That’s one way to close a parish.
Cardinal Egan does himself no favors with this move.
Edward Cardinal Egan pulled a fast one on a lower Manhattan parish
pastor yesterday, summoning the priest to meet with him - then
dispatching security guards to permanently lock the cleric’s church
doors.
The priest returned to Our Lady of Vilnius to find
himself locked out - a brusque Egan move that left parishioners stunned
and saddened.
The cardinal’s move also occurred right before a
scheduled meeting with Lithuania’s consul general, who was set to make
a plea to save the church, parishioners and the Archdiocese of New York
said.
(snip)
But yesterday, Egan summoned the Rev. Eugene Sawicki to his Madison
Avenue office at 9 a.m., and told him “the closure is effective
immediately,” said archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling.
Even
as that meeting with the pastor was occurring, three security guards
were changing the locks on the parish doors and preventing anyone from
entering.
An hour later, Egan met with Lithuanian Consul
General Mindaugas Butkus, who hand-delivered President Valdas Adamkus’
letter, and told the cardinal that “we value [the church] very much . .
. it has historical value and cultural value.”
Butkus, who had scheduled the meeting days before, had no idea the closing was imminent.
Asked if he was insulted by Egan agreeing to hear his request when he
had already made up his mind, Butkus said, “I decline to comment.”
But he said Egan “expressed dissatisfaction” about the way the issue had been portrayed in the media.
Zwilling, asked if anything had happened between last week and
yesterday to prompt the cardinal’s sudden shuttering of the church,
said “nothing in particular,” and denied that Egan was miffed by press
coverage of the planned closure.
Update, now with video:
And ArchNY’s rather chilly press release.
on February 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I have long considered myself as belonging to two parishes, now I have none. My geographic parish, St. Stanislaus Kostka, was closed under realignment and now my ancestral parish, Our Lady of Vilnius, has been closed under…..what? Both parishes were small and both allowed the laity to participate in many small labors of love for the parish. Both were of Easten European origin, yet evolved beyond these roots into communities of great value to their participants and the larger surrounding communities. The small scale of the churches, the humility of the physical trappings and the loving care that parishioners put into the details of the liturgy distinguish these two parishes from the larger, more impersonal, conventional churches that are more abundant. I credit these communities, especially Our Lady of Vilnius for my transformation from a parishioner to an aspiring disciple. After my initial visit to Mass in the basement dancehall of Our Lady of Vilnius, I wrote to Father Sawicki to tell him how much I enjoyed the Mass in his catacomb. I was only partially facetious. My feeling of kinship with the early Christians has been validated in the published commentary of other parishioners and the unsolicited testimonials of the people that I met on the sidewalk in front of the church yesterday. As a Fordham graduate, I recognize the “cura personalis” when I feel it. Though not a Jesuit, Father Sawicki is approaching everyone with the “cura personalis”, whether they know it or not, and we are all benefitting from it and growing. Not everyone is brought closer to God by grandeur and liturgical perfection. I think it is a mistake to close Our Lady of Vilnius at all, because some people need an environment like this to venture closer to God. And a priest like Father Sawicki needs a context like this to quietly employ his gift for the good of all of us. That the church was closed in this underhanded and abrupt manner was just another wound. How considerate of Cardinal Egan to provide us with this Lenten opportunity to strengthen the tie to Christ, our Brother.
on February 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I am a member of the Finance Council of a small (700 members; 450 active) parish. By all current ecclesiastical logic, we should not have a full-time priest assigned to the parish. But we do, and our parish is open for IMO three reasons:
1.Our existence eliminates the need for the Archdiocese to have a formal ministry to the Gay & Lesbian communities. We are perfectly capable of ministering to ourselves – and the wider church – thank you. It’s a very effective quid pro quo.
