__NEWS__United States_________________________

Murder of the Cathedral
The Vatican directed Archbishop Rembert Weakland to suspend the
renovation of his Milwaukee cathedral. The archbishop refused.

By Philip F. Lawler

Since May, when the Vatican first began expressing concern about the renovation of the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee has made a series of grudging concessions. At first a spokesman for the archdiocese said it was an absurdity and an “insult to the archbishop” to suggest that the renovation plan was not in accordance with canon law. When it became clear that the alleged “insult” was coming from Rome, the archdiocesan newspaper suggested that the Vatican was investigating complaints from an “individual” in Milwaukee, but certainly not calling for a halt to the renovation project. 

That line of defense collapsed when reporters saw the text of a letter from Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, unambiguously stating that the renovation plans were incompatible with the liturgical and canonical norms of the universal Church. Even Archbishop Rembert Weakland, the driving force behind the changes, admitted to the press that the Vatican official had “implied” he should call a halt to the project. 

At this point, however, Archbishop Weakland refused to make any further concessions. He told his priests that he, as archbishop, had the authority to approve the controversial plans for the cathedral’s new interior. He claimed that Cardinal Medina’s objections were based on inaccurate information. He charged that the Vatican had not followed proper canonical procedures. He argued that the Vatican official “has not proven that I broke any liturgical norms or canons.” [emphasis added] He questioned the motivations of his critics. Above all he made it clear that the renovation would continue—whether the Vatican liked it or not.

Cardinal Medina, in his letter to Archbishop Weakland, had detailed how the renovation plans violated particular passages in canonical and liturgical legislation. The archbishop responded in a letter that he faxed back to the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Although the details of that letter have not come to light, in his public remarks Archbishop Weakland has argued that his critics (including Cardinal Medina) are misinformed, or that their objections are simply matters of opinion. More to the point, he insists that the Vatican official’s letter represented a series of suggestions rather than directives. He said: 

The bishops I’ve consulted, the canon lawyers I’ve consulted, have told me that what the cardinal does at the end is to say, “This is being remanded to your renewed consideration. Take into account what I’m saying.” Fine. I have no problem with that. He has four points. I’ve looked at all four points.

Although he continued to insist that his renovation plans were in line with Church law, the archbishop would not wait for a third party, such as a Vatican tribunal, to adjudicate the case. Instead, having staked out a position in opposition to Rome, he began to rally support for that position. Jerry Topczewski, a spokesman for the Milwaukee archdiocese, said that the archbishop had received encouraging phone calls from Cardinals Bernard Law of Boston, Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, and Francis George of Chicago. (He did not provide details of what those prelates said.) 

In a July 5 letter to the priests of Milwaukee, the archbishop said that he felt obliged to take a stand because “the issues involved are bigger than we are, and touch the very nature of the Church and how it [sic] functions.” (The archbishop’s letter, stamped “personal,” became a public record when it was reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.) Archbishop Weakland wrote: “I must, for the good of the diocese, of this local church, defend the position that the right of the local bishop to make judgment in this diocese cannot be compromised over something as trivial as a matter of taste or opinion.”

Defiance and division
By early July, the archbishop’s defiance of a Vatican official had captured the full attention of the secular media. The Journal Sentinel, while professing no opposition to the renovation plans, suggested that Archbishop Weakland might have harmed his own cause by refusing to heed the Vatican’s warnings. In a July 5 editorial, the paper reasoned that once the letter from Cardinal Medina became public knowledge, the situation was radically changed:

Unfortunately, in stubbornly pressing ahead with those plans in the face of opposition here and from the Vatican, Weakland may instead leave behind as part of his legacy a more deeply divided local Catholic community and increased doubts about Church authority in the minds of believers. That’s certainly his prerogative as bishop, but it’s probably not what he had in mind.

Archdiocesan officials have dismissed the local opponents as a small band of reactionaries, but the opposition is probably wider than officials would like to believe. 

Weakland is trying to put the best face on the letter, saying it really doesn’t change anything and that a few minor adjustments in the plans will satisfy Rome. In fact, it changes everything, not least because if he pushes ahead, he will increase the risk of leaving behind a significant minority of his flock.

A more inclusive approach—in which the opponents in Rome and in Milwaukee are treated seriously and the renovation temporarily halted—might leave less bitterness behind. That’s a better legacy and better for the whole community, believers and non-believers alike.

In his letter to his priests and in his discussions with the press, Archbishop Weakland tried to draw a distinction between the Vatican and the Pope. He could not plausibly deny that he was involved in a struggle with the Roman Curia, but he was not anxious to take a public posture in opposition to Pope John Paul II. So he told the Journal Sentinel, “I don’t think he knows anything about what’s going on now in the renovation of the cathedral.” The Pope is very busy, the archbishop observed: “ So I’m completely positive he’s not the least bit involved.”

But is it plausible that the Holy Father is thoroughly ignorant of a dispute between a Roman congregation and a metropolitan archbishop—a dispute so highly publicized that it has now drawn the attention of the most important secular media outlets in America? Would John Paul II be indifferent toward a looming rebellion against Vatican authority? 

“The hardest thing for me,” Archbishop Weakland later told the New York Times, “is to instruct my people here in a way so they understand I’m not being disobedient to the Pope.” That difficulty is understandable.

Philip F. Lawler is the editor of Catholic World Report.

Archbishop Weakland to his priests
Excerpts from the archbishop’s letter to his priests

It is true that some people will always insist that they had not been heard because we did not agree with them. They fail to realize that listening to someone is not the same as agreeing with them.

How should we analyze those who oppose the renovation? That is a significant question since it is not one homogenous group. There is a small group—in Rome, in Milwaukee, and in the United States—who see this as one last opportunity to publicly humiliate “Weakland” before his retirement. They are not without power. Then there is a larger group who simply like the Cathedral as it is. They come there for private prayer and use it as a “chapel” for devotion. That the celebrant is so far away from the people, that the priest, while celebrating Mass, has his back to the Blessed Sacrament, that the altar upon which Mass is said is an afterthought, that the pulpit is way over on the side and insignificant, etc., are not matters of concern to them. I readily understand this sentiment. When things to which we are accustomed change, there is need for a time for grieving about the old, just as we need time to adjust to something new that has not yet been experienced. There are also those who have never accepted in their hearts the reformed liturgy of Vatican Council II and who still hope in their hearts that the Church will go back to the way it was in the ‘50s.

Finally, there is a fourth group, probably the largest in number, who simply do not appreciate or understand the importance of a cathedral or its role in the life of the Catholic community . . . and who now are confused by all of this furor.

We are not a corporation with head offices in Rome and branch offices around the world; we are not a military body; we are not a monarchy. We are a distinct breed: a hierarchical People of God governed by a college of bishops whose head is the Pope, “a lasting and visible source and foundation of unity both of faith and of communion.” 

I insist unequivocally that Cardinal Medina of the Congregation for Worship has not proven that I broke any liturgical norms or canons in making the decisions that were rightfully mine to make as the local bishop of this church. I stand by that statement. The role of oversight and intervention of the Congregation cannot arise as a matter of mere taste but can only come about as a result of a true violation of a norm, and I would judge, a norm of some gravity. 

Back to Catholic World Report August/September 2001 Table of Contents

Back to Catholic.net Magazine Rack