Card. Egan & parish closings redux (updated)
There have been a few interesting developments in the story of Cardinal Egan’s conduct in closing Our Lady of Vilnius, a Lithuanian parish in Manhattan. (For background, read my post on the subject and my piece in the March 23 Commonweal. And it can’t hurt to read Michael Powell’s recent profile of the cardinal in the New York Times, if you’re a subscriber.)
The following headline in this morning’s Vatican Information Service release caught my eye: “The Pope Receives the President of Lithuania.” According to the president, Our Lady of Vilnius came up in conversation. Catholic News Service reports:
Lithuania’s president said he personally asked Pope Benedict XVI to intervene to
keep a Lithuanian parish in New York open. President Valdas Adamkus met
the pope April 28 at the Vatican.
A Vatican statement said the pope and
president discussed the importance of Vatican-Lithuanian relations, the
contributions of the church to Lithuanian society and the role of Lithuania
within the European Union.
But the president’s office, in an April 28
statement, said, “President Adamkus also spoke to Pope Benedict XVI about the
decision to close Our Lady of Vilnius Roman Catholic Church in New York — a
decision that was very upsetting for the whole of Lithuania since it raised a
wave of disappointment among the faithful.”
The statement said the
president explained to the pope how Lithuanian immigrants had built the church
with their own money “to have a place for worship and witness their love and
faith in God. With time the church acquired yet another mission: It became a
center fostering not only religious belief but also Lithuanian culture and
national identity.”
“The Holy Father said that he knew about this problem
and promised to discuss it with American bishops,” the president’s statement
said.
Today’s New York Post also ran a story on this, but it added details about the state of the church itself:
Meanwhile yesterday, parishioner Laima Hood discovered that the pews
had been removed and the altar, stained glass, organ and religious
objects had been packed up. Zwilling said such steps are normally taken so that the items could be “kept in storage for safekeeping.”
I spoke to a member of the parish board of trustees who verified this account. The board member told me that in addition to the removal of the stained glass, altar, organ, pews, and statuary, the paintings on the ceiling of the church had been whitewashed. This is particularly disconcerting to parishioners because they have appealed Egan’s decision to the Vatican, and are awaiting response from the Congregation for Clergy. It’s one thing to remove objects of artistic and religious value for safekeeping–especially if the building will soon be sold and/or demolished–but why whitewash the ceiling paintings if not to render the space unfit for worship? What will happen if Pope Benedict intervenes, as the president of Lithuania seems to think he will, and Vilnius is reopened?
Update: before and after pictures:
After:
There is another wrinkle: the United States and Lithuania have signed an agreement regarding the protection and preservation of certain cultural properties abroad. From what I understand, some parishioners are under the impression that Vilnius is part of some kind of mutual protection agreement (apart from the linked agreement? I’m not sure). I’m trying to find out whether this is the case, and what legal force such an agreement holds. I’ll keep you posted. [Edited according to Joseph's clarification below.]
P.S. The May 4 Commonweal contains a letter to the editor by Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the Archdiocese of New York. He’s responding to my piece on Vilnius. If this post wasn’t already too long, I’d reproduce it here, along with my response. Maybe later.
As a parishioner who entered the church yesterday and witnessed its condition, I was shocked. While the parish was still open I had called the door to the basement hall a “portal to Narnia.” Since the locking of the church on February 26th I held the fantasy of the interior as “frozen” in time. It was a very rude awakening to see the altar icon shrink wrapped, a folding table with chalices on it where the altar had been, the two side altars boarded up and the artwork on the ceiling of the arch obliterated by what appeared to be blue paint. In addition, the shrinkwrapped statues lying and standing randomly in the empty space gave the impression of a battlefield. One statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary was taped across the mouth with its inventory number as if it were a gag. It was my understanding that once the canonical appeal process had begun, everything related to the disposition of the “assets” halted.
It was very disturbing to see objects that I had viewed in terms of their spiritual and sentimental value treated strictly as matter.
The church was purposely and abruptly locked in advance of the diplomatic delivery of President Adamkus’ plea to Cardinal Egan. I am very concerned about what what could happen in anticipation of communication from Pope Benedict XIV, especially since, from my perspective, canon law seems to have already been broken.
I see two problems:
1. P.L. 99-83, which created the federal commission charged with administering the program cited in this post, specifically limits its activities to the preservation of artifacts/places abroad. There is no provision for protecting such places, sites, etc. within the U.S. Any international agreement signed between the U.S. and other countries must be in accordance with requirements of the aforementioned law — unless, perhaps, there is some other basis under federal and/or international law that could be used to address the situation facing the folks at St. Vilnius.
