*EXCLUSIVE -- MUST CREDIT WHISPERS*Posted on 10/13/2006 5:48:15 AM PDT by Maeve
Mutiny in the Big Apple *EXCLUSIVE -- MUST CREDIT WHISPERS*
In 1983, the new bishop of Scranton was consulted on the appointment of a new archbishop of New York.
John O'Connor was familiar with the See given his long service as a Navy chaplain, culminating with his four years as auxiliary bishop to the Military Vicar, Cardinal Terence Cooke. O'Connor later made it known that, while the new archbishop would inevitably face some difficulties, he opined that none would be due to the New York presbyterate, who served well, loved the church and were loyal to their archbishop.
Less than seven months after his installation in Scranton, Bishop O'Connor was promoted to the Big Apple. He may only be gone six years, but how times change.
Long-simmering tensions among a broad cross-section of the archdiocese's priests broke into the open today with the circulation of an anonymous letter under the authorship of a group calling itself "A Committee of Concerned Clergy for the Archdiocese of New York." Saying that, "At no time has the relationship between the Ordinary and the priests of the Archdiocese been so fractured and seemingly hopeless as it is now," the authors have urged their confreres to lodge "a formal vote of 'NO Confidence'" (emphases original) in Cardinal Edward M. Egan, who became archbishop in 2000. Using strong language throughout the 950-word missive, the authors allege a widespread finding that Egan's relationship with his priests has been "defined by dishonesty, deception, disinterest and disregard."
The cardinal turns 75 on 2 April, when he must submit his letter of resignation to Pope Benedict XVI.
In its entirety, the letter and accompanying ballot are published below for the first time outside of the New York presbyterate. As he recovers from a September knee-replacement, the cardinal's intense displeasure at the move has already become known.
Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the archdiocese, declined comment on the document.
***************************************
October 2006
Dear Brother Priest:
A Committee of Concerned Clergy for the Archdiocese of New York has met to discuss the critical condition of the Archdiocese of New York. As you would understand, because of the severely vindictive nature of Cardinal Egan,this committee must remain anonymous. This letter is being sent to many priests throughout the Archdiocese so that at each Vicariate meeting a formal vote of “NO Confidence” can be exercised with regard to Cardinal Edward Egan in his role as Archbishop of New York. As you know, the collective memory of the presbyterate cannot recall a time in recent history when the morale of priests has been so broken and low. Some of our elderly priests can well recall the Cardinal Spellman years. Many remember the tenure of Cardinal Cooke and certainly everyone remembers Cardinal O’Connor. At no time has the relationship between the Ordinary and the priests of the Archdiocese been so fractured and seemingly hopeless as it is now.
Since his arrival in New York, the Cardinal has given his time, attention and interest to matters financial while paying little or no attention to the spiritual needs and concerns of the priests and faithful of the Archdiocese. During the last six years the Priests of the Archdiocese of New York have been patient, understanding, tolerant and loyal. Several attempts have been made to open avenues of communication with the Cardinal but to avail. During the last six years, the Cardinal’s relations with the Priests of New York have been defined by dishonesty, deception, disinterest and disregard. Far too many of our brothers can speak personally of the arrogant and cavalier manner in which they have been treated by the Cardinal. Early in his tenure, the cruel and ruthless way in which several priests who served on the seminary faculty were dismissed, was an adumbration of how many other priests would also be treated. Time and again, the Cardinal fails to be the Father that every bishop must be to his priests.
With regard to important policies and decisions that impact upon the welfare of the Archdiocese, it is evident that the Cardinal does not seek advice or counsel from the many competent and experienced priests who so faithfully serve as pastors and members of his chancery staff. Instead, it is regrettably and seemingly apparent that the Cardinal relies on the advice of his priest-secretary [Msgr Gregory Mustaciuolo] who enjoys a most limited and meager pastoral experience.
The Fifth Anniversary of September 11th was a sad reminder of the Cardinal’s decision to leave New York only two days after the attack, during a time when the city desperately needed a spiritual leader. How sad, painful and disappointing it was to hear the tabloids referring to the then Mayor Giuliani as the “Shepherd of the City”. Since that time, the Cardinal has continued to fail in his role as Shepherd. Pope John Paul II referred to New York as the Capital of the World. How unfortunate it is that the voice of the Archbishop of New York is almost never heard in that “Capital”. The Cardinal demonstrates an unnatural fear of the media and he forfeits the great opportunity to employ the media as a means of addressing the many contemporary questions of faith and morals. It is unthinkable that in this millennium a Successor to the Apostles would shrink from such a valuable opportunity for evangelization and hide himself within the walls of his residence.
Sadly, it is evident that this Cardinal is unable to deal with the complexities, problems and challenges of an Archdiocese of the magnitude and diversity of New York. For these reasons and more, the Priests of the Archdiocese of New York must express a vote of NO CONFIDENCE. Such a vote would encourage the Papal Nuncio and the Holy Father to strongly consider accepting the Cardinal’s resignation in April,2007, when he reaches the age of retirement, rather than at a future and uncertain date before his 80th birthday, as can often be the case with retiring Cardinals. The search for a new Archbishop should begin sooner rather than later. Rome must know that the priests and people of New York desperately need a Bishop who will be “strong, loving and wise” (II Timothy: 1:7): a Bishop who will love his priests, seeing them as his spiritual sons and faithful assistants: a Bishop who will begin the healing that is so desperately needed in this Archdiocese: a Bishop who will preach and teach without fear of seeing his name in a newspaper: a Bishop who will truly see holiness in Truth.
