Belleville Diocesan priests ask Bp. Braxton to resign

[qui_est_ce]

I am confused what was the purpose of posting this?

I was being facetious when I made the pool remark. We already know what the money was used for. I was accused of mixing pools and bishops

iamrefreshed:

I think you have your pools and Bishops confused.

Nordar:

As a Bishop adhereing to the teachings of the Church, he is supposed to correct Liturgical abuses, and Bravo! to him for doing so. By the Tribune saying he expected precision they are catering to the Liberal bent of The Church as if that were a no no. they are biased and quite wrong.

I 100% agree with you.

 

[Nordar]

I was being facetious when I made the pool remark. We already know what the money was used for. I was accused of mixing pools and bishops

I 100% agree with you.

OK Gotcha!

 

[dmelosi]

Why are they questioning how their money would be spent?

I wish you would just come right out and say what you mean.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I was being facetious when I made the pool remark. We already know what the money was used for. I was accused of mixing pools and bishops

For someone who enjoys being facetious I’m surprised you can’t appreciate a little tongue-in-cheek humor.

I wasn’t ‘accusing’.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Why are they questioning how their money would be spent?

Really Christine, it is near impossible to know save actually asking each non-donor, isn’t it? We can’t extrapolate much from it otherwise…

I can think of a half dozen reasons but they are just my speculations. Can’t really point to it as proof one way or another, can we?

 

[twopekinguys]

Ok, I have to weigh in on this.

I used to live in the Belleville Diocese, and my son still does. I often attend Mass in Sparta, Lebanon, and several other small parishes when I am visiting.

As an RCIA coordinator for my parish, I am continually amazed at the flagrant disregard for the liturgy in these parishes. Trust me, I would never take one of my classes to one of these Masses.

One of the definitions of the word “catholic” (yes, small c) is: universal. The liturgy is to be celebrated in a universal manner throughout the church. That is what the lectionary, sacramentary,GIRM, are all for.

When a priest is celebrating Mass, he is not only representing Christ, but representing the Catholic Church as a whole. It isn’t the Fr. Joe show, it is the Mass!!

These disident priests have made their feelings about the Bishop well known, even before his installation. Does anyone think it is feasable for him to use a “kid glove” approach in bringing them back to where they need to be?

People need to realize when these priests abuse the liturgy, and ignore their vow of obedience it isn’t just against the Bishop, but rather it is against the Church as a whole.

I totally agree with the Bishop in these matters.

Now, onto the money thing. The answer is quite simple. It was all a matter of interpretation. Restricted funds does not mean they can’t be used at all, it just means the funds are required to be used for a certain purpose(s). The financial committe saw it one way, he saw it another. From what I have seen, heard and read, he used the funds with the understanding that if his interpretation was wrong, he would have the funds replaced. Once the “restriction” was clarified, he made arrangements to replace those funds.

I don’t think he did anything wrong here either.

 

[Nordar]

Ok, I have to weigh in on this.

I used to live in the Belleville Diocese, and my son still does. I often attend Mass in Sparta, Lebanon, and several other small parishes when I am visiting.

As an RCIA coordinator for my parish, I am continually amazed at the flagrant disregard for the liturgy in these parishes. Trust me, I would never take one of my classes to one of these Masses.

One of the definitions of the word “catholic” (yes, small c) is: universal. The liturgy is to be celebrated in a universal manner throughout the church. That is what the lectionary, sacramentary,GIRM, are all for.

When a priest is celebrating Mass, he is not only representing Christ, but representing the Catholic Church as a whole. It isn’t the Fr. Joe show, it is the Mass!!

These disident priests have made their feelings about the Bishop well known, even before his installation. Does anyone think it is feasable for him to use a “kid glove” approach in bringing them back to where they need to be?

People need to realize when these priests abuse the liturgy, and ignore their vow of obedience it isn’t just against the Bishop, but rather it is against the Church as a whole.

I totally agree with the Bishop in these matters.

Now, onto the money thing. The answer is quite simple. It was all a matter of interpretation. Restricted funds does not mean they can’t be used at all, it just means the funds are required to be used for a certain purpose(s). The financial committe saw it one way, he saw it another. From what I have seen, heard and read, he used the funds with the understanding that if his interpretation was wrong, he would have the funds replaced. Once the “restriction” was clarified, he made arrangements to replace those funds.

