Belleville Diocesan priests ask Bp. Braxton to resign

[qui_est_ce]

Hi Flame, you did a great job. Below are some of my observations. As a point of reference, I am an avid supporter of Archbishop Burke and very orthodox in my practice of the Faith.

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.

I would say “a little stiff” is an understatement. Seminarians of the day have told me this was true for them.

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

" A third of the active priests in the mostly rural, southern Illinois diocese of Belleville have gone on record publicly objecting to the “monarchical” leadership style of Bishop Edward Braxton. It is destroying the morale of clergy and laity, they say, and disrupting the operations of the diocese.

A statement signed by 24 of the 72 active priests claimed Braxton makes decisions without consultation, is unavailable for advice or discussion, and has an arrogant, off-putting manner. As a result, they said “crisis situations” have developed in some parishes since Braxton, 60, was installed as bishop last June. Specific action recommendations will be considered by the priests at a follow-up meeting Feb 1. Braxton has some support in the diocese. However some priests and an increasing number of laity are growing restive.

Attempts by NCR to contact Braxton or his vicar general for comment were unsuccessful.
“At this point we don’t know what to do,” said Fr. Mark Stec, pastor of four parishes in the southeastern part of the diocese. “If the bishop won’t help us, we’ll have to act on our own.” Stec, who is a diocesan dean, said he has been trying to get a response from Braxton for three months on personnel matters within his deanery. “I have written letters including certified mail,” he said. “I have called his office repeatedly, four times in one week. I’ve sent e-mails. I get no response whatsoever.”

Msgr. Carl Scherrer, a pastor in Columbia, said, “Something is awry in our church, and it’s time that somebody says enough is enough. The bishop’s role is to serve the whole church and it’s not being served under an imperial leadership.”

The rector of the Belleville cathedral, Msgr. James Buerster, said Braxton’s style is often described by people as “pretentious and arrogant,” and it “just drives them crazy. We have a difficult situation here and it’s gotten more difficult from the beginning.”

In fact, the beginning started before Braxton arrived in Belleville. When the diocese’s former bishop, Wilton Gregory, was installed in the Atlanta archdiocese last January, Belleville priests were asked to inform Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and metropolitan of the Illinois dioceses, concerning the needs of Belleville and the characteristics they would prefer in the new bishop. This is a normal procedure under Canon Law and presumes wide consultation with the papal nuncio, with area bishops, diocesan priest consultors and possibly with other local priests and laity. The procedure usually takes about six months.
But before the Belleville priests had gathered their recommendations, Braxton was appointed Belleville’s new bishop by a dying Pope John Paul II on March 15. Priests and laity were upset, said Msgr. Bill Hitpas, a diocesan consultor, in part because they were “denied any voice in the selection” and in part because Braxton had a “track record that was not particularly good.”

1. 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.*

This is true and commendable. Continued

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

This is a great concern to me as well. But I think it will be their undoing. Their lack of charity and the inappropriate timing undermines their credibility. Not that any timing for such action is appropirate, but this is the worst.

I wonder if the Vatican did look into this and that is why the money was refunded? The Vatican likely would not make this public.

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

Since this is strictly a numbers game for you, can I assume since Muslims now outnumber Catholics that they are correct and Catholicism is a fairy tale?

 

[flameburns623]

Qui est ce: Please take note that I was attempting to conduct an analysis of the discussion thus far, a summation of what has been said in exchanges thus far. I was not trying to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ Bp. Braxton, though I think my synopsis is doubtlessly influenced by the impression I have that the supporters of the bishop seem to be winning the argument over the critics in this thread. The critics seem too terribly wont to gloss over things that have been brought out over-and-over again.

For example, in your own response to me, you seem to question the use of the word ‘blackmail’. It was Bishop Braxton himself who used that word as I best recollect the news reports that have been posted here. I acknowledged in my synopsis that Bishop Braxton did NOT reveal the details of this ‘blackmail’; it is fair to ask whether the word might not be a misuse of overheated rhetoric on the Bishop’s part. BUT, as someone has kindly posted earlier in this thread, some of the priests in the diocese HAVE acknowledged that they attempted to dissuade Bishop Braxton from accepting his appointment.

