Belleville Diocesan priests ask Bp. Braxton to resign

[mikew262]

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.

They have taken it to their superiors, they’ve sent correspondence to the Vatican’s rep here in the US. They also sent a letter to the Bishop himself which several days after he received it was published in the press.

If the Vatican responds in the Bishop’s favor and there is no further recourse, then I agree the priests should suck it up and deal with it.

 

[dmelosi]

All the evidence points to there could be NO interpretation.
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.
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 appropriat on of these kinds of funds. Maybe I’ll look elsewhere.

The letter the bishop wrote at the time stated very clearly that he would replace the money if he were wrong…BUT all knew this at the time.

In an earlier post you accused the bishop of lying, then tried to smooth that over…

In each post you highlight things that have been covered over and over, yet you bring it up in a different way.

The way you dismiss past articles makes me very suspicious of where you are coming from.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The letter the bishop wrote at the time stated very clearly that he would replace the money if he were wrong…BUT all knew this at the time.

In an earlier post you accused the bishop of lying, then tried to smooth that over…

In each post you highlight things that have been covered over and over, yet you bring it up in a different way.

The way you dismiss past articles makes me very suspicious of where you are coming from.

Okay, this will be the last thing I have to say on the subject. I am not for the dissident priests. I am not for liturgical abuses. I am happy the Bishop Braxton is doing his job in correcting them, however unpopular that makes him. He should get our prayers and support.

What I object to is the Bishop’s handling of the money situation, and people defending him and excusing him, and acting as though the dissident priests made a bigger issue out of it than need be. From reading through this thread, I have not seen the actual letter written by the priests. I only know they say the Bishop is unavailable and does not return their phone calls when they call him for advice. I don’t even know if the money is mentioned in the letter. If I were trying to prove his unworthiness as a bishop, I would probably include the money in context.

The letter was delivered to the Bishop on a WEDNESAY, a week before holy week. And two months after the bishop publicly apologized for misusing the funds.

You might like the bishop’s orthodoxy, but you can’t excuse the money. To me it is important, and not a red herring.

 

[twopekinguys]

Okay, this will be the last thing I have to say on the subject. I am not for the dissident priests. I am not for liturgical abuses. I am happy the Bishop Braxton is doing his job in correcting them, however unpopular that makes him. He should get our prayers and support.

What I object to is the Bishop’s handling of the money situation, and people defending him and excusing him, and acting as though the dissident priests made a bigger issue out of it than need be. From reading through this thread, I have not seen the actual letter written by the priests. I only know they say the Bishop is unavailable and does not return their phone calls when they call him for advice. I don’t even know if the money is mentioned in the letter. If I were trying to prove his unworthiness as a bishop, I would probably include the money in context.

The letter was delivered to the Bishop on a WEDNESAY, a week before holy week. And two months after the bishop publicly apologized for misusing the funds.

You might like the bishop’s orthodoxy, but you can’t excuse the money. To me it is important, and not a red herring.

Here is an article that makes it look bad for the Bishop on the money part. Until you get down to the last couple of paragraphs. Then it kind of leaves it up in the air.

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/FDCF856628EC0F3A862573D10015AB3E?OpenDocument

 

[sevenmansions]

We can and should have some open disagreements from time to time. But it’s not of benefit to anyone for this craziness to continue.
…Come on, you’re placing all the blame on one side of this out of pure blindness towards what you view as ‘orthodoxy’.

Frommi, you seemed to have no problems with this “craziness” until Bishop Braxton rebutted and began to give parishioners the lowdown on the kind of people some of those dissenting priests were. You certainly don’t seem to want to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt, repeating the “misappropriation of funds” line over and over, but then criticize the tone when the dissenters motives are questioned. Your lack of objectivity reveals that the blind one may be you…

 

[twopekinguys]

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?

I currently live in the Peoria Diocese, but used to live in the Belleville Diocese.

