Tumult over a resting place, land deal riles cardinal's kin
By Michael Paulson
Globe Staff / March 9, 2008
The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston's sale of land in Brighton to Boston College had one rather unusual condition: Church leaders would have to remove the remains of a long-dead cardinal entombed in a mausoleum on the grounds.
By Michael Paulson
Globe Staff / March 9, 2008
The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston's sale of land in Brighton to Boston College had one rather unusual condition: Church leaders would have to remove the remains of a long-dead cardinal entombed in a mausoleum on the grounds.
But four years later, the body of Cardinal William H. O'Connell is still encased in the earth beneath the limestone mausoleum, guarded by statues of angels and lions, on a quiet hilltop near where BC proposes to build dormitories and athletic fields.The move is proving to be a complicated one - far more than a previous exhumation on the same property some 80 years ago. Back then, when O'Connell himself moved to Lake Street, he demanded that the bodies of Sulpician priests be dug up and removed. The archdiocese is planning to meet, for the second time in four years, with O'Connell's closest remaining survivors: two great-nieces and three great-nephews. The family, or at least its most vocal members, wants the body to stay where it is; BC wants it removed; and the archdiocese is trying simultaneously to honor the memory of one of its most powerful leaders, keep its promise to BC, and respect the family's wishes.
The archdiocese declined to make Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley available for comment and refused to answer any questions, including why it agreed to exhume O'Connell's body, what role the wishes of family members or the late cardinal will play, or what the next step is. "We view this as a private matter and respectfully reserve comment,"said Terrence C. Donilon, archdiocesan spokesman. For its part, BC says no one has been buried on its campus in its 145-year history, and it has no interest in changing that now. "Out of respect for the late cardinal, we do not think it appropriate that a prince of the church be buried on what is now a university campus," said Jack Dunn, BC spokesman. "A final resting place, in a more secluded area, seems much more fitting for the late cardinal-archbishop of Boston." O'Connell, a larger-than-life autocrat who ruled the archdiocese from 1907 to 1944. Link (here)
2 comments:
I'm reading Phil Lawler's The Faithful Departed, which tells a little of Cardinal O'Connell's influence, and then how the archdiocese mismanaged what he left.
I doubt he'd consent to being buried anywhere in Boston today.
Why not follow the long-standing tradition of burying bishops in the cathedral's crypt?
Post a Comment