2.We owe about $800,000 on a mortgage loan from the Archdiocese. The closer we get to paying it off, the more reluctant we are to do so. We are perfectly capable of doing so, but see no reason to be too quick about it. So long as we owe money, we’ll be kept open to facilitate the payback.
3.We have the best liturgies and one of the most active parishes in the Archdiocese. We have been told that over and over again by Archdiocesan officials, including the former Archbishop. Somebody has to be a posterchild, and we are happy to be it.
Cynical? Just reread the main article and Christina’s comments above.
I learned long ago that Mother church is like so many mothers. She can be selfish, insensitive and worried about her own makeup, not the care of her children.
on February 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Is it possible to get consensus on what do we need to maintain a parish (and I just don’t mean financially?)
Can we get some consensus on how parishes should be closed if necessary, and what sensitivities are to be expected at minimum from Diocesan leaders?
on February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
John Paul II’s great gift to New York was Edward Cardinal Egan. What is one to say?
on February 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Six months ago, the impending closure of Our Lady of Vilnius was discussed in The Villager.
Link:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_173/ladyofvilnius.html
on February 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Egan’s actions will become a rallying cry for many. Some who were willing to give the Cardinal a bye will give him less credence. Stay tuned.
on February 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am
In answer to Bob Nunz’s question, consensus is the result of trust, not a set of specific criteria. My guess is that you could not write a sufficiently descriptive set of criteria that would cover all situations, so exceptions and judgments will always have to be made. If the Cardinal wants peaceful and orderly closings without having to call in the equivalent of a Church closing swat team, he will have to gain the trust of the parishioners.
on February 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I know that in our diocese, the problem is not monetary upkeep of the parishes, it’s the fact that we do not have enough priests to pastor them.
The solution to this problem is to foster more vocations.
The problem that we’re having in many places is at the turn of the last century, the immigrants (of which my grandparents were a part of) wanted their own churches.
They saved, sweated and built their parishes. Part of it was to have a sanctuary from the bigotry of the rest of the country, another part was to have a unique cultural flavor for their parish.
With the advent of the automobile, we have become more mobile. It’s much easier for people to get to Mass without having to walk. The priests are required to serve the faithful of the entire diocese, not just one small ethnic minority.
As far as what Cdl Egan did with regard to the logistics of the closing, how can you blame him when there disobedient parishioners turn church closings and consolidations into a media circus every week it seems.
I can hardly blame the Cardinal.
I know there is a lot of history in church buildings. My grandfather helped build one. But there may come a time when we need to let go, and realize that the Real Presence of Christ is also at St. Whitebread down the street, even if the culture is not exactly to your liking.
on February 28th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I didn’t mean to sound snippy in the prior post. I am certain that Tony Miller is correct, but perhaps it is politically unacceptable for Cardinal Egan to state the issue quite so plainly.
I read a really illuminating article about the evolution of church design from the late 19th century to the 1960s, and, basically, the role of ethnic pride was largely superseded by the fact that, after WWII, most ethnic groups really and truly did not want to be perceived as anything other than american — and their churches reflected the bland architecture of their suburban homes. And that was by choice or perhaps default consensus. Many now hang onto the old churches much as they have rediscovered the treasure of their ethnic heritage. My own view is that the Church should designate truly important historical and architectural buildings irrespective of parish closing initiatives. That won’t stop all of the drama of closure but it would at least acknowledge the importance of tradition. Doesn’t it bother anyone else that the Church makes such a strong claim for the importance of tradition but often seems oblivious to the importance of tradition in the lives of individual parishioners?
on February 28th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Tony,
Are you asking how one can blame Cardinal Egan for summoning the pastor of a parish that had never been told when it would have to be closed, only that it would have to be closed, only to have the church’s locks changed right before the noon Mass by security agents–during the meeting? You can’t think of a better way to effect a parish closure, even a necessary one?
on February 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I guess, Grant, that from Cardinal Egan’s perspective, the fact that the closing happened without the glare of cameras was the most important consideration.