The same is true with the way you characterize Bishop Braxton’s use of funds. I wasn’t deliberately skewing my analysis one way or the other. I think there are talking points on both sides of this issue We don’t know all of the details of the purchases made by Bishop Braxton with those funds. Why he felt he had to use THOSE earmarked funds for a purpose about which reasonable questions could be asked is not clear: perhaps there was an opportunity to glean a significant discount on the items obtained if they were purchased with a particular time frame. Otherwise I’m not certain why Bishop Braxton did not simply seek out a patron to provide him the funds he needed for the items he needed, rather than ‘borrowing’ the money from an earmarked fund pending determination of whether the money could be used for that purpose. I think a pretty-good case has been made that the Bishop made a fair-use judgement and then submitted himself to review; when that review went against him he behaved honorably in returning the funds. And I think it is very pertinent that the items purchased were not for his personal use. I tend to agree that he should have been more sensitive to the issue of ‘appearance of impropriety’ but I am not convinced he was materially improper in his actions. You however seem to have decided that you have enough facts at hand to determine that Bishop was willfully venal in how he used those funds.

I will grant that there do seem a lot of priests in one diocese openly critical of this bishop. However, someone in this thread has done a breakdown of the priests according to when they were ordained. It appears that priests ordained since the 1980’s are less likely to be critical of Braxton than priests ordained prior to 1980. This is all only speculative of course, but there has been a lot of discussion about whether priests in the 1960’s and 1970’s were as well-formed or even as well-screened as priests were prior to and subsequent to that period.

dmelosi:

. . . 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.

I live in Madison County, and work in parts of St. Clair County. (For those not familiar: Madison Cty is part of the Springfield diocese while St. Clair is part of the Belleville diocese). Anyhow, I pass by Belleville several times a week. It’s a confusing town to get around in, but if I can figure out where the Cathedral is I may pop into it sometime. I’ve never actually heard a bishop preach. I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen a Catholic bishop live, oddly enough. I’ve seen the Pope and several Cardinals but don’t recollect ever actually seeing a bishop. (Of course, the Pope is a bishop, but you know what I’m trying to say). Go figure.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Qui est ce: Please take note that I was attempting to conduct an analysis of the discussion thus far, a summation of what has been said in exchanges thus far. I was not trying to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ Bp. Braxton, though I think my synopsis is doubtlessly influenced by the impression I have that the supporters of the bishop seem to be winning the argument over the critics in this thread. The critics seem too terribly wont to gloss over things that have been brought out over-and-over again.

I think you did a great job in your synopsis, you asked for a response, I gave you my opinion. I disagreed with some of your conclusions, and I also disagreed with some of your adjectives. It is possible to be for Braxton as regards heterothodoxy, yet be upset in his handling of the other issues.

For example, in your own response to me, you seem to question the use of the word ‘blackmail’. It was Bishop Braxton himself who used that word as I best recollect the news reports that have been posted here. I acknowledged in my synopsis that Bishop Braxton did NOT reveal the details of this ‘blackmail’; it is fair to ask whether the word might not be a misuse of overheated rhetoric on the Bishop’s part. BUT, as someone has kindly posted earlier in this thread, some of the priests in the diocese HAVE acknowledged that they attempted to dissuade Bishop Braxton from accepting his appointment.

I agree with the facts. I am not questioning your use of the word blackmail. Braxton said that he was threatened with blackmail if he accepted the position. I’m just curious why he hasn’t been blackmailed yet. Was it an empty threat by the priests with whom he met? They really didn’t have anything on him? Just my curiosity. He said he was threatened, nowhere did I see any of the dissident priests deny the allegation.