I don’t think he did anything wrong here either.

You can post this as many times as you want will not matter. Those who want to insist that he stole money will continue to do so. They will just simply ignore the truth of what you posted above, I applaud the Bishop and he is in my prayers!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Twopekinguys,

I don’t have any connection with that diocese but the whole situation seems just as simple as you have stated it. I too pray for the bishop and wish him Godspeed in clearing up this mess that these disobedient priests have created.

CDL

 

[Adonis33]

Ok, I have to weigh in on this.

I used to live in the Belleville Diocese, and my son still does. I often attend Mass in Sparta, Lebanon, and several other small parishes when I am visiting.

As an RCIA coordinator for my parish, I am continually amazed at the flagrant disregard for the liturgy in these parishes. Trust me, I would never take one of my classes to one of these Masses.

One of the definitions of the word “catholic” (yes, small c) is: universal. The liturgy is to be celebrated in a universal manner throughout the church. That is what the lectionary, sacramentary,GIRM, are all for.

When a priest is celebrating Mass, he is not only representing Christ, but representing the Catholic Church as a whole. It isn’t the Fr. Joe show, it is the Mass!!

These disident priests have made their feelings about the Bishop well known, even before his installation. Does anyone think it is feasable for him to use a “kid glove” approach in bringing them back to where they need to be?

People need to realize when these priests abuse the liturgy, and ignore their vow of obedience it isn’t just against the Bishop, but rather it is against the Church as a whole.

I totally agree with the Bishop in these matters.

Now, onto the money thing. The answer is quite simple. It was all a matter of interpretation. Restricted funds does not mean they can’t be used at all, it just means the funds are required to be used for a certain purpose(s). The financial committe saw it one way, he saw it another. From what I have seen, heard and read, he used the funds with the understanding that if his interpretation was wrong, he would have the funds replaced. Once the “restriction” was clarified, he made arrangements to replace those funds.

I don’t think he did anything wrong here either.

I think somebody posted a letter from the Bishop stating this same thing. Yet people will still insist that he stole money.

 

[Godi]

Sounds like another group of “Catho-baptists” or could be some “Protest-atholics”. We’re infested with them here also.

 

[mikew262]

I’ll repeat what I said in the beginning, when you have almost 70% of the priests and the leader of a convent saying there is a problem with this bishop, then there probably is a problem (at least to some degree). If it were just a few priests, then you could chalk it up to a few malcontents, but this is too much to ignore.

Hopefully, the Vatican will take a good honest look into this. If it turns out the priests are in the wrong, then they should accept the final decision and submit to this Bishop until he leaves. OTH, if this Bishop is indeed in error and removing him would benefit the diocese, then that should be done also.

 

[dmelosi]

I’ll repeat what I said in the beginning, when you have almost 70% of the priests and the leader of a convent saying there is a problem with this bishop, then there probably is a problem (at least to some degree). If it were just a few priests, then you could chalk it up to a few malcontents, but this is too much to ignore.

Hopefully, the Vatican will take a good honest look into this. If it turns out the priests are in the wrong, then they should accept the final decision and submit to this Bishop until he leaves. OTH, if this Bishop is indeed in error and removing him would benefit the diocese, then that should be done also.

From what I understand so far it is 13% of those that were ordained in the 80’s and 90’s that signed, but the majority that signed are the older ones, the ones that didn’t want him in the first place and told him when he first came that they didn’t want him there.

The problem the bishop has is that his managerial skills are not the best and that he refuses to budge on his orthodoxy.

I am traveling this week, but am working on putting together a recap with the chain of events/articles, etc.

Mike, you sure seem deadset against the bishop, just curious if your priest has spoken against him in any of the masses?

 

[Engineer1]

There is a pretty good set of links to the “rest of the story” here:

soilcatholics.blogspot.com

On the “70%” number…first of all, the number excludes fully 1/3 of the priests with faculties in the diocese, but…

…EVEN if the number were correct, consider this: would faithful and holy men of God:

• Issue a public call for the bishop’s resignation?
• Issue that call on the Friday before Holy Week (it couldn’t have waited a week or two?)
• Accept the indorsement of Call to Action?
• Invite the National Catholic Reporter and the Belleville News-Democrat to write stories about it?
• Have secret meetings?
• Refuse to meet with the bishop without the press?
• Speak out against the bishop during their homilies?

