A little over a month ago nearly half the priests in the southern Illinois diocese of Belleville signed a letter demanding the resignation of their Bishop, Edward Braxton. It was the culmination of three years of controversy, in which priests and nuns had publicly attacked the Bishop, accusing him of many things, the most serious of which was the misappropriation of diocesan funds. Bishop Braxton responded on Good Friday with a statement detailing how he had been threatened by priests and warned not to take the appointment even before he was installed. I examined the charges against him in an article here last month and found little substantiation, but some serious problems on the part of the accusers (see Resentment in Search of a Grievance).
The controversy continues to simmer, though it is no longer at the white heat it had reached last month. As claims of misappropriation and “theft” were exposed as ridiculous hyperbole applied to using a wrong fund to pay legitimate church expenses (vestments for new priests and conference tables and chairs), some of the critics changed course slightly and claimed that the bishop had taken money out of the mouths of the poor to pay for these things. But an examination of the budget of Catholic Social Services for Southern Illinois reveals exactly the opposite. In fact, growth in the budget for social services under Braxton has been among the most robust of any diocese in the nation these last three years.
When Braxton came to Belleville in 2005 the diocesan social services budget was at $6,300,000. At the end of fiscal 2007 that budget had risen to $8,500,000 and is on course for $9,300,000 this year. It has seen an increase of 26% in three years. Nationally, Catholic Charities has suffered a decline of over 20% in the same three years. If Braxton is taking food out of the mouths of the poor, he is doing a notably incompetent job of it. In fact, almost any diocese in the country would be delighted to have performance half as robust as what is happening in Belleville.
By every measurable standard Braxton’s performance has been outstanding. Not just good, but outstanding. Oddly, his critics were most recently calling for the bishop to fire Gary Huelsmann, the executive director of diocesan social services. It remains a peculiarity that the fiery critics are most scornful of areas where the bishop is most notably strong, while protecting in their own ranks people who are guilty of severe problems of the very type they accuse Braxton of. It is almost as if they are engaged in some sort of weird projection of their own failings onto the bishop. Certainly, they seem to have a grudge against competence and success.
It remains a mystery why these critics have coalesced into such a violent faction opposed to the Bishop when all their charges, upon examination, become such substance-less wisps. As discussed last month, some of it is the result of disappointed ambition. Several of the priests were hoping a new Bishop and Auxiliary Bishop would be named from their own ranks – and their initial ire was directed at the late Pope John Paul II for not sufficiently consulting with them before appointing a bishop. But the most glaring dividing line comes between orthodox Catholics and “progressive” Catholics. Though there are exceptions, generally the orthodox Catholics respect and follow Braxton while the ‘progressives’ rage against him.
It was 17 years ago that I converted to Catholicism. It would have come much earlier except there was so much public misinformation about what Catholicism actually is and authentically teaches. It was a great shock to me once I started seriously examining the faith to discover that, while Catholics have one of the most extensive networks for catechism of any church, they are among the most poorly catechized. Most priests, and many Bishops, have utterly failed to transmit the fundamentals of the faith for many decades now. The turmoil in Belleville is, in many respects, a direct result of that failure.
First among the errors is the interpretation of ‘social justice.’ Most “progressives” claim they are following Christ’s example in helping the less fortunate and that that is what animates them. But Christ’s message was not that we are to help the less fortunate as a form of condescension of the greater to the lesser. Rather, His message was that we are all the less fortunate, burdened down by the weight of original sin, and that we are to help each other as loving brothers and sisters in human solidarity. The religious officials of Christ’s time had their own poor boxes. Many would make great public shows of generosity. Jesus said they already had their reward – and that it was not heaven.
In the early days of his ministry, many of the religious elites demonstrated eagerness for Jesus to join their ranks. But he scandalized them by refusing to treat the poor and sinners as pets, some sort of blighted subclass of humanity. Instead he took his own place among their ranks, firing the fury of the elites against him.