The same is true with the way you characterize Bishop Braxton’s use of funds. I wasn’t deliberately skewing my analysis one way or the other. I think there are talking points on both sides of this issue We don’t know all of the details of the purchases made by Bishop Braxton with those funds. Why he felt he had to use THOSE earmarked funds for a purpose about which reasonable questions could be asked is not clear: perhaps there was an opportunity to glean a significant discount on the items obtained if they were purchased with a particular time frame. Otherwise I’m not certain why Bishop Braxton did not simply seek out a patron to provide him the funds he needed for the items he needed, rather than ‘borrowing’ the money from an earmarked fund pending determination of whether the money could be used for that purpose. I think a pretty-good case has been made that the Bishop made a fair-use judgement and then submitted himself to review; when that review went against him he behaved honorably in returning the funds. And I think it is very pertinent that the items purchased were not for his personal use. I tend to agree that he should have been more sensitive to the issue of ‘appearance of impropriety’ but I am not convinced he was materially improper in his actions.

You ask a lot of questions. As a donor, you have a right to an answer. People will not give to a cause if there is no accountability. I don’t know about Belleville, but in St. Louis, we are obligated to gave and annual state of the parish and an annual state of the Archdiocese, meaning audited financial statements and accountability.

You however seem to have decided that you have enough facts at hand to determine that Bishop was willfully venal in how he used those funds.

I will grant that there do seem a lot of priests in one diocese openly critical of this bishop. However, someone in this thread has done a breakdown of the priests according to when they were ordained. It appears that priests ordained since the 1980’s are less likely to be critical of Braxton than priests ordained prior to 1980. This is all only speculative of course, but there has been a lot of discussion about whether priests in the 1960’s and 1970’s were as well-formed or even as well-screened as priests were prior to and subsequent to that period.

He is actually well know for his adherence to orthodoxy, and he is to be commended for that. He is also sensitive to respecting cultural norms of non European Catholics.

nbccongress.org/publications/black-authors/edward-braxton.asp

I live in Madison County, and work in parts of St. Clair County. (For those not familiar: Madison Cty is part of the Springfield diocese while St. Clair is part of the Belleville diocese). Anyhow, I pass by Belleville several times a week. It’s a confusing town to get around in, but if I can figure out where the Cathedral is I may pop into it sometime. I’ve never actually heard a bishop preach. I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen a Catholic bishop live, oddly enough. I’ve seen the Pope and several Cardinals but don’t recollect ever actually seeing a bishop. (Of course, the Pope is a bishop, but you know what I’m trying to say). Go figure.

Illinois, “God’s country”

 

[Engineer1]

I live here in Belleville, and the facts as presented seem accurate as far as I can tell.

I hasten to add that whether or not the “procedure” for consultation was followed or not is immaterial…there is a validly appointed bishop, the priests don’t like him, they’ve been trying to get rid of him for three years, and they’re using a disagreement over how to spend money as a bludgeon against a good man.

Even IF (and that’s a big IF), the allegations the priests make were true, it’s totally beside the point. Know what I say to the men who wanted to be “consulted”? Boo. Freakin’. Hoo.

A bishop isn’t an elected official…this scandalous assault on the Church is shameful, and grown men who’ve been priests for 30 or 40 years should know that. The fact they apparently don’t speaks volumes about who they are.

These rebel priests have done nothing but sow discontent and discord. If they have a beef, they should take it to their superiors, not the newspapers. If they didn’t get the answer they wanted, then perhaps they don’t really have a beef!

One last thing…if this little “protest” works and our good bishop is forced to resign, God help us. Call to Action, Womenpriests, Voice of the Faithful, heck, probably the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, will be calling for the miter of every other bishop they don’t like until we’re left with what the Anglicans have now. This is Bull Run, boys, and the Union better win this one or we’re in for a long civil war.

I told a friend today it’s as if I’m involved in a shouting match between mother and father. I would prefer not to choose sides, but since the rebel priests have publicly attacked my Mother Church by attacking my bishop, I’ll defend my bishop.

 

[dmelosi]

I live here in Belleville, and the facts as presented seem accurate as far as I can tell.

I hasten to add that whether or not the “procedure” for consultation was followed or not is immaterial…there is a validly appointed bishop, the priests don’t like him, they’ve been trying to get rid of him for three years, and they’re using a disagreement over how to spend money as a bludgeon against a good man.

