Very extremely severely guilty as charged. I have no clue about the guy.
I quite get that the church is not a for profit bidnis. On the flip side, it can't operate at a loss, not for long. Will we praise bishops and administrators who say, "The Lord will provide," and do nothing about budget issues? When they trusted the Lord to provide a solution to the ephebephilia craze, they were roundly scorned. (This is now a general question because I have zero knowledge about this particular situation.)
And my comments generally were in response to the criticism of closing churched if they needed diocesan or other subsidies. For the third time I will say (so it is now officially true) that I do not know Egan, the situation, the relationship between him and the pastor, the possibilities of, say, demonstrations or other behaviors less than filial on the part of the clergy and the congregation. I don't know anything either way.
But I do know that there are two sets of cheap shots available. One set is to say things like the Church is now in the museum business and that all 'round the world people are not hearing the Gospel (or are being charged for the sacraments, as they are in parts of Latin America, where some or too poor to have their children baptized) because money is being spent preserving architecture and so forth. The other is to say that to close churches shows too materialistic and profit-centered an attitude.
I don't know if closing the church in so precipitous a manner was charitable or not. It sure looks bad. Either Egan is at best a fool or there was some ugly stuff preceding this closure. Or he is at best a fool AND there was some ugly stuff preceding this closure.
In general, eleemosynary institutions are a bitch to run (btdt), and the criticism they get is not always the criticism they deserve, which is not to say that they deserve NO criticism.
The defense rests.
I hope you don't think that I have made either of those "cheap shots." If you do, then it is evidence that I don't express myself very clearly. My main concern in this case is the underhanded way that Cardinal Egan dealt with the pastor of this parish.
There are those who make the argument that the Church should sell all of its art and architecture in order to help the poor. That argument has been roundly clobbered by FReepers far more eloquent than I. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. Once the property is sold and the wealth distributed, what happens to the future generations of the poor when the Church no longer has assets to sell? Now many of the inspirational artistic masterpieces can be seen by the public. If they were to be sold to individuals, they likely wouldn't be accessible to the public. Is that a net gain? Perhaps more of a long term solution is better?
Many of the churches in Europe have existed for hundreds of years. During that time the average Catholic was far less wealthy than today and yet the churches were maintained rather than torn down. Not to mention that the churches they built were, and are, more architecturally and artistically beautiful than many of the churches built today. The Church has been able to evangelize AND maintain beautiful churches for hundreds of years.
It is unfortunate that the practice of charging money for sacraments is not vigorously rooted out of Latin America. It is a violation of the Canon 66 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.) to charge money for the sacraments or rites of the Church, and anyone who practices this is condemned by ecclesiastical censure. If anyone does this they are to be restrained by the Bishop, and if the Bishop does not restrain them, they are not doing their job. Here is the text of the Canon itself if anyone is interested.
CANON 66
It has frequently come to the ears of the Apostolic See that some clerics demand and extort money for burials, nuptial blessings, and similar things, and, if perchance their cupidity is not given satisfaction, they fraudulently interpose fictitious impediments. On the other hand, some laymen, under the pretext of piety but really on heretical grounds, strive to suppress a laudable custom introduced by the pious devotion of the faithful in behalf of the church (that is, of giving freely something for ecclesiastical services rendered). Wherefore, we forbid that such evil exactions be made in these matters, and on the other hand command that pious customs be observed, decreeing that the sacraments of the Church be administered freely and that those who endeavor maliciously to change a laudable custom be restrained by the bishops of the locality when once the truth is known.