Vilnius parishioners sue archdiocese. (updated)
Dan Mangan of the New York Post has the scoop.
You’ve seen the term “lay trustee” bandied about in stories about Our Lady of Vilnius. What does it mean? In New York, parishes are separately incorporated, and each is governed by a set of five trustees: the bishop, usually his secretary, the pastor, and two laypeople appointed by the pastor. In most cases, then, if a dispute like the one at Vilnius arises, the bishop has three of the five votes he would need to carry out his wishes. But at Vilnius, the two lay trustees and the administrator (pastor) aren’t on board with Cardinal Egan’s decision. Now, one might ask, what does it mean for a trustee of a parish to seek its demise? I imagine that question will be taken up in court today.
Update: Here is the follow-up story from the New York Post.
The New York Archdiocese should not destroy any of
the artifacts inside a shuttered Lithuanian immigrant church in lower
Manhattan, a judge ruled yesterday.
(snip)
Peter Johnson, a lawyer for the archdiocese,
told the judge they weren’t destroying anything inside the Broome
Street church – and that items had simply been removed for safekeeping.
If this report is accurate, then the position of the archdiocese is demonstrably erroneous, if not willfully so. The photographs of the destroyed frescoes have been publicly available for nearly a week. Follow this link to see what the sanctuary used to look like. Notice the artwork above the icon. This is what it looks like now:
Of course, given Cardinal Egan’s opinion of the artistic value of the works in the church, one shouldn’t be surprised. In his March 5 reply to the chairman of the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, who wrote to Egan in February asking him to reconsider closing Vilnius, Egan described the church this way: “it is really not much more than a simple building with no especially attractive or historic elements.”
Decide for yourself whether the church held “especially attractive” elements before Egan’s “safekeeping” crew got their hands on it:
Please keep us informed; I cannot track down any a/c of the Friday court hearing
It is right and just to go to civil court to protect Our Lady of Vilnius as New York landmark and stop the greedy cardinal from selling the oroperty for millions of dollars. The cardinal is kicking the parishioners out into the street while entertaining ideas of enriching himself. The public opinion is on the side of the people.
Let’s hope someone sends the Pope the “before and after” pictures. It would be a pity if he only got the uncorrected official Peter Johnson version of the story.
So Benedict is going to “consider” the matter.
Are Rome’s canon lawyers feverishly pouring through the canons to find some quote that would give the pope some kind of justification to intervene — especially if the archbishop of New York was careful to follow the rules governing shutting down a church?
Are we in the midst of an “international crisis?” Is the pope wearing two hats here — head of the Church and head of Vatican City-State? Is there an inherent conflict of interest?
Stay tuned :)
“It ain’t over till it’s over!”
It would be difficult to find a bishop quite as gauche, quite as crude, quite as embarassing as EME. He does not even rise to level of hypocrisy. Yet he was the choice of Saint Subitus for the archdiocese, no doubt after deep thought, despite the contrary recommendation of EME’s predecessor. Is there a lesson here?
The Cardinal’s actions are an interesting contrast to how Muslims have converted Christian places of worship in the past. Recently in Istanbul, I saw that the ancient Christian mosaics in Hagia Sophia were covered over respectfully in a way that did not destroy them, so that later they were able to be uncovered, even after 500 years. In Chora (Turkey), I saw an an ancient Christian church covered in mosaics was left as-is during its hundreds of years of use as a mosque. The Muslims, who do not approve of images, nevertheless left them intact as a sign of respect for Jesus and Mary.
Perhaps the Cardinal could learn from the Muslims how to respect images such as the sanctuary fresco in Our Lady of Vilnius.
Lithuania’s Bishops Conference deplored the closing of the church, but insisted that this right is in Egan’s hands. However, unknown to Egan the Conference urged the faithful to go to civil court to protect the church as a cultural landmark. Perfidy on top of perfidy. Pope Benedict has his hands full dealing with greed and doubletalk.
One of the things that I have liked most about Our Lady of Vilnius is the absence of pretension in our Administrator, our parishioners and the resulting aggregate, the parish. The aesthetics of the church mirror the people. Form follows function. Style is subordinate to substance. Resources are allocated to need, not illusion. The church’s aesthetic is a product of evolution, not re-invention. The ethos is contributory and participatory, where all gifts are accepted without judgement . The Cardinal’s evaluation of our patrimony as having “…no especially attractive or historic elements” is subjective, superficial and inconsiderate of the feelings of all who have made the church our spiritual home.
The situation at Our Lady of Vilnius Parish is a striking example of the need for an examination regarding the manner we determine the status of parishes as Catholics. Most clearly the manner in which objects are “safeguarded” is obviously objectionable. The parish community is a living expression and representation of the Body of Christ. Any actions which affect one parish clearly have implications for other parishes, which are clearly part of the same Body. His Eminence, in the amputation of Our Lady of Vilnius as a functioning part of the entire body has choosen a radical treatment approach rather than a moderate direction of therapy. Always first in any consideration when closing, consolidating, merging or suppressing a parish community the spiritual and sacramental needs of the people are paramount. In this situation as well, the cultural, ethnic and historical contributions of a parish’s physical complex need substantial examination. The approach of the Archdiocese of New York regarding this parish is obscured. Is the issue one that truly reflects an economic reflection that is part of a larger “master plan” of consolidation, or is the matter one of obstinate pride on both sides of the discussion? Before the matter continues to any resolution, my question remains. Where is the consideration of both sides regarding spiritual and sacramental integrity at this parish? The representation of our Eucharistic unity transcends the temporal issues at work here. Both Archbishop and people need to work towards reconcilliation and reunion in mutual understanding to resolve this matter. When this is attained then the matters of temporal resolutions can be viewed in a clearly sacramental and Catholic manner.
How dare Egan call this wonderful church ” not much more than a simple building with no especially attractive or historic elements.” This church has been special to the community for years. My Mother had gone Our Lady of Vilnius since she was a child and I was married there and would still be going every Sunday if he hadn’t closed it down. I guess it wasn’t bringing in enough money to satify Egan although it had enough people who loved it and it could support itself. Also Father Eugene who was the pastor was probably the best priest in the city.
Since he closed this church I have lost all feeling for the Catholic church. Seems to me that all they care about is money and the property is just too valuable now.