Even IF (and that’s a big IF), the allegations the priests make were true, it’s totally beside the point. Know what I say to the men who wanted to be “consulted”? Boo. Freakin’. Hoo.

A bishop isn’t an elected official…this scandalous assault on the Church is shameful, and grown men who’ve been priests for 30 or 40 years should know that. The fact they apparently don’t speaks volumes about who they are.

These rebel priests have done nothing but sow discontent and discord. If they have a beef, they should take it to their superiors, not the newspapers. If they didn’t get the answer they wanted, then perhaps they don’t really have a beef!

One last thing…if this little “protest” works and our good bishop is forced to resign, God help us. Call to Action, Womenpriests, Voice of the Faithful, heck, probably the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, will be calling for the miter of every other bishop they don’t like until we’re left with what the Anglicans have now. This is Bull Run, boys, and the Union better win this one or we’re in for a long civil war.

I told a friend today it’s as if I’m involved in a shouting match between mother and father. I would prefer not to choose sides, but since the rebel priests have publicly attacked my Mother Church by attacking my bishop, I’ll defend my bishop.

I have a brother who works in St. Louis and has a friend who used to belong to the Belleville diocese, but the friend moved from there several years ago. The friend has only seen what is in the papers and told my brother that he thought the bishop should resign…just to show you how a liberal bias can change someones opinion and twist fact to spread their view.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I hasten to add that whether or not the “procedure” for consultation was followed or not is immaterial…there is a validly appointed bishop,

Yes you are correct, the normal procdure was not followed, but Bishop Braxton is still the valid bishop.

the priests don’t like him, they’ve been trying to get rid of him for three years, and they’re using a disagreement over how to spend money as a bludgeon against a good man.

Even IF (and that’s a big IF), the allegations the priests make were true, it’s totally beside the point. Know what I say to the men who wanted to be “consulted”? Boo. Freakin’. Hoo.

A bishop isn’t an elected official…this scandalous assault on the Church is shameful, and grown men who’ve been priests for 30 or 40 years should know that. The fact they apparently don’t speaks volumes about who they are.

The Church is not a democracy.

One last thing…if this little “protest” works and our good bishop is forced to resign, God help us. Call to Action, Womenpriests, Voice of the Faithful, heck, probably the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, will be calling for the miter of every other bishop they don’t like until we’re left with what the Anglicans have now.

There is NO WAY the Vatican would allow the protests of dissident priests to influence its decision making. If Bishop Braxton is forced to resign, it will be because of improprieties, to be determined by the Vatican, and not because of protestors. The Vatican likely would not disclose the reason.

 

[mikew262]

Since this is strictly a numbers game for you, can I assume since Muslims now outnumber Catholics that they are correct and Catholicism is a fairy tale?

I won’t even respond to that.

 

[mikew262]

I live here in Belleville, and the facts as presented seem accurate as far as I can tell.

I hasten to add that whether or not the “procedure” for consultation was followed or not is immaterial…there is a validly appointed bishop, the priests don’t like him, they’ve been trying to get rid of him for three years, and they’re using a disagreement over how to spend money as a bludgeon against a good man.

Even IF (and that’s a big IF), the allegations the priests make were true, it’s totally beside the point. Know what I say to the men who wanted to be “consulted”? Boo. Freakin’. Hoo.

A bishop isn’t an elected official…this scandalous assault on the Church is shameful, and grown men who’ve been priests for 30 or 40 years should know that. The fact they apparently don’t speaks volumes about who they are.

These rebel priests have done nothing but sow discontent and discord. If they have a beef, they should take it to their superiors, not the newspapers. If they didn’t get the answer they wanted, then perhaps they don’t really have a beef!

One last thing…if this little “protest” works and our good bishop is forced to resign, God help us. Call to Action, Womenpriests, Voice of the Faithful, heck, probably the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, will be calling for the miter of every other bishop they don’t like until we’re left with what the Anglicans have now. This is Bull Run, boys, and the Union better win this one or we’re in for a long civil war.