on February 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
The common view in this diocese (NY) is that Cardinal Egan is a good manager–his predecessor was not–but that he lacks many of the qualities that one expects in a pastor–qualities that Cardinal O’Connor exhibited more often than not. He does not consult, is not interested in other points of view than his own, and does not consider that anyone has a right to criticize him. He may have been right about the need to consolidate parishes and have made the right judgment about which ones ought to be closed. I cannot claim to have made a study that would qualify me to have an opinion. I wonder if anyone else expressing an opinon here has. But the manner in which he proceeded was unjustified, unpastoral, and indeed unepiscopal. One should not take being a Prince of the Church to seriously. The Cardinal cannot brook opposition and appears to be infuriated by bad publicity, which in some instances he has aggravated by overreaction. One suspects he would be happier with a post in Rome. I would like to think that he will not be missed here, but one never knows what beast is slouching towards Manhattan.
on February 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The closing of the church may have been a good call, or not. But the handling of the closure is something else. Calling a pastor in for a meeting while you lock the doors of his church against him, and then having your public relations man send out a smug announcement that all the valuables will be amply secured…. What can Cardinal Egan be thinking? My sympathies are with the long-suffering pastors of the Archdiocese.
on February 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
National parishes like other parishes must have a minimal size to retain their vitality. In the absence of continued waves of migration a prudent concern for survival may suggest a concentration of energies in fewer but larger parishes. The Lithuanian American Council web site reports that in the US as a whole there were 124 Lithuanian parishes in 1941 and now 98.
http://lithuanian-american.org/parapijos_en.php
It may be that the 98 survivors serve more parishioners than the earlier group of 124. It would be interesting to learn the advice of these associations. Preserve every parish at all costs or consolidate in order to support a religious community more adequately? And do diocesan officials consult such associations when making decisions? The problem exists for other ethnic groups as well and the advice may not be the same for all.
The site also describes a few useful Lenten practices still relevant in the New World:
“On Holy Thursday you must clean and wash not only yourself but the whole house, thereby making it easier to keep the house clean all year. If a person rises early, sweeps the rooms and pours the sweepings over his neighbor’s fence, all uncleanliness will pass to the neighbor. Pests (fleas, cockroaches) may be exterminated in a similar fashion: after sweeping the house, pour the dirt on the neighbor’s property line and return home without looking back. All pests will disappear from the house.”
http://lithuanian-american.org/educat/tradicijos/didsavaite.html
on February 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Lack of pastors is no reason for closing churches. There are plenty of women who are willing to be pastors. They were good enough for St Paul. They should be good enough for us.
By the way, there will be a talk at St. Joseph’s Seminary, in Yonkers on Wed. March 7 at 7:30pm. Sr. Sara Butler will, of course, give the traditional viewpoint. (I thought the issue was closed).
on February 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Sounds like there’s broad agreement that the Egan method of closure was heavy handed, sneaky and hence, terrible,
Bill’s right about not necessarily having a priest pastor, as happens in many other places…ad esse, ad posse.
So then, what does it mean to have a “minimal size” to maintain vitality? Is that a mninimum number of attendees, a minimum amount of money flowing in or are there other chareceristrics of vitality or service to the community that need to be taken into account?
on February 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I don’t have any formula to determine parish vitality and it would be a mistake to establish one. But I don’t automatically assume that the decision to close a parish can only be the result of a grossly insensitive process. And I don’t believe one-sided news accounts and the presence of television cameras help the process. These sources habitually describe the parishes as “vibrant.” They prove too much. If the groups are so vital they seem ideally situated to make a transition to other arrangements, thereby allowing additional resources to be devoted to more marginal groups.
I’m aware of another pattern in which several ethnic groups (e.g., Poles and Filipinos in New York) seem to have special masses in different parishes on an ongoing and rotating basis. This may be an arrangement that can be built upon, though I’m sure others (perhaps even members of the hierarchy) have given much more thought to the problem.
