Some have voiced concern that George Neumayr and others may be making "much ado about nothing" when it comes to Cardinal Wuerl's living quarters. They ask why it's important. For an answer, we'd have to ask Pope Francis himself for it is he who made quite clear his expectations for bishops to live simply. Let us recall that he went so far as to remove German Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, commonly known as the "bishop of bling".
Did other DC prelates live there? At most, only Cardinals McCarrick and Hickey could have. Why do I say that? Well, the one preceding them was Cardinal Baum and apparently he was implicated in his own dust-up back in 1974, according to this Church Militant report. The price that he paid back then was $525k, but that was 1974 dollars. At any rate, he unloaded the place and took up residence in the rectory of St. Matthew's Cathedral.
But that was then and this is now. As most readers know, I disagree with Pope Francis on many things. However, no one can gainsay his authority over the bishops and how they are to conduct themselves. Father Peter Daly, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington (and I've written about him) is a fairly regular writer for the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter. Two years ago he wrote a piece in which he excoriated the "bishop of bling" and other prelates who (in his judgment) weren't in compliance. However, no mention is made in that piece of the situation of Cardinal Wuerl. That's not so odd when one considers that he serves under Wuerl, but the double standard is still obvious.
I'll close this with a link to a piece written by Phil Lawler. While he decries Neumayr for being "shrill" (I might be "shrill" if I were ejected by police on someone's whim), he does acknowledge that Neumayr, as a journalist has a right to ask questions of someone who is obviously a close ally of the pope and who wields much influence. As quoted in my original post on this topic, Neumayr's requests for an interview have been stonewalled by the chancery and now he's being chased away by police at the apparent behest of Cardinal Wuerl. A reasonable person could surmise that indeed there is something to hide.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that +van Elst was attacked, at the behest of his confreres, for his more Traditional stance and his non -Kasperite views. The property angle, not comparable to the US situations, a mere tool to facilitate the attack.
ReplyDeleteThat might explain lots of things.
DeleteI can't really get too worked up about this because Mr. Neumayr isn't as precise as he should be. He says Cardinal Wuerl lives like a Borgia and he doesn't mean St. Francis Borgia. Okay. Give me something to back that up. Is the Cardinal's toilet a top of the line Toto Washlet from Japan? Does he have Italian marble counter tops and a sub zero refrigerator? Is Mr. Neumayr saying that the wrong sort of person is seen going in and out of the apartment? He keeps saying stuff but never offers anything concrete.
ReplyDeleteFollow the money. The life style may not be that extravagant, but that does not mean the money to support that life style has been properly reported. The Cardinal can't send us to Rome to work on a Vatican Commission for the next five years. We will be here asking questions and finding out if there is any missing money in any of the parishes.
DeleteOn the other hand, if the good cardinal is living modestly why does he not invite the Washington Post in to glorify how his living accommodations are in keeping with Pope Francis’ and put an end to the discussion?
ReplyDeleteWhen someone calls a third-story unit a "penthouse" and a parish building a "mansion," it really does call into question their credibility.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mark. There is so much to focus on with Cardinal Wuerl that is valid and wrong
ReplyDeletewhy focus on a third story unit in an old run down building that I know personally is not lavish. Yes, the neighborhood is Kalorama and the real estate valuable. The house on Warren Street is also owned by the Archdiocese and traditionally used for the past bishops of the diocese. Wuerl is not a good shepherd for very real and glaring reasons not because of the a so called third floor penthouse "Mansion" on California Street that is a bit run down, used for a pre school for hispanic children and the second floor for Mass in an auditorium setting…..this man is missing the mark and taking away from very evil doing by a shepherd of Christ's church. Which begs the question is this person deliberately diverting attention from the real issues ?
With regards to the last question, I'd have to say no. Neumayr writes for both Crisis and American Spectator. Please follow these links to get an idea why the DC chancery has never been fond of Neumayr; he simply calls them out on too much for their liking. Among the things that puts a bee in their bonnet was his defense of Father Guarnizo four years ago. Some may not appreciate his two-fisted approach, but so what? Here are the links to samplings of his writings: http://spectator.org/bios/george-neumayr and http://www.crisismagazine.com/author/george-neumayr
Delete