![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Card. Egan transfers 10% of priests: settling scores or clearing the deck
This is in from the NYT:
A Sudden Transfer of 40 Priests Brings Egan Unrest From Within
By DAVID GONZALEZ
Published: May 21, 2008
Cardinal Edward M. Egan has reassigned almost 10 percent of the active priests in the Archdiocese of New York without adequately consulting the personnel board that has traditionally advised him and his predecessors, according to members of the board and other clergy familiar with the developments.
While canon lawyers said the cardinal was not bound to consult with the six-member board, two of its members said that the number of transfers in the last three to six weeks was so unusual and damaging to morale that the board sent him a letter on Monday requesting a meeting to discuss how priests are being reassigned. Forty priests are involved, out of about 470 active Diocesan priests.
“This is 10 percent of the diocese, and that is monumental,” said one priest familiar with the transfers. “There is nothing like this before. I am a priest in one of the major dioceses of this country, and they cannot put together a fact sheet to tell us what is going on right now. I’m getting news of this through phone calls, rumors and e-mails. It is unprofessional.”
News of the moves — which started circulating among local priests over the weekend — was seen by various priests as either a much-needed shift, a settling of scores or last-minute changes before the cardinal leaves his current post. Although he is 76, one year past the mandatory age to submit for retirement, the Vatican has yet to name his successor.
Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese, said in a statement that of the 40 transfers, 10 were decided directly by the cardinal in response to “particular pastoral needs,” as provided for under personnel guidelines. He also contested the assertions of critics, saying that the 30 other transfers were “based on the recommendations of the board.” The moves go into effect July 1.
He said that six more appointments would soon be decided.
“In the coming weeks, the personnel board will be making recommendations to the cardinal about six pastors; and, as usual, their recommendations will be carefully considered,” Mr. Zwilling said in a statement.
Almost no one interviewed for this story would speak without anonymity. Many of them said they were reluctant to risk running afoul of the cardinal.
Interviews with nine priests — including several who have served in significant administrative roles under previous archbishops — revealed continued dissatisfaction with the cardinal’s management style. They said Cardinal Egan had not only disregarded the personnel board in recent years, but had also failed to provide any guidance on how to handle the transition for those priests and congregations affected by the transfers.
Many priests said that had ultimately affected morale — a precious commodity among an increasingly aging and overworked clergy.
“There are some priests who are hurting right now and are devastated,” said one priest who has been fielding calls from colleagues. “And no one is officially reaching out to them. That I emphatically know. There is no outreach right now.”
Calls to three pastors known to have been reassigned were not returned. Another declined to comment, saying he hoped to appeal the decision. Some of the pastors — who under church rules are assigned to six-year terms — were reassigned before their term was up. It is unclear how many of them have informed their congregations of the moves.
Some of the priests interviewed said several of the moves were overdue in the case of long-serving pastors or necessary to make room for newly ordained priests. Still, many priests noted that in recent years, Cardinal Egan had ended the practice of sending notices of parish openings to all clergy who might either be interested or know of someone who would be good for the job.
In previous years, the board would review applicants for each job and send to the archbishop a list of three names with reasons favoring each one, said Msgr. Thomas P. Leonard, the pastor of Holy Trinity Church on the Upper West Side, who was involved in personnel decisions under Cardinal Terence Cooke. “Ninety-nine percent of the time, he chose one of the three.”
Two canon lawyers, in New York and Washington, said church law did not oblige the cardinal to consult with the personnel board, which was advisory in nature. And the cardinal, they said, is also free to reassign pastors before their terms ended if there is a pressing need elsewhere or if the priest in question agrees to the move.
One priest who is active in regional pastoral matters said the current moves would do little to ease the challenge faced by the dwindling number of local clergy. In addition to the active Diocesan priests, there are also priests belonging to other religious orders who run Roman Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese.
“They have not faced the strategic issue of priests in parishes,” said this priest, who spoke on the condition of anonymity since he was not authorized by the Archdiocese to speak on the transfers. “This is putting out fires. I guess they’re waiting for the next guy to go in to develop a strategic plan.”
While the visit of the Holy Father was a blessing to the Archdiocese for sure, it is clear that they need a lot more than that to reunify the clergy and their superiors. New York is important to the Catholic life all around the country. Let’s pray that healing will come about soon so that they can move forward. God bless! Padre Steve
Comment by Padre Steve — 21 May 2008 @ 11:17 amI’m not from the US, and don’t know the people concerned, but: if the NYT is putting a bad spin on the Cardinal’s move, he must have done something good!
Now, seriously, what’s wrong with the local Ordinary exercising his authority of Government in accordance with Canon Law over the priests and faithful commited to his care?
