Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, November 20, 2015

Superman (er...Bill Donohue) Coming to Cardinal Wuerl's Rescue!

Bill Donohue has come out swinging at those criticizing Cardinal Wuerl and his $43 Million penthouse on Embassy Row. (See here.) In his article Donohue attacks George Neumayr who called Wuerl our own "bishop of bling" and says this about Christine Niles of ChurchMilitantTV:
Christine Niles...says "today’s archbishop of Washington owns a penthouse in a complex valued at $43 million." That is a lie. He owns not a centimeter of his third-floor "penthouse," an apartment that sits atop Our Lady Queen of the Americas parish. Like bishops all over the world, he resides in a spot that was specifically designed for the local Ordinary. There is nothing scandalous about this Church patrimony.
Hmmm....really? The bishop of an archdiocese overrun with the poor and underprivileged lives in a $43 million "apartment" and hobnobs with the political and cultural elite and there's nothing scandalous? I guess Donohue never read Jesus' admonition in Luke 14:12 not to hobnob with the rich and powerful but to invite the poor and crippled to your banquets. I wonder how many of the homeless in D.C. have seen the inside of the Wuerl luxury "apartment."

As far as the bishop "owning" or "not owning" the property, it seems to me Donohue and Niles are both right. When I and some friends were arrested at a Catholic Church in the Diocese of Arlington back in 1996 for challenging a dissent group meeting in a parish, we ended up in court. Bishop Keating was called as a witness because he is the legal "owner" of all the property in the diocese. Of course, he didn't personally "own" it, but was legally responsible.

It would be interesting to see the property in question. Does it have all the luxury appointments? Marble and hardwood everywhere? Is there an environmentally controlled wine cabinet? A restaurant equipped kitchen? Is all the furniture high end designer style? What is the bathroom like? Marble walls and gold fixtures? Something certainly makes "the apartment" worth $43 million. Donohue doesn't quibble in his article with the assessment.

As for Donohue's personal relationship with the Cardinal (It's so nice to be friends with the high and mighty), my perspective is different. I know priests in the Archdiocese of Washington called on the carpet for daring to speak the truth about true marriage and the homosexual agenda (and I'm not talking about the priest - Fr. Marcel Guarnizo - who got walking papers for refusing Communion to the out and proud lesbian Buddhist. The trumped up charge of intimidation was nothing but that -- trumped up). Faithful priests in D.C. have to watch their Ps and Qs if they don't want a call from the Cardinal.

Wuerl is a homosexualist -- one who enables homosexuality. He also enables pro-abortion politicians and plays the let's pretend game of "Don't politicize the Eucharist" when that's exactly what he does, giving pro-abort politicians politically correct permission to commit sacrilege.

Donohue calling other people "crazies," "right-wingers," and "character assassins"who "hate the pope," etc. is engaging in his own typical attack-dog style.. Presumably it's okay for him to behave in a way he condemns in others because his targets are the "right ones." He, on the other hand, like Superman, is acting for "truth, justice, and the American way."

12 comments:

Edison Frisbee said...

Donohue knows who butters his bread....he's a hack. I gave up on him sometime ago.

bill bannon said...

Mary Ann,
Jot down the below for when you encounter the large digs justifiers-r-us crowd of the Church:

Isaiah 5:8. " Woe to you that join house to house and lay field to field, even to the end of the place: shall you alone dwell in the midst of the earth? "

Anonymous said...

You did not read carefully.

First, they accuse Wuerl of having a 43 million dollar penthouse. But in fact, he lives in an apartment that is located on the top floor of an entire building that is valued at 43 million dollars. The value of the entire building is obviously irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the value of the apartment. But it looks like someone was trying to be very unfair by referencing the value of the entire building.

Second, they said he OWNS the apartment. But he does not. It is just used by whoever is the bishop. The same thing that happens in lots of places.

If you are going to attack a bishop, give us the actual facts. Don't exaggerate and don't try to make things look worse than they are, simply because you don't like some of the things the bishop is saying.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I think I clarified the ownership issue. As for the word "attack" don't you think that's inflammatory? I don't know whether they exaggerated or not. Do you have the stats on the property?

Dymphna said...