In Chicago over a decade ago I listened in shock as a nun in an informal group explained that she didn’t much believe in all the religious stuff, but had become a nun because it was a marvelously effective way to do social work. It is a terribly impoverished view of Christianity. Yet it is the great flaw in modern social work. Many involved are more interested in self-actualization than in human solidarity. They want to show how noble and enlightened they are and buy their warm, fuzzy feeling of nobility at the expense of the dignity of those who they purport to serve. As Christ said about their predecessors 2,000 years ago, they have their reward.
Second among the errors is a misunderstanding of the nature of sin. There are two common public images of God: as either a wrathful spirit eager to smite the slightest error or an enabling father, ever tolerant of the grossest abuse. Both are wrong. Sin is, of its very nature, mutilating. Most of God’s prohibitions are the warnings of a loving father against behaviors that, themselves, will damage us. Imagine for a moment a property owner who has a rickety bridge over a deep and sharply rocky gorge. He puts up a sign warning people not to use that bridge. If someone ignores the sign, goes onto the bridge, falls and injures himself it is not a case of the property owner punishing him for disobedience. Rather, the property owner was trying to protect him from predictable consequences. And if that property owner finds the stricken man, he will attempt to bind up his wounds. This is how God is in dealing with the sins of weakness.
There are different types of sin. Some theologians have made marvelous and extensive explanations. But for our purposes we will stick to three. First are the sins of weakness. These are the sins that, because of human frailty, we often find ourselves prey to. They include most sexual sins. They are both the most chronic in human nature and the most easily forgiven. God knows our frailty. He always responds with real tenderness to our repentance, even as he knows how prone we are to succumb again. Yet the media and popular culture treat these as if they were the only – or at least the most serious – sins. Second are the sins of malice and pride. These are often more subtle and involve a vengeful nature or self-exaltation. These do inspire divine contempt. Pride is even more dangerous than malice because those who engage in it so easily convince themselves they are better than other men and are a force for good. But good is not possible without reference to God. Third, perhaps most dangerous of all, is the sin of deception, misleading others about the nature of sin. This is most often manifested today by people who teach that certain dysfunctions are not sin at all. Thus the man who teaches that active homosexuality is acceptable in the sight of God is in far more danger than the one who actually is homosexual and falls, even frequently, but recognizes it for the sin it is. Jesus said that it would be better to have a millstone put around one’s neck and drowned than to lead his little ones astray. Serious stuff here.
The third major error is the misunderstanding of what Christian obedience is. It is not the submission of the lesser to the greater, nor is it a function of power. In Christianity obedience is a means of opening channels of grace. Those who are teachers (bishops, priests, ministers) are called to carefully consider what they direct their flock to. Those who are part of the flock are called to carefully consider the advice they are given, differentiating between what is advice and what is defined teaching that is absolute. Above all, we are called to lift each other up, acting in solidarity with each other and with mutual respect.
Over the years I have often entered into disputes with priests and, occasionally, with bishops. Except for my coverage of this Belleville story, those disputes have always been private. It has been my habit, when particularly angered or offended, to write a letter to the priest outlining my objections. Within days, I make it a point to go to confession to the priest in question. I could not credibly demand that he submit to the lawful authority of Mother Church without demonstrating my commitment to submitting to his lawful authority over me. Make no mistake, I have been rebuked as often as I have rebuked – and am grateful for it. This is what fraternal correction is. Once, a bishop with whom I had collaborated with on some matters read of something I was involved in in the papers. He called me to rebuke me. If you have never received a call from an angry bishop informing you what a dumb ass you have been, well, trust me, it is a bracing experience. But it did not hinder our mutual collaboration on other Church matters. Respecting each other’s dignity does not mean you never dispute with each other, but you do go to great pains to avoid publicly humiliating each other.
The greatest fundamental of the Catholic faith that is most seriously under taught is the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I have found far too few priests who take this seriously. Of those who do, I have never found one who is not charitable, pastoral, and a fountain of good direction. The laity have rights; the right to demand meat from their priests and not mere fluff. We have the right to demand fidelity on the part of our priests and Bishops to the authentic teaching of the Magisterium. We are obligated to exercise those rights. But we are obligated to do so in Christian charity.