I told a friend today it’s as if I’m involved in a shouting match between mother and father. I would prefer not to choose sides, but since the rebel priests have publicly attacked my Mother Church by attacking my bishop, I’ll defend my bishop.

Rebel priests? Give me a break! You ever consider that maybe these priests have valid points, or are you just going to blindly follow the Bishop no matter what? Remember the Bishop is just a priest himself, and he is human and humans are open to error. Perhaps the Bishop is in the right and the priests not, thats entirely possible, although I’ve not heard a lot that supports that, but for gosh sakes try to keep a somewhat open mind.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think a pretty-good case has been made that the Bishop made a fair-use judgement and then submitted himself to review; when that review went against him he behaved honorably in returning the funds. And I think it is very pertinent that the items purchased were not for his personal use. I tend to agree that he should have been more sensitive to the issue of ‘appearance of impropriety’ but I am not convinced he was materially improper in his actions. You however seem to have decided that you have enough facts at hand to determine that Bishop was willfully venal in how he used those funds.

Our Annual Catholic Appeal forcefully stresses that none of the money is used for running the Archdiocese, that it is strictly used for programs such as grants to schools, various charitable programs. This is because donations were down after the sex scandal, and people mistakenly believed proceeds from the ACA were used for the maintenance of the Archdiocese.

Donations have since increased.
archstl.org/stewardship/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=349

It is a fact that many people gave empty envelopes in Belleville to show their displeasure at how he spend his money
Posted by Chicago Tribune:

Monsignor James Margason, vicar general for the diocese, said empty envelopes for the bishop’s annual fundraising campaign are arriving from parishioners who question how their money would be spent.

If you gave to the annual appeal after being told the money was not used to run the diocese, found out that it was in fact used to fund the diocese, and the bishop said he could use the money to run the diocese, after promising people it would not be used as such, what would you think of the bishop’s integrety?

 

[twopekinguys]

Our Annual Catholic Appeal forcefully stresses that none of the money is used for running the Archdiocese, that it is strictly used for programs such as grants to schools, various charitable programs. This is because donations were down after the sex scandal, and people mistakenly believed proceeds from the ACA were used for the maintenance of the Archdiocese.

Donations have since increased.
archstl.org/stewardship/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=349

It is a fact that many people gave empty envelopes in Belleville to show their displeasure at how he spend his money

If you gave to the annual appeal after being told the money was not used to run the diocese, found out that it was in fact used to fund the diocese, and the bishop said he could use the money to run the diocese, after promising people it would not be used as such, what would you think of the bishop’s integrety?

I’m just a little confused with your post.

The link you provided is for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Belleville Diocese is under the sufferage of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

The funds used in the St. Louis Archdiocese wouldn’t have anything to do with the Belleville Diocese.

 

[flameburns623]

Our Annual Catholic Appeal forcefully stresses that none of the money is used for running the Archdiocese, that it is strictly used for programs such as grants to schools, various charitable programs. This is because donations were down after the sex scandal, and people mistakenly believed proceeds from the ACA were used for the maintenance of the Archdiocese.

Donations have since increased.
archstl.org/stewardship/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=349

It is a fact that many people gave empty envelopes in Belleville to show their displeasure at how he spend his money

If you gave to the annual appeal after being told the money was not used to run the diocese, found out that it was in fact used to fund the diocese, and the bishop said he could use the money to run the diocese, after promising people it would not be used as such, what would you think of the bishop’s integrity?

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when I see a public figure being roundly criticised in the popular press, with few people coming to his defense, I tend to wonder if the person being slammed really deserves what he or she is getting or if they are on the ‘bad side’ of the popular press for not toeing the liberal line. Hence in my opening post I asked about Bp. Braxton’s orthodoxy and traditional values. I really did not know whether Bp. Braxton was conservative or orthodox, but I was prepared to NOT be surprised to learn that in fact many people think he IS so.

in the 1990’s any number of scandals came up regarding Bill and Hilary Clinton, and I observed that the press really had to be prodded to keep those issues on the front page and/or to ask really tough questions. For example, before there was “Fahrenheit 911” there was the “Clinton Chronicles”. Both films are pretty much conspiracy-theory pap, neither deserving any serious attention. But the Clinton Chronicles really did not get much play in the popular media.

