Our Lady of Vilnius: protected site defaced.
In an earlier post, I summarized the latest developments in the case of Our Lady of Vilnius, a Lithuanian parish in Manhattan whose closure was questionably carried out by Cardinal Egan. As photographs have shown, not only have the pews, stained glass, altar, and icon been removed–for safekeeping, according to the archdiocese–but some of the artwork has been painted over. (As you may have guessed, the blue paint in the photo below is not original to the space.)
In 2002, the U.S. government signed an agreement with Lithuania “to protect and preserve the cultural heritage of all national, religious,or ethnic groups that reside or resided in [each country’s] territory,” as Article I states. Furthermore, “the term ‘cultural heritage’ for the purposes of this agreement means places of worship” and other places of historical significance.
According to Jeffrey Farrow of the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, Our Lady of Vilnius is covered under Article I of the agreement. In a Feb. 23, 2007, letter I obtained, Warren L. Miller, chairman of the Commission, asks Egan to reconsider closing the parish:
Three days later, Cardinal Egan summoned the parish administrator for a meeting during which private security guards changed the locks on the church.
on May 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Very interesting, Grant. Thanks for this update.
In light of this letter, Egan’s action speaks for itself. I dare say he had his lawyers verify that the U.S. Government has no final say over treatment or disposition of this church property. Too bad.
But that’s a “company man” for you. He was sent to do a job from what I understand, and he did it. Give this guy a good pat on the back, a royal send-off, and an outstanding performance rating.
(And this crap is what our church wants :(
on May 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Of all the questionable actions taken, the painting over of the artwork bothers me most. The pews and altar could be reinstalled if the church were to be reopened, but the swift painting over of the religious imagery must be particularly unsettling to the parishioners, who no doubt drew religious sustenance and comfort from it.
Just a hunch on my part, but it’s unlikely that Cardinal Egan will be receiving the “Order of Gediminas,” Lithuania’s highest state honor, anytime soon….
on May 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
For sure :)
on May 2nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I agree with William. The painting over the icons saddens me most. Working in a corporate environment, I am accustomed to hearing the phrase “tough choices” when something particularly callous is done by those in authority. I suspect that the same line will be given here as we see the increasing corporatization of American parishes. And despite that, there is something quite objectionable to the swift white-washing of the icons that is even beyond this growing trend — it is actually a violent gesture. I use the term “violent” cautiously, but it certainly does smack of something a little bit totalitarian in the way the art within the church was destroyed and the statuary gagged and bound for re-sale. Perhaps I feel this way in part because I expect that in a faith that expects one to bury something as simple as a blessed medal, I would expect that a sacred space would be closed with a tad bit more respect and dignity.
on May 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
This set of pictures makes me ashamed; is there a defense of Cardinal Egan (in fact I once defended him on line, but that was on another issue).
What is particularly distressing is the contrast with what happened to a beloved church of my own youth, St. Aloysius in Palo Alto when it was sold after a parish realignment. (I hated to see it go but have to admit that all things considered the bishop probably had a point.) It was sold to a Hare Krishna/Ananda organization for use in their services and education programs, and I was touched and grateful for the respect with which they treated the place. Unless I’m missing something the contrast is beyond embarrassing.
on May 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
What does it say about the episcopacy to say that a bishop, here Cardinal Egan, was “sent to do a job?” What kind of theology of the episcopacy, one which retains any sense of apostolic succession, can say that a diocesan bishop was cosen to do a job that fundamentally has to do with a diocese’s material possessions? If this is a criterion that is seriously taken into consideration when appointments are made, then of course there’s no serious concedrn about a “college of bishops in union with the pope.” The bishop, if this is the case, is just an emissary. What self-respecting clergyman could accept an episcopal appointment to a see on these terms?
on May 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Grant, thank you for covering our sad situation. For anyone interested in more pictures and a history of events, I direct you to our wevsite, www.ourladyofvilnius.org
on May 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
As a parishioner who has ancestral ties to this parish, I do not stand at an intellectual remove from this issue. From the beginning I have viewed the balance of power as greatly in favor of the Archdiocese. I think that the raw use of power, the hardball tactics and the deceptive communication are out of any proportion to the stated archdiocesan agenda of freeing priests and resources to serve the growing Catholic population in the exurbs. My question is exactly how dead the archdiocese needs to kill us, and why? Why must voices of disagreement be so forcefully stifled, especially when an appeal mechanism is provided by canon law? I also ask how this behavior is going to influence people’s confidence in the archdiocese and in the Roman Catholic Church as vehicles for the teachings of Christ.
on May 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Bernatd’s post reminded me of what I was told by an old colleague and friend on the job. He was an ex-priest from Brooklyn and said that parish priests had a name for chancery types . including the ex- Archbishop of Philadelphia, “Job men.” (I thought of that later when reading about “the Gents” in Paul Dinter’s ‘The Other Side of the Alatar.”
