By Dave Bakke
The State Journal-Register
June 3, 2009
http://www.sj-r.com/homepage/x313672028/Dave-Bakke-Next-Springfield-bishop-will-have-easier-assignment-thanks-to-Lucas
 |
| Bishop George Lucas listens during a press conference in 2005 as an attorney hired by the Springfield Catholic Diocese explains the process of investigating allegations of misconduct involving priests of the diocese. |
One can only imagine what Msgr. George Lucas’ reaction was in mid-winter 1999 when he received word of his new assignment from the Vatican. He was leaving his job as rector of Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis to become bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.
His reaction could very well have been “Hooray! Oh, no!” for he had reached the top of the pyramid only to learn he was being placed atop a very shaky pyramid. It must have been like being promoted to CEO of General Motors. “Thanks, I think.”
Lucas had just been appointed to head up one of the most turbulent dioceses in the Midwest, if not the country. Springfield’s previous bishop, Daniel Ryan, had just resigned early after being sued for sexual abuse. It was the latest in a string of accusations of sexual impropriety against Ryan and only the latest and highest-profile of a sordid series of alleged sexual-misconduct episodes by priests that had marred the last decade in the Springfield diocese.
Though he would never admit it publicly, popular opinion among the church faithful always was that Lucas was sent to Springfield to clean up and stabilize this diocese. He has his critics, certainly, but I think most people would say that, if that was his mission, he achieved it. In fact, a case could be made that Lucas is being promoted to archbishop of the Archdiocese of Omaha because he successfully accomplished his job here.
The days of larger-than-life bishops, such as Springfield’s Joseph McNicholas and James Griffin, men who are not to be questioned, are gone. Those bishops headed the Springfield diocese at a time in which bishops were considered next to God, and some of them didn’t see the distance as being very far.
But the church has been found to have feet of clay so many times since then that bishops are no longer the icons they once were. That is not necessarily a bad development.
Reviewing Lucas’ tenure here, I am surprised to find that Lucas faced his biggest challenge – the controversy over Msgr. Eugene Costa -- almost five years to the day after he arrived. It was Lucas’ inevitable Springfield baptism of fire, courtesy of his own clergy.
Costa, chancellor of the diocese at the time, was found beaten in Douglas Park in what eventually was discovered to be a situation in which Costa was cruising the park looking for gay sex.
That led to Costa’s removal as chancellor and, eventually, from the priesthood itself. It also led to Lucas’ creation of a commission headed by former U.S. Attorney Bill Roberts to investigate any credible allegations against priests of the diocese. That commission’s members also presented a series of recommendations to Lucas as to how combat problems among the clergy.
That was one of the difficult decisions Lucas had to make while in Springfield. None of his big decisions were without controversy. Those include the expensive renovation of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, now under way, the transfer of its popular pastor, the Rev. John Ossola, to another parish and the removal of much of the diocesan leadership that Ryan had in place.
Two personal encounters with Lucas have stayed with me and have served to define him for me.
In the midst of the Costa mess, the bishop came to the newspaper to answer questions from our editorial board. At one end of the table sat the publisher, the editor, the managing editor, the two staff members of the op-ed page and myself. At the other end of the long conference table sat Lucas, all by himself.
That made six of us and one of him. The bishop is not a physically imposing person anyway, but that day, he looked especially small and vulnerable. The grilling he took had to be difficult for him.
At no time did he make any small talk or any other attempt to break the ice, much less smile. His refusal (inability?) to establish any rapport with us always stuck with me and was the thing I remarked upon afterward. Other bishops we have had here — Ryan, for one — would have glad-handed us all, cracked jokes and otherwise cut the tension. Lucas didn’t even try.
The other incident I will always remember took place just before that day. A man had made a tape in which he alleged that he and Lucas had been intimate. The allegations were rather unbelievable, but, in the wake of the Costa scandal, they had to be investigated.
This was graphic stuff, and Lucas, along with the Rev. Kevin Vann, then-vicar general of the diocese, asked to listen to the tape so they could respond to the allegations — none of which were ever deemed credible.
Sitting in a small room, listening to that tape along with the bishop and Vann, was, to say the least, one of the most bizarre experiences of my journalistic career.
Both men are now archbishops — Vann in Fort Worth, Texas, and Lucas now in Omaha.
One can only wonder what Lucas’ reaction was when, as we begin the summer of 2009, he received word of his new assignment from the Vatican. I would guess that his reaction this time was a mixture of relief, nostalgia and pride.
He wasn’t perfect — bishops aren’t anymore, you see — but Lucas gave us the stability we needed at the time. As a result, whoever is appointed as Springfield’s next bishop will have an easier road to travel, and a more welcome reaction to the assignment than Lucas may have had.
Columnist Dave Bakke can be reached at 788-1541 or dave.bakke@sj-r.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.