Is the Church a democracy? No. And it shouldn’t be. That’s the constitution willed by the Lord. The Diocesan Bishop is the one with the gifts of episcopal consacration – and the one appointed by the Holy See – to lead his flock.
Now, there is a crisis in the Church. A crisis of obedience, of effective pastoral action, observance of the Laws and liturgical rubrics, of proper catechesis, etc. If the Bishop cannot move his priests arround, how then can he be expected to command obedience? Imagine if the Pope could not move the Bishops from their offices. His authority would be greatly impaired in the practical level. . Probably, those who oppose this move want to “neutralize” the Cardinal, and so maintain the present “status quo” in the Archdiocese of New York. How, then, can we expect things to improve. If the clergy needs reformation, how can this can be done if representatives from the clergy that needs to be reformed sit on a board that ties the Bishop’s hand?
So, I tend to see structures such as “personnel boards” as an attempt to “steal”/”hijack” the canonical power of Governance that belongs to the Diocesan bishop. An advisory body is an advisory body and should’t attempt to claim power that is not proper to it. Otherwise, the structure of government intended by the sacred canons is lost in favour of something else not recognized by the Law of the Church.
Christ instituted an Apostolic Succession, but created no personnel boards. Who are the people that make up the personnel board, anyway? I bet they are not appointed either by the See of Rome or by the Bishop, but are instead “representatives” of the lower clergy, as if the Church was a democracy. They want to advise, that is fine. But they cannot complain when the Bishop monocratically exercises a power that is proper to him and decides on his own.
Except when canon law otherwise directs, the Bishop, Successor to the Apostles, is the governor of his diocese, and is not bound to consult anyone, much less his subjects. He is to be obeyed and respected. That’s the promise made on Ordination, right? So, I see this as an usurpation of the episcopal power of governance by those who want to maintain some sort of status quo .
Comment by Prof. Basto — 21 May 2008 @ 11:34 amCould you comment on this, Fr.? i don’t know what to think about it… this is a new happening in my short life as a Catholic.
Comment by credo — 21 May 2008 @ 11:34 amKudos to Prof. Basto! I concur wholeheartedly. I’m sorry some priests are upset at being moved without their input, but these things happen. I’ve had it happen to me in my life as priest, and one gets over it. I know it sounds harsh and I apologize, but that’s just the way it is. I’ll pray for them all and especially for Cardinal Egan.
Comment by Fr. Kowalski — 21 May 2008 @ 11:49 amIt’s funny how this review board acts as if it has a right to make or influence the decisions made about transferring priests. It is a [i]privilege[/i] granted unto it, and it can be taken away, I imagine, or the board can simply be ignored.
Unless these six board members are unknown auxiliary bishops of the diocese, then what they say really shouldn’t matter that much.
I know that necessity probably demands these sorts of review boards’ existence in Church today, but I still can’t help but see it as a blurring of the rights belonging to the episcopal dignity.
Comment by Garrett — 21 May 2008 @ 11:52 amPermitting folks to find out about the moves through rumor, if true, is certainly not the best way to go about things, but sometimes can’t be helped. I doubt that it’s the cardinal starting the rumors, but the apparatchiks around him who leave him only the blame.
On the other hand, if pastoral assignments are 6 years in length, it seems that about 16% of the priests should be moving each year. And that’s not a bad way to avoid the ‘cult of personality’ that seems to be the cause of many problems in the Church these days.
Comment by pdt — 21 May 2008 @ 11:55 amThis is strange coming at this time… there have been rumblings in my Diocese that a similar event is on the verge of being announced by the end of May, re-assigning a large number of Pastors and Priests. Although they are just rumors at this time, I have heard it said by three different sources, all of them well enough placed in the Diocese to know about such things. Unlike New York, there is no “time-limit” on Pastors, and a signifiant number in this Diocese have served as Pastor at their parish for 20+ years. This would be unprecedented here as well. We have a new Bishop here, having only served for not yet two complete years at this point.
Comment by Chironomo — 21 May 2008 @ 11:59 amCanon law does not allow ordinaries an unfettered power to remove pastors from office, nor has it ever.
I gathered from one article I read about this that pastors in New York are appointed for six-year terms. Is that really true, and how does that cohere with the Code’s provisions, which seem to presuppose that a pastor’s appointment is stable, and that he can be removed only for cause? Or does New York simply not have pastors at all, in the sense in which that term is used in the Code?
If these pastors really are pastors in the canonical sense, it’s unclear where the process of removal now stands. Are these letters from the Cardinal the “propose and persuade” ones mentioned by Canon 1748? Or has he actually decreed the parishes vacant from a date certain, as in Canon 1751 (1), but without going through the process prescribed by the Code?