My answer to that is “no”…and the faithful priests I have met in the diocese are appalled at the actions of these rebels.

 

[Nordar]

There is a pretty good set of links to the “rest of the story” here:

soilcatholics.blogspot.com

On the “70%” number…first of all, the number excludes fully 1/3 of the priests with faculties in the diocese, but…

…EVEN if the number were correct, consider this: would faithful and holy men of God:

• Issue a public call for the bishop’s resignation?
• Issue that call on the Friday before Holy Week (it couldn’t have waited a week or two?)
• Accept the indorsement of Call to Action?
• Invite the National Catholic Reporter and the Belleville News-Democrat to write stories about it?
• Have secret meetings?
• Refuse to meet with the bishop without the press?
• Speak out against the bishop during their homilies?

My answer to that is “no”…and the faithful priests I have met in the diocese are appalled at the actions of these rebels.

I’m appalled, all those are unbelievable.
Speaking out against the Bishop during their homilies, I think pretty much tells you exactly were they are coming from.

Accepting the endorsement of Call to Action! another

 

[mikew262]

Mike, you sure seem deadset against the bishop, just curious if your priest has spoken against him in any of the masses?

I’m just reacting to what the media has reported and to people who have had first hand dealings with him.

No, my priest is the vicar, so he definitely will not speak out against him. I think it would be improper for any priest to speak out against him to their congregation.

 

[mikew262]

Speaking out against the Bishop during their homilies,

No, I don’t agree with that either. If they have a beef against the Bishop, it should be kept internal.

 

[flameburns623]

OKAY: someone said they were going to work up a synopsis of this thread thus far. Here’s my synopsis:

1. It appears that Bp. Braxton has been a little stiff and difficult to like since his seminary days. This should be tempered with the knowledge, suggests at least one poster, that many of the more-devout, more-orthodox seminarians of that era were often cold-shouldered by other seminarians whose views were less orthodox, whose motives for entering the priesthood seemed tainted for various reasons.
2. Bishop Braxton has developed a reputation during his rise in the Church for orthodoxy and for strict fidelity to the teachings and historic practices of the Church.* I note that no one has provided a lot of documentation for this; on the other hand, none of the Bishop’s detractors on this thread have actually contradicted this claim either.*
3. It appears that Belleville, during the same period that Bp. Braxton was ascending to the episcopacy, was developing a reputation for being one of the most-liberal dioceses in the area. It also became, sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s, a focus of negative press due to clergy scandals. I, among others, noted that some observers of Catholicism have pointed to heterodoxy in general, and a tolerance of homosexuality in particular, as broad predictors of exactly this sort of widespread unholy scandal. This is not to suggest that orthodoxy and fidelity are absolute guarantees against wickedness, only that they do tend to inhibit it to a much greater degree.
4. As a result of his reputation for orthodoxy and punctiliousness, Bp. Braxton appears to have had enemies and opponents even before he accepted his appointment to the Belleville diocese. By his own account, posted in links found on this thread, he was ‘blackmailed’ in attempts to deter him from accepting his appointment. Bp Braxton has not been forthcoming in details about that ‘blackmail’, but at least one person has posted newslinks which suggest that some of the priests in the diocese at least acknowledge pressuring the Bp. not to accept his appointment.
5. Bishop Braxton may be a bit weak on the side of management, not very ‘collegial’. and he may be a bit cold as a human being. Again this charge should be taken with a grain of salt, since these charges come most frequently from folks who have a predisposition against the Bishop.
6. Bishop Braxton, by his own admission, took money that was earmarked for a specific purpose, with the understanding that he believed this money could be used for the purposes he intended, and with the promise to return that money if in fact he was misusing those funds. Take note that no one suggests that Bp. Braxton used the money for personal expenditures; rather it was for legitimate diocesan expenditures. Some have suggested on this thread that taking this money was theft: this would not be the case if, as Bp. Braxton himself explained, he acted with the full knowledge of others, used the money for legitimate diocesan purposes, and returned the money when it was established that those funds in fact could not be used for those purposes.
7. At worst, Bp. Braxton could be charged with creating an appearance of impropriety. It should be noted that among so many apparent enemies in his diocese, with the likelihood that at least some of his decisions will be controversial at any time, that the charge of ‘an appearance of impropriety’ could be a pretext for criticism rather than a real and substantive issue.
8. Some have charged that such a large percentage of priests critical of the Bishop suggests that Bp. Braxton does in fact have a problem. Others suggest that the priests most-critical of the Bishop tend to be priests who are most likely to hold heterodox views.
9. It seems inappropriate for diocesan priests to take this issue to the popular press in the manner they have done, particularly during the holiest week of the Christian calendar. It seems to me that even the critics of the Bishop on this thread have tended to agree this should not have been handled in this fashion.