I have neither met nor spoken with Bishop Braxton. I have intentionally not yet spoken with any of the priests involved about this matter, relying on statements already in the public record. Each day, as part of my rosary, I pray for 17 priests by name, seven of them from the Belleville diocese, several of whom signed the resignation demand. This is a practice I have engaged in for well over a decade. It sickens me to have to publicly deal with this. My hope is not to stir the pot, but to give priests time to recollect their calling and its demands. If you Google Bishop Braxton and read some of what he has written, he is solid on the fundamentals of the faith, often beautifully and movingly so. How he interacts socially, I don’t know. The priests and nuns of the diocese, at this juncture, cannot know either. They were screaming for his head fully three months before he arrived. Again, by every measurable standard, Braxton has not just been a good Bishop: he has been an outstanding Bishop.
It is the duty of the religious in the diocese to recollect their calling and act accordingly. It is the duty of the laity to demand the same. It is the duty of all to act with mutual solidarity and charity. And it is the duty of the laity to refuse to treat this as some mere political squabble; to demand that public charges not be made until all private attempts at resolution have failed – and that those charges be substantial and not so much fluff or mere resentment. If a pastor is determined to be a mere political agitator, the laity should demand his removal and, failing that, remove themselves to another parish.
Hopefully, the next time I write about the diocese of Belleville, it will be to report on the harmony and mutual charity that has replaced bitter dispute.
____________________________________
Charlie Johnston is a regular columnist for The Chicago Daily Observer
Luke Rheaume says:
If Ed Braxton had been the CEO of a company, he would have been arrested for embezzlement for stealing funds from a restricted fund to use for his personal comfort and clothing.
Ed Braxton is no Shepherd of his people in Belleville.
Braxton has refused to identify the location of the sexually abusive priests (These men were acknowledged as being abusers by the diocese back in 1993 (before Bishop Gregory) and even though the actions to defrock these priest have been file, the Vatican has only processed one).
Braxton has refused to take any action to remove or restrict Real Bourque, O.M.I, in fact he has dropped off the list of priest in the diocese) who was an admitted child abuser that was quietly moved into the diocese by the oblates while Bishop Gregory was President of the USCCB.
Braxton has made several trips to Africa (at the expense of the Diocese) to recruit Priests and Seminarians from Diocese that need them more than Belleville does. These Priests are put into parishes and have no cultural training about the United States and are very poor in the care of their assigned communities. The seminarians are put into a Seminary in Saint Luis that houses some of the Sexually Abusive Priest of the Saint Louis Archdiocese.
Braxton has directed parishes in the Belleville area to have their confirmation ceremonies at the Cathedral and grouped them together. Confirmation is an acknowledgement of a young person becoming an adult within their church. Any personal sense of the ceremony and relationship to the community is lost as the group of dozens becomes a group of hundreds. The cathedral is a strange place to these young people and as bishop, Braxton is overbearing in his drilling of these young people. Braxton’s demeanor makes these young people fear for their lives (this is not a shepherd getting to know his sheep and calling them by name).
Braxton has broken a long tradition of Going to the Catholic School Graduations and the Catholic High Schools. Again, he has directed them to perform their graduation ceremonies at the cathedral. Not the place where they went to school and an hour’s trip for most to a place they do not know.
Braxton is still in Contempt of Court for failing to turn over personnel documents.
Braxton is not a Shepherd of the People of the Diocese of Belleville. He is more like a Corrupt Roman Governor
Even his appointment was fishy. Pope John Paul II supposedly approved the appointments from his death bed. Did John Paul II really look at the list of twenty appointments? What sort of consultation was done before the appointment? There was no input from the Diocese of Belleville. Probably just the old-boy system with encouragement from Braxton's friend Archbishop Burke, who had recently been moved to Saint Louis after causing problems in his previous diocese.
Undercover Brother says:
Luke, your passionate rhetoric does not match the facts. I have personally examined the financial data of the diocese, most, if not all, of which is publically posted on the diocesian web site. When one reviews those records and canonical law, which defines what accounts may be used for what type of expenditures, it is abundently clear that Braxton has NOT acted inappropriately with ANY funds of the diocese.
