Cardinal Egan & his diocese.
The latest issue of New York magazine contains David Gibson’s revealing, well-reported article on the state of the Archdiocese of New York, its priests, and its archbishop. Those of you keeping tabs on ArchNY may recall the controversy surrounding an anonymous letter that was quite critical of Cardinal Egan’s leadership. Here’s Gibson on that dustup.
The letter, signed by an anonymous “Committee of Concerned Clergy,” said that the relationship between the priests and a New York archbishop—the mortar that binds the hierarchy—had never “been so fractured and seemingly hopeless as it is now.”
The authors, who claimed they had to remain nameless because of “the severely vindictive nature of Cardinal Egan,” collated every criticism ever circulated about him—he was “arrogant and cavalier,” and especially “cruel and ruthless” toward priests, whom he treated with “dishonesty, deception, disinterest and disregard.” Egan had “an unnatural fear of the media” and had abdicated his role as a public figure and leader of the Catholic Church. And it called on the priests to act so that the Vatican would find a better man for the job.
Egan opened the session by reading, in full, an abject apology written to him by Monsignor Howard Calkins, a popular Westchester priest who, the previous day, had given an interview to the Daily News, in which he said that the letter reflected real anger at Egan. That was tantamount to betrayal in Egan’s mind, and Calkins, realizing he’d made a mistake, quickly wrote a personal letter to Egan offering to resign as head of the local vicariate, or region, and apologizing again for his “careless and ill-considered comments.” After reading Calkins’s letter, Egan called over his spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, and ordered him to release it to the media.
According to several accounts from those who were present, Egan went on to claim that his enemies were priests accused of sexual abuse who thought that Egan hadn’t adequately defended them. “When I hear stories about what those priests do, I have to do No. 2,” he spat in disgust. Then Egan widened his target to the entire priest corps: Of the 2,000 priests and bishops in the archdiocese, he lamented, not one stood up to defend him. “I was loyal to Cardinal Cody to the end,” he insisted in the stentorian affect he uses to complement his imposing height and girth. “Let me tell you, that is manliness! That is priestliness! That is Edward M. Egan!”
For much, much more, read the whole article.
Unfortunately, there are few redeeming qualities in Egan. How far from a Christian act is the public, cold firing of Dunwoodie professors? Arrogance at its height.
I found it interesting that when he agreed to go to the Eye Witness News studio in New York that he suddenly lost his falsetto voice which he flaunts.
Nothing wrong with balancing the books. But at the cost of charity, fairness, kindness, honesty, transparency?
Another unfortunate chapter in “blame the bishops;” -the Bishop as martinet.
As the recently muzzled Cozens (by another martinet) pointed out, it’s still the feudal approach – an approach that further weakens credibility.
With the Gumbleton story last week as well, one can hear the screws continuing to tighten ,
I spent some of last week at a bridge tournament with many old friends across a broad spectrum of intelligent thought. When the Catholic church came up. there was almost universal disdain and some ridicule of the hierarchhy here.
Of course the images portrayed by MCormick and Lennone in “Hand of God” didn’t help.
Is it too much to hope for that leaders be chosen who are deeply pastoral, positive responsible and willing to be accountable for their weaknesses?
I can hear Orson Welles saying “Paul Masson will sell no wine before its time”? Is this a false memory?
Just shows how out of touch Egan is when he commends himself for defending the indefensible Cody.
The real problem with the bishops is that they are not like the apostles. They are products of the Roman Empire and were given power accordingly. The church is replete with Roman government accoutrements such as “Chancery, prefect, diocese, procurator, provincial, definitor, rector and so on.
So correct is Couzzens (recently muffled) that the RC is the last feudal system. More than feudal, evil may not be that inappropriate a label. They punished Gumbleton for speaking out against the continued lying by the bishops about victims.
Bishops should go back to being pastors—two or three parishes the most. A pastor should visit his people often, not occasionally. Right now people rarely see a bishop, let alone the Ordinary, while bishops routinely hobnob with the rich and famous.
Assuming the article is true, Cardinal Egan’s stuffy style and his to the (Catholic) royal manor born pedigree don’t bother me as much as his seeming dearth of pastoral experience does. The “Alpine Ed” phenomena is hopefully not widespread in the Church hierarchy, but I have my doubts. My bishop, who has many of the same Roman credentials as does Cardinal Egan, and who on the whole seems quite capable, once commented during a speech that in his 30 years as a cleric, almost all in the Church’s hierarchy, he most enjoyed the “twelve months he lived and worked in a parish.” He was blissfully unaware of the looks of surprise on the faces in the audience, and I couldn’t help thinking that he might want to omit refernce to his pastoral experience in future speeches.
I hate to argue with people like Bill Mazzella that I probably agree with on most things, but surely an institution can either be Roman imperial or feudal, not both?