Does anyone have any exceptions to this analysis of this thread thus far?

 

[dmelosi]

OKAY: someone said they were going to work up a synopsis of this thread thus far. Here’s my synopsis:

1. It appears that Bp. Braxton has been a little stiff and difficult to like since his seminary days. This should be tempered with the knowledge, suggests at least one poster, that many of the more-devout, more-orthodox seminarians of that era were often cold-shouldered by other seminarians whose views were less orthodox, whose motives for entering the priesthood seemed tainted for various reasons.
2. Bishop Braxton has developed a reputation during his rise in the Church for orthodoxy and for strict fidelity to the teachings and historic practices of the Church.* I note that no one has provided a lot of documentation for this; on the other hand, none of the Bishop’s detractors on this thread have actually contradicted this claim either.*
3. It appears that Belleville, during the same period that Bp. Braxton was ascending to the episcopacy, was developing a reputation for being one of the most-liberal dioceses in the area. It also became, sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s, a focus of negative press due to clergy scandals. I, among others, noted that some observers of Catholicism have pointed to heterodoxy in general, and a tolerance of homosexuality in particular, as broad predictors of exactly this sort of widespread unholy scandal. This is not to suggest that orthodoxy and fidelity are absolute guarantees against wickedness, only that they do tend to inhibit it to a much greater degree.
4. As a result of his reputation for orthodoxy and punctiliousness, Bp. Braxton appears to have had enemies and opponents even before he accepted his appointment to the Belleville diocese. By his own account, posted in links found on this thread, he was ‘blackmailed’ in attempts to deter him from accepting his appointment. Bp Braxton has not been forthcoming in details about that ‘blackmail’, but at least one person has posted newslinks which suggest that some of the priests in the diocese at least acknowledge pressuring the Bp. not to accept his appointment.
5. Bishop Braxton may be a bit weak on the side of management, not very ‘collegial’. and he may be a bit cold as a human being. Again this charge should be taken with a grain of salt, since these charges come most frequently from folks who have a predisposition against the Bishop.
6. Bishop Braxton, by his own admission, took money that was earmarked for a specific purpose, with the understanding that he believed this money could be used for the purposes he intended, and with the promise to return that money if in fact he was misusing those funds. Take note that no one suggests that Bp. Braxton used the money for personal expenditures; rather it was for legitimate diocesan expenditures. Some have suggested on this thread that taking this money was theft: this would not be the case if, as Bp. Braxton himself explained, he acted with the full knowledge of others, used the money for legitimate diocesan purposes, and returned the money when it was established that those funds in fact could not be used for those purposes.
7. At worst, Bp. Braxton could be charged with creating an appearance of impropriety. It should be noted that among so many apparent enemies in his diocese, with the likelihood that at least some of his decisions will be controversial at any time, that the charge of ‘an appearance of impropriety’ could be a pretext for criticism rather than a real and substantive issue.
8. Some have charged that such a large percentage of priests critical of the Bishop suggests that Bp. Braxton does in fact have a problem. Others suggest that the priests most-critical of the Bishop tend to be priests who are most likely to hold heterodox views.
9. It seems inappropriate for diocesan priests to take this issue to the popular press in the manner they have done, particularly during the holiest week of the Christian calendar. It seems to me that even the critics of the Bishop on this thread have tended to agree this should not have been handled in this fashion.

Does anyone have any exceptions to this analysis of this thread thus far?

You have done a pretty good job…I won’t have my synopsis for a week or so when I am done traveling.

His homilies are among the best I have heard…if you ever have the chance to go to one of his masses, do so…very good.