If Braxton was a CEO he would get a huge bonus and allowed to fire those in upper and middle management who are truely detrimental. By the way, the financial data set out in the article about CSS is also available on line and is accurate. Dont see any of these priests or critics writing to the local papers to get that great news out.
Do you want to know the real story? In the last10 years, The Belleville Diocese earned a reputation among leading America Catholic clergy and the Papal Nuncio as one of the most ungovernable and troubled in the nation. That reputation was, in fact, conveyed to Rome at the highest levels. At a time when then Cardinal Ratzinger was tasked to start delving deeply into the clergy sex abuse scandals in the US, the Belleville Diocese had the largest per-capita number of accused or admitted problem priests in the country! (Luke, reread that last sentence).
Belleville has been for decades now a diocese that could not, or would not, produce young priests to replace aging and retiring priests. The net result was that Belleville, out of desperation, accepted some priests that were rejected by their own diocese or rated as unqualified or "unfit" by their own seminary! (Guess what side the misfits ended up on in critique of Braxton). These seeds of discontent were sown going back to the 70s.
Bishop Braxton was not sent to Belleville to be in charge of entertainment at a frat house. He was sent here to address problems of long standing: the need to recruit quality priests, restore confidence in the laity that the clergy is fit, that their children are safe, and to serve as a daily example of what it means to be a priest.
Dont for a minute believe that Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, were not aware of the very poor reputation and serious problems with the Belleville diocese. At the time of his appointment, Bishop Braxton was someone well-known to both the previous and present Pope. At the time of his appointment, Rome understood this to be a very tough assignment necessitating a very special type of priest who had a deep faith, fortitude and the ability to endure painful assaults from within. Rome was not looking to tap one of its worst or one of its underperformers, it was looking to tap one of its best. All in all, a pretty good choice for a pretty crappy assignment.
A profound thanks to Mr Johnston for writing thes two thought provoking and informative articles.
In the Pew says:
Luke, you keep up the same old thing. Vague allegations with no facts behind them. The last article this guy wrote had all the facts run down. This one adds to it. And he gives you a chance to act like a Christian (or at least a human being). There is something evil going on in Bellville. The Bible says you should not bear false witness. What a travesty that down here even the priests bear false witness. Get back to what the Church teaches. Maybe listen to Pope Benedict every once in a while.
Joe in Belleville says:
Undercover Brother, you need to work on your facts. You say you have ” personally examined the financial data of the diocese, most, if not all, of which is publically posted on the diocesan web site. When one reviews those records and canonical law, which defines what accounts may be used for what type of expenditures, it is abundantly clear that Braxton has NOT acted inappropriately with ANY funds of the diocese.” Then why would he apologize for misuse? And what an unusual background you must have, CPA for understanding the financial data, PI for being able to pull the non published data in order to do a review (sorry, it is not all on the website) and then Canon lawyer to understand how to get around the use of restricted funds and make that acceptable.
What published facts make up your next paragraph about the reputation of the Belleville diocese? So Gregory was a failure in Belleville as they brought in Braxton to clean things up? He was there in the last 10 years. “largest per-capita number of accused or admitted problem priests in the country”. Where did this come from? UB, reread that last sentence, it means nothing unless you have ever diocese reporting in total.
Next you state, ” The net result was that Belleville, out of desperation, accepted some priests that were rejected by their own diocese or rated as unqualified or "unfit" by their own seminary! Guess what side the misfits ended up on in critique of Braxton” Please produce names of the priests and where they come from to support this claim. If you can’t, it is just a made up theory.
Give me one other place in time, one other diocese anywhere where nearly half the priests (misfits in your words) went to a measure like this to call to light a problem with their Bishop? These men are not stupid, they had to know the consequences. Something is wrong with his leadership and no, you don’t blindly follow everything he says based on a vow of obedience.
And Mr. Johnson’s if you are going to write about these matters, take time to talk to Braxton, take time to talk to the priests, until you do, what you spout has no credibility.
In the Pew says:
I am really sick of these whiny priests and their defenders. We call them Father. They should act like it instead of like spoiled bratty little brothers.
Ten years ago I lived in Peoria. Our bishop there made the priests teach about God and religion faithfully. We didn't have the sort of problems we have down here. And we had a lot of vocations, too.
