BishopAccountability.org
	Resentment in Search of a Grievance: By Charlie Johnston Chicago Daily Observer March 27, 2008 http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/resentment-in-search-of-a-grievance923/ For two years now nearly half the priests in the Southern Illinois diocese of Belleville have been in rebellion against their bishop, Edward K. Braxton. Among the priestly complaints against Braxton are that he does not consult them, has misappropriated funds, and is pretentious and arrogant. On Wednesday, March 12, the rebellion led to a letter signed by 46 of the diocesan priests (nearly half) calling for the bishop's resignation. What is most peculiar and perhaps most revealing about the nature of this rebellion is that it began three months before Braxton was even installed as bishop. On Good Friday, March 21, Braxton broke the long-standing silence he has maintained on the subject in a letter to parishioners and priests of the diocese. The tale Braxton tells is astonishing, perhaps even unprecedented. The Bishop says that days before his installment, he met with a group of diocesan priests at St. Peter's Cathedral in Belleville. He says they demanded he refuse the appointment, threatening to release incriminating information about him if he did not submit. The priests told him there was a 'firestorm of hatred' against him in the diocese and that he was not welcome there. After listening to them rant for several hours, Braxton did refuse to give in to their threats, that is. He promised he would serve as Bishop "for as long as the Holy Father wants me to." He adds that shortly after the meeting he received an anonymous phone call telling him that, "we will not rest until we get rid of you." On Wednesday, March 26, an op-ed piece by Msgr. William Hitpas of St. Nicholas Parish in O'Fallon appeared in the local daily newspaper, the Belleville News-Democrat. It called for Catholics to enter into a period of 'calmer reflection' so as to heal the wounds. This call would have more credibility had it come from someone other than one of the chief ringleaders of the rebels, a man who has busied himself trying to inflame the public throughout Braxton's prolonged period of charitable silence. Nothing in Braxton's background could have prepared him for this hostile welcome. Ordained a priest in the Chicago Archdiocese on May 13, 1970, it was not long before he was recognized as a gifted theologian. In fact, he worked as Special Assistant for Theological Affairs to James Cardinal Hickey of Washington, D.C. in the 80s, serving as the Cardinal's personal theologian and research assistant. He was one of the first priests assigned to this sort of full-time collaborative work with a bishop. It had come at the recommendation of the Apostolic Delegate, Belgian Archbishop Jean Jadot, who had been impressed by Braxton when he studied at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. He has written extensive theological articles which have appeared in both Catholic and Protestant periodicals. Two of his books are widely used in Catholic colleges and seminaries. Pope John Paul II appointed him an auxiliary bishop for St. Louis in 1995. Before coming to Belleville he served as the Bishop of Lake Charles, Louisiana. He did extensive pastoral work in the Chicago Archdiocese, abroad, and in St. Louis before becoming a bishop. His appointment to Belleville was one of the last assignments made by the late Pope John Paul II. Ironically, given the current controversy, while serving as an associate pastor in Winnetka, Illinois, Braxton became an enthusiast for the Christian Family Movement, which seeks to integrate the lay faithful fully into the life of the Church. Before Belleville, Braxton was universally respected, even admired. The worst one can get people in former dioceses and parishes to say about him is that he can be rather "stiff and formal." The initial complaints coming out of Belleville were not against Braxton, himself. Rather, approximately 50 priests complained that Pope John Paul II had failed to consult them sufficiently about who they wanted to be Bishop. The papal nuncio, Msgr. Gabriel Montalvo, was astonished at the priests' presumption, commenting archly that all bishops' appointments are made by the pope and that this was the first time anyone had questioned papal authority in the procedure. Braxton's installation came on June 22, 2005, appropriately, the feast day of St. Thomas More, who chose to resist King Henry VIII's demands to be recognized as head of the Church in England and was ultimately beheaded for his fidelity to his faith. Braxton was greeted by protesters. It has gone downhill from there. Before Braxton had time to find the washrooms in his new setting, the leaders of the priestly revolt were screaming that he was dictatorial and did not consult with them sufficiently (Pope John Paul II was dead and beyond their complaints and the papal nuncio was remarkably unsympathetic to the priests riotous demands). This has remained a consistent theme. Some of the complaints have been downright