And one might in any event make something of a case for the Roman empire as being, as such things go, a force for openness, tolerance, and inclusivity. And probably the least racialist, class ridden, and closed system of any that has ever ruled over the scope of territory and time that it did.
And can any organization exist without a chancery? And given that procurators were financial officials with rather broad investigative discretion who were known to stamp out financial corruption, maybe we need more rather than fewer in the church.
Does not this also argue for at least consideration of the breaking up of these large baronial sees?
This much power and attendant prestige in an Archdiocese will usually if not always turn the head of all but the most stalwart of holy men. Unless we want to continue to chafe under the oft-time ruthless rule of Princes of The Church, as opposed to a servant leadership of the People of God, we have to get rid of the outward signs of power and privilege and foster an episcopacy that is more in touch with the people in the parishes and, consequently, more of a pastor as opposed to a persecutor.
Yes, I meant persecutor, not prosecutor.
My daughter tells me I have misremembered.
When I read such a savage attack on a person, I wonder whether the author got the story right. On the one hand, ordinary deference and the authority’s threats of retaliation tend to keep judgments quiet, but there is such a thing as selling too dramatic and colorful a story. Truthful nuances may make the tale less interesting, less likely to get published.
The polite deference of the faithful may have led to Bishop Curry’s article in America magazine. Edward Cardinal Egan arrived in New York when the press had recognized it could report criticism. I’m just waiting for the letters in the next issue of New York magazine.
My daughter’s always telling me things like that too. I’m pretty sure (and Wikipedia seems to back me up) that Orson Welles said “At Paul Masson we will sell no wine before its time.” Which may be a little strange because their signature product was champagne.
I think in fact that Orson lasted longer than Paul Masson (the winery, the man died before my time). However, if anyone is in the Bay Area they might try to drive up to the old winery site before it’s covered with tract houses for a look at what the good days were like.
David Gibson here, the author of that Cardinal Egan profile…I am of course a daily communicant on dotCommonweal, which is, I agree, the best Catholic blog around. Yet this is my first post, and unfortunately it is a mea culpa. No, I stand by the piece. But Gene O’Grady has it right (I hope you win a bet with your daughter)–Orson Welles did shill for Paul Masson, not Gallo. For some reason it has become urban mythology that it was Gallo. Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, many others have made the same assumption. Yet it was Paul Masson, as the ever-reliable YouTube shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpj0t2ozPWY
Maddening? You can’t imagine how such errors make an author fume. Yet everything else in the piece checks out. Cheers. David.
If Cardinal Egan did actually say that of 2,000 of his priests and bishops, not one stood up for him, that is quite an admission. If he were a college president, I’d say a no-confidence vote was just around the corner. But unlike faculty with tenure and the support of the academic community who can at least speak their minds, the New York clergy function within a culture that renders them so utterly dependent on hierarchical grace and favor that they are reduced to a sullen passive-aggressive silence. One might wish for an occasional outbreak of reckless honesty, but, silence is one way of making their point. Maybe in this case all they have to do is to let someone else go on talking… and talking… and talking, until he has made their case for them.
The whole scene is painful. Reminds me of The Caine Mutiny.
Do any of my fellow New Yorkers find David Gibson’s treatment of Cardinal John O’Connor somewhat on the benign side?
Gene,
I see your precise mind working. But if you look at the relationship between priests and their bishops you will surely see a feudal relationship. A priest may resort to Canon Law (the Roman part) but rarely will he get satisfaction unless he has a stronger warlord—er bishop or pope- in his corner.
My mention of the Roman names is a criticism of their use as symbols of power or empire. And even Rome was not democratic. CFR exiled popes and patriarchs of the church.
So daring to differ, why can’t we say both?
At any rate very few procurators have given a proper financial report to the faithful. The next scandal will be financial. Much is surfacing already.
Then maybe Egan will invite the people to talk while he listens.
I am delighted to learn that my memory of Orson Welles selling Paul Masson was right, but I am uneasy about telling my daughter that she was captivated by an urban legend.
In any case, thanks Gene!
Ms. Steinfels,
As an foreigner living in New York I had little sense that his Eminence existed until his recent, rather ill advised, outburst to the effect: “What?, Me vindictive?” He needs help beyond joint replacement. I wish him well –aren’t we all supposed to?– but I suspect he will continue to have his difficulties. I gather he is a fellow alien, either from Rome or Chicago, and is rather unhappy about it. Will he be able to go home again? This is beginning to sound like a soaper. Amnesia might be his best resort. It always wins sympathy.
Mr. Gannon,
My post was a reference to the previous archbishop, John O’Connor–not Edward Egan. My point: Wasn’t O’Connor a bit of grandstander who created a number of problems for New York Catholics that were treated with a lite-touch in the article about Cardinal Egan!