I live in O'Fallon but go to a parish across the bridge for Mass. The priest here is just way too smug. He soulnds like a political recruiter than a man of God. When the sex scandal broke he talked about how hard it was to be a priest and how we should be forgiving of the priests who were busy raping children. But I'm sure he won't forgive Bishop Braxton for paying for vestments from the wrong account. What rotten hypocrites!
I hope Braxton does do what my old bishop did - make these priests get religion again. If they scream, get rid of them. It was from their ranks and from their teaching that we got the rapists who we are supposeds to feel sorry for. Stick to your guns, bishop, and maybe I won't have to commute so far to get a Mass that is about God instead of about liberal politics. I am so sick of the me, me, me attitude of the priests here. Care for the flock, you jerks, and shut up.
Undercover Brother says:
Indeed Joe, I do have an interesting backround, having access to internal financial records and having a knowledge of canonical law which enables me to offer the observations that I do. I also have the benefit of serving multiple places in the Belleville diocese for nearly a quarter of a century.
Joe, I encourage you to reread the actual letter issued by Bishop Braxton regarding the issue of use of funds, and not just the mischaracterizations of it in the local newspaper. It is posted on the Belleville diocesan website. He stands by his decisions and states that he believes the expenditures were proper and taken from funds that could properly be used for such purposes. What he says is that he is sorry that the embroglio may have created some harm. He added that while he stands by the expenditures, that if a review from higher up finds he was in error in using funds from certain accounts for expenditures that, while proper, were not properly drawn from a restricted account, he had arranged for a private donor to replinish the funds in those accounts.
As far as sex abuse scandals are concerned, dont take my word for it, run the numbers yourself. Take the number of Catholics in the Belleville diocese and compare that to the number of priests in the diocese removed from ministry as a result of sex abuse allegations or admissions. Then compare that to the number of Catholics living in the Boston diocese and the number of priests removed from ministry for sex abuse or alleged to have engaged in sex abuse. Do the same for Chicago. The mathimatical calculations of determining a per capita ratio is simple enough. Once you perform that task, read the totals and weep. Rome was well aware of the gravity of the problems in the Belleville diocese.
Alas, my dear boy, I know whereof I speak.
In the Pew says:
Hey, Joe, all your accusations turn out to be lies and you say Mr. Johnston has a credibility problem? I just reread the original article. He cleaned your clock and you guys just embarassed yourself the more you wrote. The only way he has a credibility problems is if facts and evidence don't mean anything. Obviously, to you, they don't.
I disagree with him on one thing. He says he has not yet spoken to priests because he wants to give you a chance to come to your senses. I hope you scream loud enough that Pope Benedict decides to make a stand and make an example out of the priests in Belleville. Defrock a bunch and let them become the homosexual rights advocates and political organizers they want to be. But don't do it on my dime. Time for you boys to grow up and act like responsible men. You could start by stop spitting venom. God, our church is in such trouble because of self-absorbed, self-righteous jerks.
Joe in Belleville says:
UB, I really don't think you know what you speak of. You speak of “having access to internal financial records” but you give no proof. Until you can prove you have access, all of your ‘facts’ are baseless. The same can be said if I too stated I had access and so and so was misusing funds. You cannot hide behind a screen name and make statements as fact without backing your position. If you do have access, I’m sure this is not the proper channel to be using that information.
In your fuzzy math you assume all dioceses had full disclosure in stating that Belleville had the highest per-capita. I doubt all dioceses published to the world the number of priests in the scandals, then and only then can you make that statement. Show the breakdown by diocese, by Catholic by total priests in scandal. Until you do that (versus just making a guess based on your own feelings), you do not know what you speak of.
Please address why nearly half of a diocese’s priests would take this chance if there wasn’t something to it? If seems a stretch that one diocese would have 46 rebel priests all at the same time, all focused on the same issue. 1, 2 maybe 5 I’m with you, bad apples but 46 is a mathematically significant number to at least give some thought to the fact that there may be an issue.