silly and even self-contradictory. The Belleville Diocese is officially classified as a missionary diocese; that is, it does not produce sufficient priestly vocations to serve its people. Fr. Mark Stec, one of the prominent critics, complained that he had to shuffle between four parishes in Gallatin County in far Southeastern Illinois because of the shortage of priests. He then complained when the bishop authorized Sunday worship services headed by deacons or laymen instead of Mass as an interim measure to relieve the shortfall. Stec complained once more when Braxton imported two Nigerian priests into the diocese to relieve the pressure. One gets the sense that if Braxton celebrated Mass wearing purple vestments priests would complain it was not white; and if he wore white they would complain it was not purple. The most serious charge is that Braxton misappropriated $17,100 in diocesan funds. Various priests and nuns have characterized it as fraud or theft. So what, pray tell, did the bishop buy with the ill-gotten money? Was it booze, sex parties, perhaps football tickets? No. Part of the money went for vestments for new priests and deacons. In a hilarious irony, the other portion went to buy a conference table and chairs. The claim is not that the bishop stole money, but that he made legitimate expenditures out of the wrong funds. In an effort to calm the waters, Braxton made a statement apologizing for any contribution he had made to roiling them. In the statement, he maintains he had discretionary authority and used the funds properly, but that until a definitive ruling came from above, he had obtained a private donation replenishing those funds. Rebel priests immediately mischaracterized the statement as a confession and apology for misusing funds. Even the local media, which have energetically, if rather confusedly, followed this story, consistently quote the misrepresentation as fact. A simple reading of the bishop's statement would demonstrate otherwise. And so, Bishop Braxton is beaten mercilessly with his own olive branch. Still, the rebel priests maintain that the bishop's temerity in purchasing a conference table, chairs and priestly vestments has destroyed the confidence of the laity in his integrity and fitness to lead the diocese. The stridency of their complaints is belied by the fact that one of the most prominent of Braxton's public critics is Fr. Clyde Grogan, formerly of St. Patrick's Parish in East St. Louis and now ministering to an order of nuns, the Adorers of the Blood of Christ in tiny Ruma in Randolph County and attached to St. Patrick's Church in Ruma. On the day Braxton was installed, Grogan described him as one of the "Killer B's" clergy and politicians who do not have the faithful's best interests at heart. Those included on the list with Braxton by Grogan were Pope Benedict XVI, President George Bush, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt. While Grogan remains a prominent critic, his fellow rebels have the good sense to keep him muzzled on their favorite accusation that of misappropriation. Well they should. In 2005, it was discovered that the bookkeeper of the E. St. Louis parish he oversaw had embezzled $144,000 from the church. More to the point, an $85,000 charitable fund that Grogan had sole control over was missing $75,000, which has never been accounted for. This came at the tail end of former Bishop Wilton Gregory's tenure, so it is unclear whether it was he or interim diocesan administrator Msgr. James Margason who refused to cooperate with civil authorities to investigate. Instead they allowed the bookkeeper to promise to pay the money back and reassigned Grogan after the afflicted parish was shut down. It is more than a little disingenuous for the rebel priests to simultaneously maintain that Braxton's $17,100 expenditure on legitimate church expenses is an intolerable affront while simultaneously welcoming a priest who oversaw more than 10 times that amount in genuine misappropriation as a member in good standing of the rebellion. For six years, from 1998 to 2004, I lived in the Belleville diocese. I was a parishioner at St. Peter's Cathedral. In fact, I was the only male member of the women's choir, which sung at 10:30 a.m. Sunday Mass. (I was the trumpet player). But I attend a lot of daily masses. I like to travel around wherever I live for daily masses to get the feel of different parishes. It has helped enormously in researching this confrontation, for I know a lot of parishioners in various churches in the diocese and was able to call them to get their take on what is going on. To my surprise, all but one would agree to talk to me only on condition that I not use their name. To a man, it was not the bishop they were worried about. They were afraid of the priests. Catholics I spoke to were afraid of being singled out for public ridicule by the rebel priests, but more importantly were concerned that some of the priests in the leadership of the rebellion have close ties to the reigning political and media establishment and these Catholics feared retaliation