Ms. Steinfels,
Such a blooper! I agree with you both about Gibson’s treatment of O’Connor and about O’Connor. I did actually meet Terentius Coquus in a receiving line once and we shook hands. I was not about to do a Mario Cuomo. He seemed a decent sort for an Archbishop of New York. Still it is hard to take a fellow who goes about in a scarlet dress quite seriously.
Though the “New York” article is less than flattering, I was surprised that the author seemed to buy the party line on the realignment of parishes, stating “Egan took his time with the process, spending three years on a plan and responding to appeals to spare several parishes and schools.” I am associated with two small ethnic churches that are slated for closure. Both are solvent and have met or exceeded goals for the Cardinal’s Annual Appeal. One does not have its own priest, the other does not have a diocesan priest, so no priests will be freed for redeployment. The diocese denies any intent to sell real estate, but if no profit is derived from the real estate there is no benefit in closing these churches. If some churches were spared, I do not believe that it was based on response to an appeal. I think that it was the result of a cold-blooded calculus of assets to be gained against anticipated resistance. Up close and personal, the realignment seemed carefully crafted, manipulative, and disingenuous. If churches are empty in Manhattan, disillusionment could be as contributory as “demographic shift”.
Cardinal O’Connor had some very devoted admirers, but I was not one of them. However, when he is criticized for always saying “yes” to pathetic pleas of one kind or another, I have to admit to a soft spot for the fellow who saved our old neighborhood’s chapel a few years ago. In a parish divided by a superhighway, the old folks from the “far side” who didn’t drive would have been hard put to get to church. As it happened, recent renovations to the main church complex in that parish made it vital to have preserved the little chapel, as the church was closed for many months. In any case, for the first and last time I can recall in any parish I have belonged to, he held a meeting of the whole parish with an open mike speak-out before making his decision. Even if he had said an unaccustomed “no” that would have been something to be grateful for.
Lest opera fans be unduly swayed by the article’s note re Cardinal Egan asking Renee Fleming to sing at his installation it should be remembered that his predecessor, Cardinal O’Connor, delivered an especially warm tribute to Renata Tebaldi when she attended a Sunday mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in her last visit to this country.
To gain favor with the current Pope candidates might be well advised to express a preference for Mozart operas.
I don’t know why Christina does not share the names of the two parishes so we can at least offer moral support or more.
In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess…To Peggy and Joseph Gannon, re O’Connor–My point was not so much to make an evaluation of his record, and whether he was great, good, fair, or awful–he was one of those depending on who you talk to, and probably all of them, and then some. The point is that he was a powerful presence, and even those who disagreed with him sharply had–I sense–a perverse pride that he was “our” cardinal. I think one saw the same dynamic at work with JPII–just think of the decisions he made and the people he not only offended, but hurt deeply.
And yet…Perhaps it is the blessing of a long life, when one’s sins come to be seen as signs of character, or quirks. Maybe I’m wrong and Egan will be recalled so fondly–but I doubt he will be recalled much at all.
As for the parish closings, I also didn’t mean to say they were all proper, or not. It was a long article already, and that is an entire issue unto itself. But I do know from long experience that closing parishes and schools is a thankless task, and almost impossible to do without pain. That New York’s process was better than other places (Boston, Detroit, etc) seems undeniable. I have real concerns about church closings from many standpoints, above all how much is driven by the lack of clergy personnel. But that is a larger discussion.
Interestingly, from my conversations, priests are the ones who express the greatest fear that Egan has not gone far enough in closing parishes–the clergy, after all, are the ones who will be told to run around to three or four different parishes to say Mass.
So that’s my piece. Again. Now for a glass of Paul Masson…
Re: O’Connor
In his last days I thought that John Paul the Great (?) treated him with great lack of compassion. Despite his ill health His Holiness refused to accept his resignation and forced Korba the Dread on him as his successor. This did arouse my sympathy.
Three footnotes to my last post on this:
Cardinal O’Connor could indeed be a source of division and very much loved the public eye. I took from Gibson’s article, though, that he looked out for and cared for his clergy far more than Egan.
As to the Bishop as martinet, please add Bishop Kicanas of Tuscon who refuses to let poor old Gumbleton speak at a catholic facility …see how these Bishops love one another.
Most important, the Egan piece has started a broad discussion on parish realignment and whether the “one parish/one priest” approach is another touch of clericalism as opposed to the Los Angeles model.
The latter apparently has been kept under the radar screen to avoid any signs of difference. It would be useful to hear more about this.
Certainly Egan is the worst New York cardinal archbishop. The president of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus and Lithuanian bishops’ conference asked Egan not to close the 100 year old Our Lady of Vilnius Church in Manhattan, the only monument to Lithuanian immigrants, but the lackluster prelate does not hear their voices. Perhaps he will hear them in a civil court when the people will rally to preserve this New York jewel.