I don't like or trust Cardinal Wuerl and since he's going to pick our next bishop I hold him in dread, but the wording of the Church Militant report gives me pause. According to the DC Office of Tax & Revenue, the land and building of Our Lady Queen of the America's is worth $42,917,680. That is the entire property, not just the apartment. The owner is listed as the Archbishop of DC, same as all the churches in the diocese. Is Church Militant trying to hint that the cardinal doesn't live at the church and is really in a condo near by or are they saying that the cardinal's top floor of the church apartment has lavish architectural details and furnishings? I've found six building permits for the property but they've all been on stuff like chimney cleaning, brickwork and crack repair in the church. None of it seemed like remodeling in the apartment. Without the testimony of the interior decorator if he uses one, or the housekeeper, or the report of someone who's been to a party at the cardinal's place we have neither hard nor circumstantial proof of how high on the hog he's living. Where did Cardinals McCarrick, Hickey, Baum and Doyle live? I'd like something to compare Wuerl's living arrangements to. Again, I'm not defending Wuerl. Probably because I've spent most of my adult life working for lawyers I just need to see stuff like deeds, receipts, court documents, transcripts...a forensic accountant's report...hard evidence. Church Militant may have something but they need to spell it out.

Michael F Poulin said...

Mr Donohue comes from a generation that never questioned whatever father or sister said. Those days are gone. Yet he still acts as though to criticize any Catholic clergy makes you anti-catholic. The opposite is true. The Catholic not only has the right but the duty to correct his brother, even if it is the Pope. We critisise the lax clergy because we love the Church and wish to defend her from the Modernist rot enabled and accelerated by Vatican II.

PS I am a contributor to Catholic League, but that support will end if Mr Donohue attacked traditionalist Latin Mass Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Donohue is paid more than $400,000, as he writes his sycophantic tributes to prelates who promote him. After launching a boycott of the Guiness company for promoting homsexuals in the St. Patrick's parade, Donohue turned on a dime and reverse his position when Cardinal Dolan gave a nod to the homosexuals. Politics. Politics. And church politics is the worst.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Thanks for the details, Dymphna. Not clarifying that the $43 million value was for the entire property was misleading, I agree.

bill bannon said...

Michael Poulin,
Charity Navigator gave the Donohue group one star out of four and said that only 45.1% of each dollar reaches programs. He takes a salary of c. $400,000 a year....14% of budget as I recall. They are on line. Check with his Catholic League if they are correct. CN have been around for years and for years did not have data on him. Then decide if it is still your choice to contribute. It may be but people should know the facts involved.

Keyser Soze said...

Blogger Dymphna said...
"I don't like or trust Cardinal Wuerl and since he's going to pick our next bishop I hold him in dread."

What a terrible, shameful epoch we live in, when this is how much we can trust our bishops. I guess the good news is that with the internet and rapid response media, bishops can't fool us as easily as they used to. The bad news is that there are so many more bad ones trying to fool us than there ever were before. God will not be mocked. I don't pretend to know how He will clean His house, but sooner or later the master is going to return home. My God have mercy on us all when that happens.

Anonymous said...

You state the following concerning Father Guarnizo - "The trumped up charge of intimidation was nothing but that -- trumped up".

Obviously you are referring to Bishop Knestout who wrote: “This action was taken after I received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry,”

Is your statement pure conjecture or is it based on inside knowledge you obtained from speaking with someone involved in the incident. What proof can you provide that Bishop Knestout is not to be believed? My guess is you have none.

Edward Peters provides some well reasoned comments on the incident: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bp-knestouts-march-9-letter-on-fr-guarnizo/

Phil Lawler also has some well reasoned comments: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=897

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Phil Lawler called what the bishop did to Fr. Guarnizo a "betrayal" and accused the bishop of doing to the priest what he said the priest did to the lesbian. He also stated that he put the policy of the archdiocese above the law of the universal church. I'm not sure how that bolsters your position.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/phil-lawler-on-the-betrayal-of-father-guarnizo/

And Fr. Guarnizo himself described the incident. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/phil-lawler-on-the-betrayal-of-father-guarnizo/ So it essentially comes down to a "he said, she said" situation and I'm inclined to believe Fr. Guarnizo. Perhaps you believe that bishops never lie or stretch the truth when it advances their agenda. I've had too many situations with my own bishop and his persecution of good priests to believe that. I don't know Fr. Guarnizo personally, but a number of my pro-life friends in Maryland do. They believe Fr. Guarnizo and I trust their judgment.

As for Dr. Peters, he appears to have been basing his opinion on the news reports. Barbara Johnson set up Fr. Guarnizo and then became the darling of the liberal circuit. That is not an atypical scenario for the left.