Southern Illinoisian says:
Undercover Brother,
I'm curious as to how you have such knowledge of the facts regarding Bishop Braxton's appointment to the Belleville Diocese. My sources told me that Bishop Braxton got himself appointed because he had enough of the heat, humidity, mosquitoes and fattening food in Lake Charles. By a (for him) happy coincidence, he was in Rome with the other Louisiana bishops at the time it was announced that Wilton Gregory was to be appointed Archbishop of Atlanta. He seized the opportunity to visit the Congregation for Bishops and "volunteered" to go to Belleville, where he would be much closer to his ailing mother in Chicago.
Now, perhaps the Holy Spirit was indeed guiding all the parties involved. I accept as a matter of faith that Bishop Braxton came here for a reason. But it wasn't to solve the "problems" here, many though they may be.
More likely, it was to help unite a presbyterate that for years before was broken as the Ten Commandments. Indeed, Bishop Braxton has accomplished that!
Undercover Brother says:
You may delude yourself about the condition of the Belleville Diocese at the time Rome decided to move Gregory to Atlanta and appoint his replacement. You may delude yourself that Braxton just happened to be hanging out in Rome at a fortuitous time and engineered his appointment. You can believe that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were cavalier about filling a spot in a diocese that had one of the most publicized sex abuse scandals in America during a time when THE issue for the Catholic Church in America was addressing the sex abuse scandals. You can delude yourself and try craft a scenario which accomodates such delusions, but that does not make it so.
Consider the uncontroverted facts, the Belleville Diocese was plagued with some priests acting in concert to cruise for sexually vulnerable or sexually promiscuous teen boys. Among other places, they used a Shrine to the Blessed Mother to coordinate their endeavors.
Do you really think that fact went unnoticed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict? Do you really think that John Paul II, who credited the Blessed Mother for saving his life, and dedicated his pontificate to her, would be indifferent to the corruption of children and teens out of a Shrine for the Blessed Mother? Do you!
Recall that the national media coverage of the problems plagueing the Belleville Diocese while its Bishop was the head of the USCCB. At that time, the national press corps was covering the statements of Bishop Gregory and the annual conference of the USCCB on one issue--clerical sex abuse. I remember the footage of the cameras following Bishop Gregory through the airport terminal at Atlanta-Hartsfield, barking questions at him about clerical sexual abuse.
At some point, you Braxton critics have to take a step back and embrace the realities of the situation. Braxton was tapped by the Vatican to be one of the key players in trying to address the problems in the seminaries in America, some of which have played a very important role in undermining the Church.
Braxton did'nt need Belleville. The flight from St. Louis to Chicago is only an hour and 20 minutes shorter than the flight for where he was. Braxton could have easily secured a position in Academia in the Chicago area. He certainly could have secured a wonderful position in Chicago with Cardinal George and been minutes away from his mother and not have to deal with the headaches and responsibilities of overseeing a troubled diocese like Belleville.
Do you think the Papal Nuncio Montalvo was indifferent or unaware of the national lime light focused on Belleville?
Quit kidding yourselves.
Southside Irish says:
I saw a headline with Charlie Johnston's name under it and quickly sought to see what hornet's nest he was stirring up today. I admit to being a little disappointed when I saw he was writing about a success story for our beleagured Catholic friends down South. I much prefered the corking good dust up the last time he wrote about downstate. That one seemed to piss everybody off.
Well, nobody bothered commenting on the heart of the story about what a good job Catholic Services is doing inspite of the tension. Nobody challenged Charlie's assessment nor his giving credit where credit is due. Guess it proves the old adage that people would rather hear bad news than good news.
When I hit this site next week, I hope Charlie will have the curtesy of lobbing a few bombs of his own, instead of leaving it to the commenters.
In the Pew says:
Well, Joe Bishop Braxton's accusers said he stole money from the church. Turns out he paid church bills from the wrong account. A lie by priests. Meanwhile, one of the accusers actually did oversee so much misappropriation his parish had to be closed. But he is a star to the other critics. Critics say the bishop is taking money away from the poor. But donations to Catholic Charities here have grown enormously under his leadership. More lies - by hateful priests.
