Priests say Brooklyn pol meddled in parish closings
From time to time I’ve posted on the political relationship between Brooklyn’s Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio and Vito Lopez, the Brooklyn Democratic boss and a New York state assemblyman who helped the bishop defeat a proposed bill to lift the statute of limitations on sex-abuse lawsuits.
The bishop made robo-calls for Lopez last year. More recently, the bishop’s office published an article in the diocesan newspaper that praised Lopez effusively (but did not mention that he is pro-choice on abortion) on the weekend before the Democratic primary in September.
The discontent that many clergy and religious in the Brooklyn diocese have with this burst out today on the front page of today’s New York Daily News, which featured an article in which two prominent priests asserted that their parishes were targeted for closure because they had tangled with Lopez.
The bishop’s spokesman denies it. So does a spokesperson for Lopez. The article doesn’t offer any evidence for the priests’ assertion.
Both priests are widely respected for long-time devotion to Brooklyn’s poor. Monsignor John Powis helped the late Bishop Francis Mugavero to create the nationally known Nehemiah Program, model for much inner-city housing and renewal.
It’s not surprising that these two priests would be suspicious of their bishop’s relationship with Lopez – who is currently the focus of two federal investigations and one city investigation. What is newsworthy, to me, is that the discontent many clergy feel is being voiced on the record for all to see.
It’s no secret that oer the years a memnber(members) of the hierarchy will join up with politician(s) to help with a big concern of theirs.
Lopez was a big man in squelching the SOL legislation in New yotk – hardly the most important doctrinal matter and the priests speaking up say this was done at the expense of the poor and least powerful -hardly Christlike of the Bishop.
But, as in the world of today where all that matters is money/power, the needy are expendable to protect the episcopal priorities.
A bishop colluding with a politician! A politician in bed with church hierarchy!
Gracious me; what are this church and world coming to?
Talk about belaboring the obvious.
“The bishop’s spokesman denies it. So does a spokesperson for Lopez. The article doesn’t offer any evidence for the priests’ assertion.”
So we shouldn’t assume it’s true, right?
I would definitely assume it’s true. Vito Lopez also tried to shut down two community-based groups in Williamsburg for the exact same reason: supporting Councilwoman Reyna, rather than the machine candidate. This is Lopez’ modus operandi and why people are so afraid to oppose him. And, for me, a bishop (or anyone else) that has a close relationship with such a man has very little credibility. What’s that saying about lying down with dogs?
Joe K,
Are you serious, sarcastic or naive?
I just like to have some evidence before I declare someone guilty.
“Pastors at all four parishes allowed supporters of City Councilwoman Diana Reyna (D-Bushwick) to campaign outside their churches before the 2009 city elections, handing out material critical of Lopez and his handpicked challenger to Reyna, Powis said.”
Is that level of parish political involvement typical? Active campaigning would be frowned upon in my little corner of the world.
The American bishops are a lamentably political over the spiritual group. America Magazine finds lots of fault with the American bishops. Does this ever apply to DiMarzio. An excerpt: ” As the bishops meet in Baltimore this week, the political climate and economic crisis demand they consider the effectiveness of their teaching the full range of Catholic social doctrine.
Every Catholic and every American citizen knows the church’s teaching on abortion and marriage. The same cannot be said for the rest of Catholic social teaching. This has consequences for both American public life and for the church.
Few Americans citizens or politicians, including Catholics, are aware of the church’s teaching that government is necessary to serve the common good; the importance of solidarity with all of the vulnerable, not just the ones we consider innocent or worthy; and, most importantly at this hour, the fact that subsidiarity cuts both ways, limiting government intervention and demanding it when necessary.
These Catholic teachings are under fire: Glen Beck warns millions of faithful listeners to run from any church that preaches social justice. Anti-immigrant extremists like Sherriff Joseph Arpaio are folk heroes (a textbook case of the Catholic definition of causing “scandal”). Tea Party denunciations of socialism and tyranny form public opinion on the legitimacy and scope of government. A new Republican majority in the house, led by a Catholic Speaker, plans to respond to the economic crisis by extending tax cuts for the rich and defunding health care reform—which means those portions that subsidize insurance for the working poor. These profound rejections of Catholic teaching and corrosion of the common good demand an effective episcopal response, yet too often, no response at all is given.
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12576
“Glen Beck warns millions of faithful listeners to run from any church that preaches social justice. ” My Dad writes for a diocesan paper; he received his first hate mail a couple of weeks ago. A woman, citing Glenn Beck, wrote in saying how dare he write about social justice and an ideology she and others don’t share. (The diocesan paper in question is pretty non-controversial. Among other things it provides favorable coverage of the good works of parishes and Catholic organizations; I guess that’s what the woman objected to).
The Catholic parishes played a pivotal role in the rebuilding and revitalization of Williamsburg after the devastation of the 70s. There is still good community organizing and community development going on in that neighborhood, and the parishes are still important partners in keeping the neighborhood decent and affordable for its residents. Good for them.
Paul Vitello has the Times’ account of the parish closings and quotes the Daily News story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/nyregion/16diocese.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
There was a day when service to the poor communities in the New york and broklyn dioceses was a prioiity.
Now there are other priorities, it seems, and I guess that fits with the “more muscular” smaller, purer balanced budget Church of the future.
The Brooklyn Diocesan Strategic Planning Commission seems to have 42 members, and today they issued a joint statement linked as below:
http://www.thetablet.org/News/News_Items/Statement_by_Diocesan_Strategic_Planning_Commission.aspx
They declare that their work is “open, intensive, and inclusive.” I wonder about “Open.” Were the meeting times and places announced ahead of time in parish bulletins with open invitations to all the meetings? Are the 42 names representative of the faithful or of those with ecclesiastical positions?
The individual decrees closing or merging the parishes may be studied at this place on the web:
http://dioceseofbrooklyn.org/news.aspx?id=68
In the decree suppressing the parish of St. Gregory the Great, the Bishop states:
“Through a highly consultative process that sought to engage the pastoral leadership as well as the parishioners of every parish community, I was able to determine which parishes needed immediate intervention in order to ensure that the care of souls not suffer in a given area of the Diocese.”