I also suspect that the difficulty in closing national parishes even when appropriate may hinder the establishment of new national parishes for groups that are currently increasing in population.
on March 1st, 2007 at 6:13 am
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that every decision to close a parish “can only be the result of a grossly insensitive process.” It’s no secret that some parishes must be shuttered. Indeed, the three-year process putting together the realignment plan drew praise–even from the dreaded media. That’s why so many are surprised by these heavy-handed tactics in implementing the decisions.
on March 1st, 2007 at 11:10 am
Without getting into the details of this situation - a few points from someone from Boston where this issue has become a huge drama -
On “abrupt” closings - It simply doesn’t matter how long, how much preparation, or how much “healing” goes on. Most of these parishes will still have protests, sit-ins, or other disruptions. In Boston we have had the layity in some of the parishes conduct what can only be described as mock masses during these sit-ins. Most of the time - as in this case - the parish and its pastor know for months if not a year or more that their parish is closing. There were town meetings, meetings with the parish council, etc. Believe me, they didn’t spend the time adapting and healing, they spent it planning how to stop or disrupt the process.
On the media - When the Knights of Columbus are holding a pro-life prayer vigil at an abortion clinic they are right-wing kooks, but when they are being evicted from a leaky basement they are the salt of the earth. These parishioners ought to think of who is helping whom and who is being used by whom as they parade before the cameras.
On how we got here - This didn’t happen this week - it took years to get this way. If the protesters etc. had spent even a quarter of the effort and time they do in complaining about the Church in evangelizing a lot fewer parishes would be closing. For 40 years we haven’t even bothered catechizing our children and have settled for drive-by CCD and vacuous and insipid liturgies. Now that surgery is needed, we only want bandaids.
on March 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Both Saint Stanislaus Kostka and Our Lady of Vilnius were in the black at the time of their closure. The death of an individual is generally considered to occur upon the cessation of vital signs. A parish is an aggregate of individuals. I think that solvency is an important vital sign of the parish. It is a concrete indication of devotion, as is the tenacity of parishioners in fighting to defend these communities of faith. How is closing a spiritually and financially viable parish consistent with a culture of life?
Regarding ethnicity: I am a second generation American of Lithuanian heritage. My father attended Our Lady of Vilnius as a boy. I have an ethnic and personal tie to the parish. Independent of these predispositions, I would be less forceful in my defense of this parish were it not for what Father Sawicki has established. His personal interactions and homilies communicate the fundamental teachings of Christ in a way that makes them experiential. Though it is a Lithuanian church, it is the most catholic of all the Catholic churches I have attended. The diverse lunch hour communicants, the polyglot Knights of Columbus, the Portuguese neighbors all participate. The human spirit is celebrated.
Yes, we will always have the Real Presence, but why do we have to forgo these other blessings? The Archdiocese would benefit from fostering parishes like Our Lady of Vilnius, not extinguishing them.
on March 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Sean, all I can say is, a person doesn’t go out of their way to thwart or humiliate someone they love and whose judgment they trust. That doesn’t mean that actions undertaken as a form of rebellion are always right or sympathetic, but they point to a serious lack of cohesion between the shepherd and his sheep.
on March 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Barbara,
If you do a simple Google search you will see that there was an organized effort to keep the church open for weeks - in not months - before it was locked up.
If the situation was that the parish and the archdiocese were working toward a reasonable plan to close the church, the heavy handed criticism would be more valid. What was actually happening was that the bishop, who is responsible for the entire flock, took a decision that they didn’t like and they refused to accept it. Is he obligated to wait forever? Would it have been easier had he waited until the church had a dozen old ladies in it?