The Committee suggests that at each vicariate meeting a secret ballot be taken in which each priest who is present could vote. It was thought that only priests and no deacons should participate in this vote. The votes should be counted at that meeting and the tally registered on the enclosed form. The form should be signed by two witnesses and a copy sent to each of the Vicars General. It would be incumbent upon the Vicars General to report the vote to the Papal Nuncio. At this important and critical moment, let us move forward with prayerful courage.
After prayeful consideration, I cast my vote as:
NO CONFIDENCE in Cardinal Egan: _____
CONFIDENCE in Cardinal Egan:_____
ABSTENTION: ______
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each Vicariate should send a copy of this form to each of the Vicars General-
Vicariate: ____________________________
Date of Meeting:________________________
Number of Priests in attendance: ____________
Number voting - NO CONFIDENCE: __________
Number voting – CONFIDENCE: _____________
Number voting – ABSTENTION: _____________
These vote was taken and counted in the presence of all those in attendance at the Vicariate meeting. Witnessed by:
___________________ __________________
"I would ask you, are the bishops the successors of the apostles or not"
You answered a question with a question, I think because you do not want to say, "Yes, there is a point beyond which a bishop loses his entitlement to obedience."
I have no idea. That was *my* question!
Since my Priest is one of the Anglican Priest Converts, I have attended more than a few of the Anglican Use Conferences, and become acquainted with quite a few of the former Anglican Priests who crossed the Tiber to become RC Priests.
I haven't met any who smelled of lavender or walked with a swish.
Please never accuse my Priest of being a member of the Lavender Mafia when he is out clearing cedar, and wielding a chain saw. You might get more than a gentle rebuke.
1. Brooklyn is a separate diocese covering Brooklyn and Queens. Its recent former bishops are Francis Mugavero and Thomas Daily (who arrived from Law's Boston). The present bishop is a big improvent. I forget the name but I believe that he is a youngish Italian bishop previously serving Camden, NJ.
2. As bishop of Bridgeport, Egan allowed Tridentine Masses at Bridgeport and at Stamford.
Egan is no star and he has a terrible attitude about criticism and about press coverage of the scandals and what not. He is not a very wise bishop or a very good pastor. Fortunately he will soon be 75.
Your posts are always so informative.
It's my home diocese.
It is, as I said, a suffragan see of the New York Archdiocese.
As bishop of Bridgeport, Egan allowed Tridentine Masses at Bridgeport and at Stamford.
Correct. As I said, he is indifferent to Latin mass communities as long as they contribute to the support of the diocese. He neither encourages nor discourages their formation, which makes him better on that point than 90% of the US episcopate.
Also, isn't Fr. Rutler an Anglican convert to Rome????
John Henry Cardinal Newman was more than OK in his time as well.
There is also a former Anglican bishop of London who converted to Catholicism when they started ordaining women, was ordained a Catholic priest and brought many English Anglican priests with him to Rome.
Please fill the other gaps in my knowledge here. Who is the present (diocesan ordinary) bishop of Brooklyn? When was he appointed? Where had he served previously? Is the term "suffragen" or suffragan?"
Correct. The word is "suffragan" from "suffrage" meaning having a voice or a vote. The term comes from the metropolitan bihop's council, which was made up of neighboring bishops of non-metropolitan rank - the local synod if you will.
The present ordianry of Brooklyn is Nicholas DiMarzio. He was installed in October of '03. He's 62 and he started off as a priest in Newark in '70 and was an auxiliary bishop in Camden, NJ for 4 years before he came to Brooklyn.
Well, every Ordinary I've ever lived under made your list. Ugh.
Fr. Ryland is a living saint -- in my opinion.
The Rt. Rev. Msgr. Graham Leonard used to be the Anglican Bishop of London. He is a most remarkable man. I was so glad Pope John Paul II bestowed the title "Rt Rev Msgr." on Fr. Leonard. It was a generous (and a very right) thing to do.
"Let's not forget that Egan eliminated/banned/whatever exorcists from operating in the NY Archdiocese."
Maybe the good bishop of Nebraska will take his place. I'm sure he would reactivate the exorcists. NY needs him.
Since the Cardinal has not been accused of heresy, the issue is academic. If you have proof of heresy, then come back and ask me. Many bishops have been heretics in the history of the Church. But it is Catholic doctrine that bishops are the successors of the apostles and deserve some respect and obedience due to their office. If you don't believe that, then you are not embracing the fullness of the Catholic faith.
In this day and age I do not think that the Archdiocese of New York can afford to have an Archbishop that is afraid of the liberal secular press.One of Egan's first moves in New York was to emasculate the diocesan paper,"Catholic New York".He changed it from a dynamic weekly to a harmless monthly.This was done at a time when we needed a regular Catholic voice on the major issues of the day.
Mahoney tried to submarine Mother Angelica.
bumpus ad summum
Thanks for this info. As I said, I just picked up the names from reading about them. However, even though some have gone, they still need our prayers - especially Apb. Jadot, who was responsible for the worst of them and is still proud of that fact. NYer has the link to an article on Jadot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.