 

[RobbyS]

I’ll repeat what I said in the beginning, when you have almost 70% of the priests and the leader of a convent saying there is a problem with this bishop, then there probably is a problem (at least to some degree). If it were just a few priests, then you could chalk it up to a few malcontents, but this is too much to ignore.

Hopefully, the Vatican will take a good honest look into this. If it turns out the priests are in the wrong, then they should accept the final decision and submit to this Bishop until he leaves. OTH, if this Bishop is indeed in error and removing him would benefit the diocese, then that should be done also.

Indeed, the Vatican should look into this, but probably won’t, because that is not how the system works. What fries me is priests speaking out at Church. I think if a priest did this in front of me, I would stand up and denounce HIM to his face. I will not listen to openly subordinate clerics.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Continued

1. As a result of his reputation for orthodoxy and punctiliousness, Bp. Braxton appears to have had enemies and opponents even before he accepted his appointment to the Belleville diocese. By his own account, posted in links found on this thread, he was ‘blackmailed’ in attempts to deter him from accepting his appointment. Bp Braxton has not been forthcoming in details about that ‘blackmail’, but at least one person has posted newslinks which suggest that some of the priests in the diocese at least acknowledge pressuring the Bp. not to accept his appointment.

I disagree with your conclusion that it is due to his reputation for Orthodoxy. I also question the blackmail. Has he been blackmailed yet? What is it?

ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/011306/011306h.php

“Meanwhile, Braxton further roiled the waters. Waiting for his installation, he sought diocesan funds to remodel the episcopal residence on the edge of town. With the advice of the consultors, the vicar general, Msgr. James Margason, said the most the diocese would pay for renovations was $25,000. Braxton then obtained gifts from friends for a complete overhaul of the structure, totaling, according to several sources and local press reports, more than $250,000. The sum was at least less than the $380,000 that was spent for Braxton’s residence in the Lake Charles diocese, according to news reports citing public records.”

1. Bishop Braxton may be a bit weak on the side of management, not very ‘collegial’. and he may be a bit cold as a human being. Again this charge should be taken with a grain of salt, since these charges come most frequently from folks who have a predisposition against the Bishop.

I maintain there was no predisposition to dislike him, rather the bishop’s own leadership, which is lacking in “Good Shepherd” style, is at the root.

1. Bishop Braxton, by his own admission, took money that was earmarked for a specific purpose, with the understanding that he believed this money could be used for the purposes he intended, and with the promise to return that money if in fact he was misusing those funds. Take note that no one suggests that Bp. Braxton used the money for personal expenditures; rather it was for legitimate diocesan expenditures. Some have suggested on this thread that taking this money was theft: this would not be the case if, as Bp. Braxton himself explained, he acted with the full knowledge of others, used the money for legitimate diocesan purposes, and returned the money when it was established that those funds in fact could not be used for those purposes.

I can imagine the scene. Braxton want to use funds restricted to use for the poor for vestments and a conference table. Finance tells him he cannot use these funds, as they are restricted. Braxton says he will do it anyway KNOWING it was a restricted fund. Braxton says, “prove me wrong and I will return it,” thus putting himself above the law of the Church. I would like to know how he was convinced, or who convinced him he was wrong. All I know is it was on the front page of the STL Post-Dispatch in Februay, and then in March, he finally found someone who would reimburse the fund.

1. At worst, Bp. Braxton could be charged with creating an appearance of impropriety. It should be noted that among so many apparent enemies in his diocese, with the likelihood that at least some of his decisions will be controversial at any time, that the charge of ‘an appearance of impropriety’ could be a pretext for criticism rather than a real and substantive issue.

Controversial, yes he should be. Impropriety, serious charge. As bishop and shepherd he has a serious duty to mantain propriety of Office.

1. Some have charged that such a large percentage of priests critical of the Bishop suggests that Bp. Braxton does in fact have a problem. Others suggest that the priests most-critical of the Bishop tend to be priests who are most likely to hold heterodox views.

I dislike the inuendo that priests ordained in the '70’s and '80’s are heteroorththodox. I know many that are extremely orthodox, including our own pastor.

1. It seems inappropriate for diocesan priests to take this issue to the popular press in the manner they have done, particularly during the holiest week of the Christian calendar. It seems to me that even the critics of the Bishop on this thread have tended to agree this should not have been handled in this fashion.

YES No question.