There is broad importance to this issue stressed in other threads at this blog: will BXVI appoint more pastoral bishops to the many open sees in the uS?
I fear that the Cardinal will, like Bernard Law ,be given some plum assignment in Rome and a new more gentle Bishop will come to New York, for that is the “smooth” roman way.
A further issue here is , if there is a pastoral discoinnect betwen many parish and chancery folk, could not some chancery jobs be given to the laity? Or, if not, should chancery work cease tp be rewarded as a stepping stone to higher placement or at least a “plum” parish?
As to this specific case, despite the protestations of Mr. Zwilling, it appears clear that there is consensus the matter has been badly handled.
When our Bishopss screw up, can we set at least a minimim erxpectation of how they should go on, instead of defensive posturing?
on May 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
While in no way defending how the archdiocese went about closing this parish, I do find it troubling that the U.S. government is now asking the archdiocese to keep this church open because of its historic significance. Talk about something that approximates a federally unfunded mandate. If the government (U.S. or Lithuania) really wanted this church building to remain open, why don’t they help fund this. Or maybe we should revisit what France did in 1905 with the laic laws. Recognizing the historic significance of so many of the nation’s churches, the state appropriated them to itself and now bears the cost of maintaining the physical structure. With a dwindling to non-existent parishioner base, it is hard to keep an aging hulk of building open. So sure let’s have Mass for a few people or for larger groups on special occasions, but maybe the government can pick up the tab? I sincerely doubt it.
on May 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Don’t you think we really lack a plan of action. Do we not carry some blame for passively enduring this archbishop for so many years. At any rate, I suggest a small step towards that end.
Every parish should have a banner honoring Egan as a “Colossal success.” Signs , bumper stickers should say the same.
That followed by “We’s knows.”
What more can we do to serve our Lord Bishop.
on May 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Anthony Andreassi may be using this instance as a springboard for an abstract discussion of the interaction between government and religious institutions, but I would like to interject that Our Lady of Vilnius was a viable, debt-free, self-sustaining parish at the time of its closure. The roof was in disrepair for 3 years because the archdiocese did not approve the work, did not release the insurance payment and did not respond to correspondence from the administrator or trustees. Keeping the church open would not increase the expenses of the archdiocese unless they repair their recent defacement of the interior. Also, Our Lady of Vilnius did not have a dwindling to non-existent parish base. The church has been loyally attended by Lithuanians and Lithuanian-Americans from the tristate area and local residents and workers. It was my impression that the attendance would improve if the roof was repaired, restoring the sanctuary. Recent residential development in the area points to the potential for a larger parish base.
on May 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Reminds me of a photograph recently published in an issue of Commonweal.
It was also on the cover.
Unfortunately, I one can’t load it on to the server for you to see. But I’m sure as readers you can figure out to what picture I am referring
on May 3rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
What are the plans for the disposition of the property. That area in Manhattan is becoming extremely pricy. Does a developer want to build on the site? What was the stampede all about?
I suppose we will have to follow the money.
on May 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
A vandal Ordinary? Or an ordinary vandal?
on May 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“That area in Manhattan is becoming extremely pricy.”
Perhaps Opus Dei could buy it?
:)
on May 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
The way the parishioners of Our Lady of Vilnius were locked out sent a message that even a skilled PR man couldn’t manage to spin.
And though Mr. Zwilling might have been able to sell some New Yorkers the notion that the immediate securing of everything of value in the church was just in aid of protecting precious church artifacts, the crude defacing– by the Archdiocese itself– of what could not be removed sets things in a somewhat different light.
The whole operation now looks strangely punitive and out of control. The Pope’s acceptance of Tuesday’s letter can’t come soon enough for many New Yorkers, including , I am sure, quite a few long-suffering clergy.