in their professional lives. They gave me some things I could verify independently in publications and some things that, verified by several, I could use. I have chosen not to use any specific anecdotal material unless it could be verified by a completely credible source with firsthand knowledge. I have my own firsthand experiences with several of the leading rebels. Some are odious. Some I suspect are just caught up in a blood sport that has taken on a life of its own. One, in particular, I was shocked at, my first thought being he is so much better a man and priest than to engage in this sort of riotous behavior. There are three fundamental issues sparking the controversy and filling the ranks of rebel priests in Belleville. The first is disappointed ambition. Several of the most prominent critics reportedly had hoped to be named Bishop and Auxiliary Bishop. There is a clear desire on the part of Belleville priests to be allowed to name their own bishop. This sounds reasonable to many. In fact, it is the method used by most mainstream Protestant denominations. But it has two toweringly difficult problems. First, theologically, Catholics believe the direction of the Church to come from divine inspiration from God, hence a hierarchical structure. Bishops are appointed by the Pope. Priests serve at the pleasure of their bishops. It comes from the top down because of the firm Catholic insistence on Apostolic Succession, that is, that the first bishops were anointed by Christ, himself, and all bishops must be anointed by other bishops so that the line of Apostolic Succession back to Christ himself remains unbroken. He remains the true and eternal head and originator of both the visible and invisible church. This does not mean the hierarchy should ignore the faithful, either the clergy or the laity. Doing so has terrible consequences. But a great dispute over whether leadership authentically comes from the top down or the bottom up was joined some 500 years ago. The creation of Protestantism derived, in part, from this. Any who insist on this form of structure are entirely free to either join an existing Protestant denomination or create their own. Of course, they are not free to bring the sinecures they have obtained through the Catholic Church with them, which may be the real source of problem and frustration. Of course, if priests should be called to choose their own bishops it logically follows that parishioners should be able to choose their own priests. This could lead to some rather nasty surprises for some of the rebel leaders. Fourteen years ago under the lax administration of former bishop James Kelleher, Belleville diocese priests effectively did run the diocese themselves. Abuse scandals were reported and dealt with in a not altogether effective manner. The much-regarded Wilton Gregory was brought in to clean up. He accomplished much. But the press of his duties with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops left priests, largely, still running the diocese. After nearly two decades, it is no wonder that the priestly class objects to a bishop striving to re-establish genuine Catholic order. But that may, in fact, be exactly what the dying John Paul II had in mind for Belleville. The second fundamental issue was the self-imposed silence on the matter by Bishop Braxton, himself, until Good Friday. From his statement it is clear he had hoped that time would resolve the matter, without having to break out into an ugly, public dispute. He was giving these priests time to remember who they are and to what they are called. It was a charitable decision on his part. But the rebels continued to go to the media, beating the same old dead horses and getting themselves and the community further inflamed. One might fault the local media, which dutifully reported the same old charges without noting the obvious contradictions. But the leaders of the rebels have sought out the press, providing both charges against the bishop and misinterpretations of canon law. Journalists are generally not knowledgeable on religion, canon law, church structure or administrative procedure. When, with whatever motivation, some go on the attack, the easy thing for a reporter to do is to go with what he has. While Bishop Braxton's hope for quiet reconciliation and cooler heads was noble, one can only achieve reconciliation with people who are prepared to consider reconciliation. It may very well be that the formal call for his resignation is what finally convinced Braxton that there could be no reconciliation here without him speaking publicly and that further silence might very well be a failure to defend the Church, itself. It was not only what the letter from the priests called for, but when it was issued, that probably led to this conclusion. Braxton had been very close to his mother. When she died earlier this year, it was obvious to everyone that he had gone into a period of deep grieving. The public call for his resignation coincided almost exactly with the Memorial Mass the Bishop celebrated for her. Though the Bishop