Comment by Cerimoniere — 21 May 2008 @ 12:10 pmI have found this not be an unusual occurrence. Just before Bishop Daniel M. Buechlein of Memphis was transferred to Indianapolis as Archbishop in 1992, he transferred many longtime pastors of parishes and their associates. He personally visited the pastors and had the associates line up outside his office to get their new assignments. For Memphis, given its small size, it was closer to 40% of its priests that were moved. Settling the scores or clearing the deck? Probably a combination of both. However, one longtime pastor of a parish flat out refused to be moved. He remained as pastor of his parish until HE decided to retire, long after Buechlein was gone.
Comment by TNCath — 21 May 2008 @ 12:21 pmIn the Diocese of Orange in California, the norm is that pastors are given a six year term with the option by the Bishop for an additional six years. Parochial Vicars get a three year term and are almost always re-assigned after three years. The transfer date is always 1-July unless for just cause (death, illness, etc.). So a 10% move rate would be very low in my diocese.
I think that the NYT is spinning this as a lot worse than it really is.
Comment by Brian Day — 21 May 2008 @ 12:24 pmI still vividly remember the shock I felt as a young boy when I found out that the Priest I was visiting was in the shower. Priests, I thought, didn’t do such mundane things! Maybe I still have an unrealistic (?) image of Priests, but I do not understand how this affects morale, especially of those Priests that are not being transferred. Unless the transfers were vindictive or punitive (and there is no evidence that this is the case), why would a Priest be worried at all if another Priest were transferred to meet particular pastoral needs?
Comment by Michael — 21 May 2008 @ 12:35 pmI’ve been serving for four years in my first parish assignment (after ordination) as parochial vicar or asst. pastor and I haven’t heard that I will be transferred this coming May or June.
Comment by Farther V. — 21 May 2008 @ 12:49 pmThe mixing of the corporate model with the Church model is bound to cause some upset. Doubtless events like this took place long before personnel boards and doubtless there was sorrow on the part of those affected both the priests and the laity. But going out and bellowing about it is the wrong attitude for the clergy. It is good that the people directly involved (the priests themeselves) have not spoken out in a public fashion. Hopefully they will remain silent and pray to the Lord for the grace of humility to accept this burden. More often than not they will grow in their new position. We should always pray for our priests in every diocese. I know that this type of move is very hard to take even in the corporate world so my symapthy and prayers; but do as you are told and God will reward you>
Comment by Larry — 21 May 2008 @ 12:58 pmI always thought it was the bishop who runs the diocese…I think that’s the way it works anyway and since when is the Church a democracy? And whatever happened to that thing about promising obedience the ordinary(or religious superior) and his successors? Oh yeah…that only applies when I’m consulted or if I get the richest parish and most palatial rectory in the diocese, along with a new car and a pay raise,etc…
Comment by Father G — 21 May 2008 @ 1:00 pmAh yes…the wonderful springtime of Vatican II…NOT!
The mixing of the corporate model with the Church model is bound to cause some upset.
I don’t see the point.
Doubtless events like this took place long before personnel boards and doubtless there was sorrow on the part of those affected both the priests and the laity.
You sound naive about personnel boards. More than one priest has told me that if a priest has buddies on the board, the assignment will be good. If not, it’s pot luck.
But going out and bellowing about it is the wrong attitude for the clergy. It is good that the people directly involved (the priests themeselves) have not spoken out in a public fashion. Hopefully they will remain silent and pray to the Lord for the grace of humility to accept this burden. More often than not they will grow in their new position. We should always pray for our priests in every diocese. I know that this type of move is very hard to take even in the corporate world so my symapthy and prayers; but do as you are told and God will reward you>
Comment by Larry
Why is sympathy needed? A pastor doesn’t have squatter’s rights.
Comment by RBrown — 21 May 2008 @ 1:51 pmCeremoniere, in accord with the complementary norms promulgated by the US Bishops Conference, and approved by the Holy See, “Individual ordinaries may appoint pastors to a six-year term of office. The possibility of renewing this term is left to the discretion of the diocesan bishop. the primary provision of c. 522 that pastors may be appointed for an indefinite period of time remains in force” (cf. http://www.usccb.org/norms)
While I wish more bishops would appoint pastors with the permanence and stability that the Code envisions, they do have the right, in law, to appoint pastors for a six-year term. In addition, many bishops utilize their legitimate ability to appoint a priest not as a pastor, but ass a parish administrator. This they can do at will, and there’s not necessarily a set term of office for a parish administrator.
There are certainly goods that need to be kept in balance here – the good of a diocesan bishop to moderate and organize the ministerial needs of his diocese as best as he sees fit; the right of ordained priests to a certain amount of stability in their lives; the good of healthy communication – including consultation – between bishops and their priests; the good of the faithful to stable pastoral care; the good of obedience to our hierarchical superiors.
I don’t t