When Bishop O’Rourke was our bishop, he didn’t live in the official Bishop’s residence, but a simple and modest home. When the next Bishop (John Meyers, now Archbishop of Newark) was installed, he moved into the Bishop’s residence and spent a massive amount to remodel, had a limo and driver, etc. All at the expense of the Diocese. Now we have Bishop Jenky, who is currently living in the official residence, but has done little remodeling.

My point is, the decoration of the Bishop’s residence will reflect them, and their orthodoxy. Some are opulant, some are more simple. Either way, I think the Bishop’s residence should be decorated and maintained in a manner that befits their office.

 

[qui_est_ce]

My point is, the decoration of the Bishop’s residence will reflect them, and their orthodoxy. Some are opulant, some are more simple. Either way, I think the Bishop’s residence should be decorated and maintained in a manner that befits their office.

I agree. The St Louis diocesan residence for the archbishop is a beatufiful 100 year old mansion across from the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. I’m sure the maintenance costs are high because it is so old. But $250,000.00 in Belleville? and $380,000.00 in Lake Charles? Is real estate that high down there? We’re not talking New York or Chicago here.

Now he’s not renewing the contract of the chief financial officer William Knapp, in effect firing him (after ten years on the job)? He doesn’t need to give a reaon, but:

However, a bishop has an obligation to his priests to be a worthy shepherd and a father to them. He has an obligation to ‘set the tone’ for an entire diocese on things such as finances, etc. He obviously needs to build trust, not just enforce ‘orthodoxy’ etc.

 

[twopekinguys]

I agree. The St Louis diocesan residence for the archbishop is a beatufiful 100 year old mansion across from the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. I’m sure the maintenance costs are high because it is so old. But $250,000.00 in Belleville? and $380,000.00 in Lake Charles? Is real estate that high down there? We’re not talking New York or Chicago here.

Now he’s not renewing the contract of the chief financial officer William Knapp, in effect firing him (after ten years on the job)? He doesn’t need to give a reaon, but:

Have you seen how expensive things are now a days?

As far as Mr. Knapp, there could be many reasons for it. Granted,
the timing might not be the best, but again, let’s not look for conspiracy where none may exist.

It is not uncommon when a new leader comes in to change people around.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Have you seen how expensive things are now a days?

As far as Mr. Knapp, there could be many reasons for it. Granted,
the timing might not be the best, but again, let’s not look for conspiracy where none may exist.

It is not uncommon when a new leader comes in to change people around.

A conspiracy involves at least two people. This is a Manspiracy!

 

[flameburns623]

I’d grown tired of this thread. I think there are some fair questions to ask, but I think the Bishop is being pilloried a bit more in the press than his actions deserve. It may be that he thought he could use ‘earmarked funds’ because there was precedent for this in the past. In college I recollect such an issue coming up before the financial committee of the Student Council. I don’t recall most of the details, but someone came before us requesting funds for some sort of student activity and the Council supported the request. The following week, the university sent someone over to ask us to reconsider what we had done, because there was concern that our decision was out-of-keeping with how those funds were specified to be allocated. There was concern we were establishing a precedent that would eventually broaden the use of the funds to the point that the University would have to eliminate that category of funding altogether.

I am being extremely speculative about the Bp. Braxton case here: I am supporting the idea that mebbe Bp. Braxton thought he had good reason for being able to use the funds as he did. But we simply are not privy to all the details of what happened and are unlikely to be. On the one hand, it looks as though Bp. Braxton set himself up for criticism in a situation where he should have realized that his critics might try to embarrass him. On the other hand, if I were in the Bishop’s place, I don’t know that I would allow fear of criticism to hamstring me in conducting the affairs of the diocese as I see fit.

Besides this, by taking this whole affair to the press instead of resolving it privily, the critics of the Bishop have largely exposed themselves. How this all will end we have yet to know but I would wager that either Bp. Braxton or his successor will eventually ensure there are significant repercussions for taking this fight into the public arena.

 

[twopekinguys]

I agree totally.