I know this sounds hard hearted, but I have seen this same scenario play out here. Everyone agrees that change and consolidation are needed, but its always someone else’s church that isn’t as “vibrant” or is less solvent and ought to be closed. (On the solvency front, by the way, there is more to consider that the ability to meet current bills. If a church needs a new roof, or major upgrades and repairs, these future expenses need to be considered.) Even where there hasn’t been a protest or sit-in there has been hard feeling, nastiness, and anger.
The Church isn’t a building, or my precious memories, or my favorite homilist, and if my faith is built on things like this that are fleeting it’s not good for me and it’s not good for the Church.
on March 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The Diocese of Oakland where I reside but don’t worship has more than a few parishes run by Pastoral Administrators (with a priest technically assigned as pastor a la Cardinal Bishops of Podunk), many of whom are women.
They are thriving and the people apparently have not a whit of trouble with seeing a woman in charge.
But, of course, such an action takes clear thinking and planning for the future. The then-Ordinary, John Cummins, had that foresight. The current Ordinary, Alan Vigneron … well …..
on March 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Sean, I think there is a truly philosophical issue surrounding the nature of worship and the insistence that it doesn’t matter where it takes place. In theory, of course that’s correct. But we are people not theories, and whether you want it to be the case or not, the Church is going to have some real difficulties if the essential nature of the worship experience is driven more by Church personnel issues than the needs of worshipers.
I understand the need to shutter parishes, I grew up in a place where parishes built right next to industrial facilities are basically defunct because no one walks to work anymore, and no one really lives there — certainly, not enough people to sustain four huge Catholic churches built within a six block area. But it does seem to me that less is more and all other alternatives should be exhausted if the parish is self-sustaining financially.
on March 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Barbara,
The sanctuary was unusable because the roof was condemned and had been so for well over three years. Isn’t that the point - if they were self-sustaining they would have fixed the problem.
It was established as a Lithuanian national church, but there hasn’t been a sizeable Lithuanian community for more than half a century. The current pastor doesn’t even speak Lithuanian.
The typical Sunday and Holy Day attendance is less than 50.
OK - what other alternatives should have been explored? Which other parish should be closed? What other church’s roof should wait to be repaired while this one is fixed?
on March 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
The roof was not “condemned”. A scaffold was placed in the sanctuary to allow access to the roof interior for periodic evaluation. The roof has not been repaired because the Archdiocese has not approved the repairs nor released insurance funds despite attempts at correspondence from the Administrator and lay trustees. Recently donors have volunteered to contribute to the necessary repairs. The Archdiocese initially suggested a meeting with the donors, then subsequently declined to schedule the meeting and reiterated their intent to close the church. Though it was established as a Lithuanian church, it has evolved into something more encompassing. Though the construction of the Holland Tunnel dispersed the local Lithuanian community, many throughout the tri-state area return to the church regularly, if not weekly. Though we may attend our local churches for convenience, we return with frequency and regularity to Our Lady of Vilnius. Regarding the linguistic abilites of the priest: Father Sawicki does not speak Lithuanian fluently. He is able to say Mass in Lithuanian and exchange rudimentary pleasantries. He did not speak Lithuanian 20 years ago either, but it has not become an issue until the Archdiocese developed the desire to close the church. It is of interest that the veracity of the Archdiocesan press release is taken for granted while the case made by the parishioners for the church’s survival is immediately regarded as spurious.
on March 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Christina,
By condemned I meant that it had been deemed (oficially from at least one report) unsafe and the sanctuary was therefore unfit for use or occupancy. One news article, that was favorable to the parishioners, indicated that the roof was in danger of collapse.
Perhaps the Archdiocese is addressing the Lithuanian national issue not because they need a reason to close the church, but because the parishioners themselves are using it as a basis for keeping the church open - going so far as to get a letter of support from the President of Lithuania to the Archbishop. It seems fair that they should be able to respond to this claim.
The point is simply that the Archdiocese had many practical and reasonable reasons for its decision. As for the “abruptness” of the closing, as you yourself indicate, the Archdiocese had told parishioners the parish was closing. They knew enough to start a web site, a petition drive, and to enlist the help of the government of Lithuania for support. Can you appreciate the concern they probably had that the stage was being set for a long, difficult, and contentious battle?