has adopted a policy, for now, of not speaking directly to the press, people close to him say he had set up several quiet meetings with dissatisfied groups of priests, only to have them stand him up when it was clear that the press would not be involved. All of this leads any reasonable observer to the conclusion that the agitants were only interested in breaking his resolve, not resolving any agitation. And so the Bishop spoke on Good Friday. The search for a common thread at the core of the uproar leads to a predominant theme. The dissenting Catholic group, Call to Action, which advocates for integration of active homosexuality into the Church, the ordination of women, and the marriage of priests, is a key ally in the fight. Also active is the Fellowship of Southern Illinois Laity (which goes by the delicious and appropriate acronym, FOSIL they are very much stuck in the amber of 70s-style rebellion), which is little more than an adjunct of Call to Action. The earlier referenced Fr. Grogan, who publicly announced his contempt both for Bishop Braxton and Pope Benedict XVI, has been rebuked for publicly supporting the Call to Action agenda in provocative ways. Just a few weeks ago, Sr. Jan Renz, who is regional superior of the Adorers of the Blood of Christ in Ruma, wrote a letter critical of the bishop to the Belleville News-Democrat and called for outside intervention to restore the "trust and hope" that has been lost because the bishop's credibility has been called into question. As mentioned earlier, Fr. Grogan ministers to Sr. Renz' order. When one turns one's attention to the accusers' backgrounds it is startling to find many of them having previously opined on the need for integrating homosexuality, priestly marriage and, the ordination of women and, in fact, homosexual marriage into the Church. In a version of this story written before the Bishop's statement, I had included some explicit examples, while holding others for follow-up, if necessary. As Bishop Braxton has clearly left the door open for reconciliation and implicitly called for recalcitrant priests to come home in his statement, I will follow his lead for the time being. During the six years I attended Mass throughout the Belleville diocese I heard some very good homilies. Rarely, though, did they touch on fundamentals of the faith. In fact, I did not hear a single homily about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until I complained about it to some priests I had developed affection for. I occasionally heard homilies intimating, without explicitly saying so, that the resurrection was figurative rather than literal (beware when anyone speaks of the 'resurrection event'). I heard some priests spout the language of New-Age nonsense. I left a group when the nun in charge used code language that comes from Wiccan and Goddess-centered New Age Pagan cults. There is much good to be cited in Belleville parishes, but the constant observer could only conclude that the resolution of the sex-ring scandal, while rooting out the most overt offenders, still has left the diocese in deep need of reconnecting with its ancient, historical faith. Like St. Thomas More, who would not yield to a king who was lording over others in contradiction of the faith, it appears this Bishop is determined not to yield to errant priests who would lord it over others in contradiction of that faith. In the end, there are several contributing factors, but the core of the revolt is simply the agenda of Call to Action's historical assault on the Catholic Church expanded overtly into the priestly class. All the main threads lead right back to that agenda. It is puzzling because both for Call to Action and the priests who align with them, there are several perfectly mainstream Protestant denominations which are structured exactly as they demand and preach the very things they want. They are perfectly free to join those denominations with no crisis of conscience. It is not as if they don't have someplace to go. As for the local media, their efforts have borne little fruit to this point because they have dutifully followed the accusations, without getting much rebuttal from the Bishop's office. When it dawns on them to turn their attention to the accusers rather than the accused, they will find the scandal they so ardently seek. At bottom, the reason the core of the rebellious priests strain so furiously at these gnats is because their bishop refuses to swallow the doctrinal camel they are trying to force down his throat. It has been a great scandal to the Catholic Church that too many of its leaders have envisioned themselves as mere administrators, fund-raisers, diplomats and statesmen. This Bishop, Edward Braxton, clearly has things properly ordered, seeing himself as, first and foremost, an Apostle of the Living Christ. Despite the protests of priests who would have it otherwise, Pope John Paul II's dying gift to the diocese of Belleville will ultimately spark an authentic spiritual revival in that long-troubled diocese.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.