2. I remind everyone of the appeal made by the parishioners of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in St. Louis to the Vatican, basically asking it to override the decision made by AB Raymond Burke to suppress the parish after its board of directors refused (and rightly so) to give their AB effective control under civil law over the parish’s assets. The Vatican sided with the AB (should we have been surprised?).
I dare say that Egan, like Burke, dotted his I’s and crossed his T’s to make sure that everything was legal under canon law.
This situation doesn’t look good.
Keep in mind that the issue is the manner in which Egan handled the matter. The decision to close the church is not the issue so much as the manner in which it was done.
Those who like bishops as autocrats got what they want here.
Stay in people’s homes, Jesus told the disciples, when preaching the Good News.
We sure as hell know who owns these homes today, don’t we?
(Clue, it’s spelled H-E-I-R-A-R-C-H.)
Sorry, Mr. Jaglowicz, but the situations in NY and St. Louis are completely different. OL Vilnius was in a right and proper relationship with the archdiocese. The Cardinal had the right to close it, but as Mr. Mazella said, he went about it in the wrong way.
St. Stanislaus, on the other hand, has been an anomalous parish from the beginning and has caused problems for nearly all St. Louis archbishops since it was founded. One can read a short history of the issue at my blog: http://epiph.blogspot.com/2006/07/excommunications-in-st-louis.html.
Abp Burke not only stood on good canon law, he went about his actions in a proper and just way.
These are not similar cases at all and claiming that they are is setting up a red herring.
Ah, but what will BXVI do about the “collosal success’s” action in this matter?
I surmise that internationally the issue is somewhat touchy yet.
There is an unholy secret alliance between Egan and Lithuania’s archbishop Tamkevicius to raze Our Lady of Vilnius Church with Egan getting millions for the lot and Tamkevicius the church furnishings and the parishioners getting the boot. However, Egan should get the boot like Cardinal Bernard Law and Tamkevicius should kiss his hopes for a red hat good bye. It is great that the Pope sees through this shabby cabal.
Mr. Szyszkiewicz, you perhaps miss my point. Yes, they are different situations, but they share one thing in common: an appeal by parishioners to the Vatican to override a local ordinary’s decision to close/suppress a parish.
Regarding your contention that Burke stood on solid legal grounds under canon law, I agree. The guy, after all, is a proficient canon lawyer from all accounts I’ve seen. As to your view that he went about his actions in a proper and just way, I suspect a lot of folks would disagree since they saw more than just church law involved in the St. Stan controversy.
Let me ask you a simple question: Assuming an ordinary of a diocese follows requirements of canon law and any/all other pertinent directives in suppressing a parish, do you think — as a matter of principle — that a pope (or curial official acting on his behalf) should be able to overrule a local bishop’s decision on the matter?
That second photo certainly suggests Egan was “sticking it” to those who disagreed with his decision.
Talk about “rubbing salt into the wound!”
The estimable Egan was appointed by Saint Subitus. Could he have been a wrong choice?
“Saint Subitis?”
(might this be a “saint” that bites us? :)
Yes, Mr. Jaglowicz, people saw more than Church law involved at St. Stan’s, but they were seeing things. The archdiocese had no interest in making a land grab by taking over the parish and then closing it. That was a claim made by the St. Stan’s board, a claim that was stated without any proof, and then believed in and repeated by the media without any verification.
Interestingly, Archbishop Burke was even willing to put in writing that he had no intention to close it, though he would not put limits on his legitimate episcopal authority or that of his successors and say that it could never be closed, which was what the board wanted. The only thing the Archbishop wanted to do was to regularize an irregular situation by making it a regular parish.
Your question is interesting and I really don’t know what it has to do with what I’m saying. Yes, the Holy Father or those who are assisting him should have the ability to overturn a local bishop’s decision on closing a parish, if that’s necessary. That’s why there are provisions for it in the law. Even assuming the bishop follows the letter of the law in how he goes about closing it, there could still be the issue of whether or not the closing is just.
From the news reports with the Vilnius case, it seems as though it was unjustly done. As I stated above, though, the Cardinal had the right to close it. The question is whether or not he should have exercised that right and if he went about doing so in the proper way.
However, Archbishop Burke had just cause for his actions and went about them in the proper way. St. Stan’s had the right to appeal, they exercised that right and lost.