On the other hand, Fahrenheit 911 was pretty much pushed down our throats as a blockbuster. Another example is the investment brokerage scandal that netted Hilary such a handsome profit–which conservative pundits never could manage to use effectively as a foil. On the other hand, there were several scandals in the Bush administration over the past several years which clearly hurt him and the Republicans in the past election, and which are likely to continue to hurt Republicans in the upcoming one. My perception is that the response of conservatives, when such scandals come up, is frequently to abandon our own quickly; while liberals tend to justify their malfeasance.

I’m painting with too broad a brush here but my point is that I am wont to give Bp. Braxton a bit of benefit of the doubt only because I think that if he were more in the mold the popular press wanted him to be in, this would not be such a major story. Not that my goodwill is going to be of much assistance to Bp. Braxton. I should also point out that these dialogues are very helpful to me, since I am not ‘in the loop’ about a lot of the Catholic new stories that hit the popular media. My position on the St. Stanislaus issue over in St. Louis has changed over the last two years or so for example, largely because a lot of facts have been made known here that I would otherwise not have been mindful of.

I still think the initial issue could have been avoided if Archbishop Burke had taken a somewhat different approach–but that is not substantially different from how I feel about the Bp. Braxton case. Even if Bp. Braxton had good reasons for believing he could use the funds as he did, he should have been mindful of the risk of an appearance of impropriety, knowing himself to have enemies within his diocese already.

 

[twopekinguys]

Rebel priests? Give me a break! You ever consider that maybe these priests have valid points, or are you just going to blindly follow the Bishop no matter what? Remember the Bishop is just a priest himself, and he is human and humans are open to error. Perhaps the Bishop is in the right and the priests not, thats entirely possible, although I’ve not heard a lot that supports that, but for gosh sakes try to keep a somewhat open mind.

Assuming that these priests do have legitimate concerns, and I am not saying they do. They are causing “scandal”.

If they are upset because this Bishop was installed without consulting them, or considering their (name removed by moderator)ut, they should take it up with the Archdiocese (Chicago). They should not be taking it to the media, and they should not be preaching about it from the pulpit.

Every organization has a “chain of command”. If a priest has a problem, he should take it to his superior (Bishop). If that answer doesn’t work for him, he should take it to their superior (Archbishop). I know of no organization that has the media in their chain of command.

Priests and religous take vows of obedience. That doesn’t mean they have to blindly follow them, but common sense should prevail. If there are obvious liturgical errors being taught by the Bishop, or other flagrant violations, i.e. breaking civil law, you take it to their superior, not to the news media and cause scandal.

I have seen some of the liturgical abuses performed by some of the priests who signed this petition, and they themselves are causing more of the scandal than the Bishop.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m just a little confused with your post.

The link you provided is for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Belleville Diocese is under the sufferage of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

The funds used in the St. Louis Archdiocese wouldn’t have anything to do with the Belleville Diocese.

My point was the the annual appeal is NOT for use for running the diocese, I was giving you an example with which I am familiar. The mods asked us to back up our claims.

If I give to the annual appeal, it cannot be used for the maintenance of the diocese. If I give in a special envelope, for Seminarians, it cannot be used to run the diocese. When I put money in the envelope on Good Friday for Bethlehem collection, bishop can’t use it for other puposees. Whenever I put money in a special envelope, it must go to that cause, and not to run the diocese.

 

[Nordar]

I’m just a little confused with your post.

The link you provided is for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Belleville Diocese is under the sufferage of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

The funds used in the St. Louis Archdiocese wouldn’t have anything to do with the Belleville Diocese.

For some strange reason the poster continues to link whatever is happeneing with Bishop Braxton with Bishop Burke. Why, I have no clue, they are two seperate issues.

