoor recess areas; (iii) existing security systems for entering facilities at all school building entrances; (iv) existing academic amenities at both schools; and (v) existing capacity to adequately house both current student bodies and accommodate future growth? If so, on what dates did you complete these tours and which Board members were in attendance?

Question: Did you and/or other SRCES Board members assess the cost of repairs needed to both school campuses over the next 5-10 years? If so, please provide any data or assessments in that regard.

Question: Did you and/or other SRCES Board members factor into your decision the cost of adding academic amenities, enrollment capacity, security systems, traffic safety, and updated technology to either of the school campuses should any of these critical features to school success and student safety be lacking in the chosen campus? If so, what are the estimated costs of adding these critical features to the St. Margaret campus?

Question: Did you and/or other SRCES Board members discuss the proven trend of the closed school losing the most enrollment in a merger when evaluating the decision on where to locate the merged school? And if so, what were the reasons given to risk losing much higher enrollment by closing the St. Philip campus if you indeed are committed to the success of the merged school?

Question: Did you know that St. Philip parishioners and parents of St. Philip students had the right under canon law to appeal the Bishop’s decision within 10 days? If so, why didn’t you tell your own parishioners and Parish school families they had this right?

Question: If St. Philip School is closed, what will it be used for? Are there existing plans for what it will be used for?

Question: Is it true that you plan or intend to sell the Ascension worship site in Ingram. If so, why haven’t you informed the Parish of this? Have you consulted your Parish Finance or Pastoral Councils on the planned sale of Ascension?

As Catholics, our first concern in all matters is truth. Again, in the matter of the proposed closing of our sound, storied and beloved school, we ask that you help us to know it fully.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Committee to Save St. Philip School

Colin & Marie Wrabley – St. Philip School (SPS) alumni, parents of four SPS alumni and two current SPS students, longtime SPS athletic coaches, volunteers, and donors

Emily Anselm – Mother of three SPS alumni and one current SPS student, longtime SPS volunteer and donor, parishioner

Alexis Barone-Katze – SPS alumna, mother of one current SPS student, one future SPS student, life-long parishioner, donor, and volunteer at St. Philip Parish (formerly Ascension

Jessica Bittner – SPS alumna, mother of one SPS alumnus and two current SPS students, longtime SPS volunteer and donor, and parishioner

Sharon Gaitens – SPS alumna, mother of four SPS alumni, longtime SPS PTG President, volunteer and donor, and parishioner

Michael & Elvira Hoff – Parents of three SPS alumni, longtime SPS volunteers and donors, and parishioners

Alex Sinicrope – Mother of one current SPS student, longtime SPS volunteer, parishioner

Brandi Meredith – Mother of two current SPS students, longtime SPS volunteer, parishioner