In the first article Mr. Johnston documented all sorts of lies, cheating, involvement in witchcratf and paganism - and said he held back in hopes of better days. When your guys corrected his "inaccuracies" all you had was that a nun SIGNED rather than AUTHORED a letter. Pathetic. You didn't even touch his damning indictment of the state of our priests. Do I think there could be 46 bad apples in THIS diocese? Damn straight. They all signed off on a pack of lies and howled like a pack of jackals when called on it.
I have never heard a homily in Belleville on the Eucharist or on pro-life. I hear a lot of touchy-feely mush. It has all the profundity of an episode of The View.
I want my church back. I want a bishop who says enough to the priests who make themselves the center of worship instead of Christ. I am sick of it all and think it is time we in the laity fought back against you.
There is a great evil in this diocese. They rage against the bishop for the same reason they raged against Jesus (gosh, if all those rabbis were mad and telling the same lies about Jesus surely there had to be something wrong with him, right?
You make me ill and I'm tired of taking it. Give us our church back.
Proud Progressive says:
In the Pew, you want "your" church back. Did'nt Pope Benedict say that the Church is a combination of faith and reason? As we progess as a civilzation and realize that only falsehoods and prejudice underpin the old doctrines that reject God's children because they happen to be gay, or reject the service of faithful servants because they happen to be women, are we not fully embrace such enlightment or are we to stunt our spiritual growth to placate you tiresome prejudices? My Catholic Church is suppose to grow and nuture truths, even if new found. I guess "your" Church wants to stay put in the 16th Century.
Curious says:
who do you and/or the priests say the bishop should have been and now should be and who do you think should decide who the bishop is? just curious. while we are at naming names, what specifically would he and his circle done with regard to church teachings, doctrines, masses, social services, etc?
In the Pew says:
Look Progressive at what is happening. The most progressive parishes are where we had the most problems with homosexual priests raping children. People want spirituality and the progressives are giving them pop slogans.
Charitable giving is highest where the dioceses are most seriously religious. Vocations are highest there. You have the fewest problems with pedophile predators. Forgiveness and tolerance are great and should not be neglected, but if Jesus is not at the center of it, it twists and turns ugly.
Here we have priests who don't seem very interested in God. They put themselves at the center of worship and forget about Christ. THAT is the problem.
I know everyone here loved Bishop Gregory. I don't know. He seemed average to me. In Peoria we had a guy named Bishop Myer and he made his priests teach about Christ - and stay on it. It made a big difference. To get what you say you want, you have to keep Jesus at the center, not whiny, bratty priests who are all about themself.
anon. says:
The bishop should be selected by a vote of the priests in the diocese. The priests should also have the ability to remove a bishop by vote. The priests are in a better position to know what the diocese needs in its leader than does Rome. A chuch closest to the people with best serve the people.
The guys in Rome could'nt find Belleville, much less Illinois, on a map. What do they know about this diocese, or any other diocese in America of this size and composition. A Bishop chosen by the priests will be far more attentive to what the diocese needs instead of what Rome wants.
A Bishop that does'nt measure up to reasonable expectations can more quickly be addressed by removal than Rome's habit of ignoring the problem or shipping it to another unsuspecting diocese as has apparently happened here
i am human says:
Burke just appointed to 2 very high vatican positions. Pope likes Burke's sheparding very much despite the complaining of these same critics of Braxton. I begin to see. They are scared that Braxton is inclined to follow Burke in (1)insisting upon adherance to church teachings and (2) knowing those teachings deeply with authority. Much of this is an attempt to bully him into submission and striking him hard, mercilessly, and personally to undermine his credibility when he tells renegade priests and sister jan that they are off the mark to their and the flock's salvation. Devilish,sinister stuff. Bet only the ignorant ones fail to see from whence these dark missions emanate. Bet the same folk that dislike----no------hate Braxton also hate Burke. Ironically, Braxton is much more patient and shall i dare say, pastoral to the dissenters who relish heeping scorn on him in public with the same delight and reckless abandon as participants at an orgy. Rock on dissenters, Satan delights with you.
Donald Dohr says:
For a balanced view from a senior clergyman, now retired, you should confer with the Reverend "Doc" Blaze of the Belleview diocese.