 

[twopekinguys]

My point was the the annual appeal is NOT for use for running the diocese, I was giving you an example with which I am familiar. The mods asked us to back up our claims.

If I give to the annual appeal, it cannot be used for the maintenance of the diocese. If I give in a special envelope, for Seminarians, it cannot be used to run the diocese. When I put money in the envelope on Good Friday for Bethlehem collection, bishop can’t use it for other puposees. Whenever I put money in a special envelope, it must go to that cause, and not to run the diocese.

Fair enough.

But if you are referring to the Bishop using “restricted funds” inappropiately, as I have stated earlier, it was a matter of interpretation. His vs the Finance committee.

Once it was made clear to him that the purchases were made from the incorrect fund, he had those funds replaced. He did it with their knowledge, and the proviso that if he was wrong he would correct it. He lived up to his word, and did everything above board.

Let’s not look for deception where none exists.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when I see a public figure being roundly criticised in the popular press, with few people coming to his defense, I tend to wonder if the person being slammed really deserves what he or she is getting or if they are on the ‘bad side’ of the popular press for not toeing the liberal line. Hence in my opening post I asked about Bp. Braxton’s orthodoxy and traditional values. I really did not know whether Bp. Braxton was conservative or orthodox, but I was prepared to NOT be surprised to learn that in fact many people think he IS so.

in the 1990’s any number of scandals came up regarding Bill and Hilary Clinton, and I observed that the press really had to be prodded to keep those issues on the front page and/or to ask really tough questions. For example, before there was “Fahrenheit 911” there was the “Clinton Chronicles”. Both films are pretty much conspiracy-theory pap, neither deserving any serious attention. But the Clinton Chronicles really did not get much play in the popular media.
.

My sentiments for the most part. One can like the conservative stand of Bishop Braxton without approving his treatment of the fund. So far, I have not seen any credible evidence for Bishop Braxton’s original stance that he had the authority to spend the money as he wished. From previous posts, you have seen he likes to spend inordinately large amounts on pet projects, like his residences. I assume he lives in a diocesan provided home, which would not make it his personal residence, therefore, it is not considered spending it on himself.

Can anyone tell me if the residence in Belleville was in such poor shape that it needed $250,000.00 in repairs when Bishop Wilton left it?

 

[Nordar]

My point was the the annual appeal is NOT for use for running the diocese, I was giving you an example with which I am familiar. The mods asked us to back up our claims.

If I give to the annual appeal, it cannot be used for the maintenance of the diocese. If I give in a special envelope, for Seminarians, it cannot be used to run the diocese. When I put money in the envelope on Good Friday for Bethlehem collection, bishop can’t use it for other puposees. Whenever I put money in a special envelope, it must go to that cause, and not to run the diocese.

While I agree that Bishop Braxton using that money was not a good decision, I really think your obsession with that one fact is very biased.
In MHO that does not have a thing to do with why these Priests want The Bishop gone, I don’t believe it has a thing to do with it.
It was just a lucky thing (if you want to call it that) for them that The Bishop did this.
The actual fact of the matter, which has been widely reported is that they had a problem with him long before the money situation.
As I said in an earlier post, apart from that money thing, I have not heard one other thing that this Bishop has done, except be too Orthodox. So to keep harping on that money issue is strange and I am questioning why you continue to do it?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Fair enough.

But if you are referring to the Bishop using “restricted funds” inappropiately, as I have stated earlier, it was a matter of interpretation. His vs the Finance committee.

All the evidence points to there could be NO interpretation.

Once it was made clear to him that the purchases were made from the incorrect fund, he had those funds replaced. He did it with their knowledge, and the proviso that if he was wrong he would correct it. He lived up to his word, and did everything above board.

How/who made it clear to him? Certainly not the Finance Office. It was only after it was made public in the STL Post-Dispatch that Bishop Braxton suddenly decided to seek out a private donor to replace the funds.

Let’s not look for deception where none exists.

It’s an odd side of the fence on which I find myself this time. I can’t access the article for your reference any more. But it quoted Vatican rules for appropriation of these kinds of funds. Maybe I’ll look elsewhere.