You certainly know the details - is there anything in the diocese press release that is false?
on March 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Sean we seem to be talking past each other. Here’s the little saying that one of the judges I worked with used on occasion:
“The meanest man I ever saw/ was always just within the law.”
That seems to fit Cardinal Egan — right in every way except the way that people remember most, the way that touches them personally. There are more important things than being right. The trick is to be able to do the “right” thing in the right way.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Barbara,
Having had to make very hard, but necessary, decisions that hurt people in my own career, maybe I have more empathy for the cardinal and his staff.
This was a no-win situation. Not described in much detail was the fact that some of supporters of the parish had initiated a petition drive, had started up web pages and a letter writing campaign, and solicited (successfully) members of the Lithunian government in support of their cause. This thing was not going to end well. The cardinal may have seen this as a choice between a swift but bitter end and a slow bleed.
We have had some of this in Boston. Sure, some of the slow bleeds end more quietly without TV cameras, but not with less bitterness. More to the point, almost all of them have involved extended litigation and some pretty serious liturgical abuses - which isn’t good for anyone.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
There is no question that a some protests, no matter how asinine, develops a life of their own. And they can attract charlatans. But we are talking about the manner, the way, Edward Egan treats people.
Businessmen and good accountants are a dime a dozen. Is Christianity a business or is it charity first? Chapter 13 of 1Corinthians is the model of Christian life, not a luxury. Archbishops should model that. Otherwise we have the farce we usually have.
Here is my letter to the Journal News of Westchester. http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070302/OPINION/703020333/1016/OPINION02
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I’d like to hear what the ‘pretty serious liturgical abuses” were in Boston.
I think Bill is right on - the analogy of the bishop to the corporate leader proves his point and shows how badly Episcopal leadership is judged.
As an old broadway musical afficianado (see my last post on Anglican Update in February), I can’t help thinking of the Bishop in Le Mis whose saving of Valjean wuth the gift of all his silverware is a life-changing example to the protaganist and a shining example of how the Church can touch folk.
Not only are accountants, etc. a dime a dozen, but chancery officals who think acting like them makes them great managers are similarly worth about that dime a dozen.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
OK - open to suggestions. How do you close a parish that a group of parishioners doesn’t want closed, and are willing to fight over, without having a fight and without hurting anyone’s feelings?
From what I have read - mostly in press accounts not favorable to him - the cardinal had consitently told the pastor and parishioners that the church was closing for well over a year. How much time is enough?
It is all well and good to say they are not accountants - although I notice quite a few posts on this blog complaining about financial and material mismanagement - but how exactly do you give everyone what they want when you can’t give everyone what they want?
Bob, The most serious and consistent has been the holding a “eucharistic services” in lieu of mass for people’s weekly and holy day obligations - such services are only permitted with the permission of the bishop.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Correction - I meant “unfavorable to him”
on March 2nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
As to financial oversight, people are longing for more lay involvement/oversight/As to “communion services,” who led them? What did the bishop do about it?
on March 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Sean,
Who has suggested that no parishes ought to be closed, or that parish closings can take place without “hurting anyone’s feelings”? Cardinal Egan never gave the parish a date, which means parishioners couldn’t schedule a final Mass. Didn’t they deserve that? Neither is anyone arguing that it’s possible to “give everyone what they want when you can’t give everyone what they want.” How do you think the cardinal’s method of closing Our Lady of Vilnius goes over among his priests? Again, tough decisions have to be made. Then they have to be carried out well. In this case, that didn’t happen.
on March 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
We can not destroy New York landmarks. This case will go to civil court and the cardinal will lose. He will tarnish the whole church and will have to be replaced by an understanding prelate when Vatican will go on the damage control. Zwilling has to go, too.