BishopAccountability.org
	Belleville Diocese down to Simmering Boil By Charlie Johnston Belleville News-Democrat May 4, 2008 http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/belleville-diocese-down-to-simmering-boil%2C1079/ A little over a month ago nearly half the priests in the southern Illinois diocese of Belleville signed a letter demanding the resignation of their Bishop, Edward Braxton. It was the culmination of three years of controversy, in which priests and nuns had publicly attacked the Bishop, accusing him of many things, the most serious of which was the misappropriation of diocesan funds. Bishop Braxton responded on Good Friday with a statement detailing how he had been threatened by priests and warned not to take the appointment even before he was installed. I examined the charges against him in an article here last month and found little substantiation, but some serious problems on the part of the accusers (see Resentment in Search of a Grievance). The controversy continues to simmer, though it is no longer at the white heat it had reached last month. As claims of misappropriation and "theft" were exposed as ridiculous hyperbole applied to using a wrong fund to pay legitimate church expenses (vestments for new priests and conference tables and chairs), some of the critics changed course slightly and claimed that the bishop had taken money out of the mouths of the poor to pay for these things. But an examination of the budget of Catholic Social Services for Southern Illinois reveals exactly the opposite. In fact, growth in the budget for social services under Braxton has been among the most robust of any diocese in the nation these last three years. When Braxton came to Belleville in 2005 the diocesan social services budget was at $6,300,000. At the end of fiscal 2007 that budget had risen to $8,500,000 and is on course for $9,300,000 this year. It has seen an increase of 26% in three years. Nationally, Catholic Charities has suffered a decline of over 20% in the same three years. If Braxton is taking food out of the mouths of the poor, he is doing a notably incompetent job of it. In fact, almost any diocese in the country would be delighted to have performance half as robust as what is happening in Belleville. By every measurable standard Braxton's performance has been outstanding. Not just good, but outstanding. Oddly, his critics were most recently calling for the bishop to fire Gary Huelsmann, the executive director of diocesan social services. It remains a peculiarity that the fiery critics are most scornful of areas where the bishop is most notably strong, while protecting in their own ranks people who are guilty of severe problems of the very type they accuse Braxton of. It is almost as if they are engaged in some sort of weird projection of their own failings onto the bishop. Certainly, they seem to have a grudge against competence and success. It remains a mystery why these critics have coalesced into such a violent faction opposed to the Bishop when all their charges, upon examination, become such substance-less wisps. As discussed last month, some of it is the result of disappointed ambition. Several of the priests were hoping a new Bishop and Auxiliary Bishop would be named from their own ranks and their initial ire was directed at the late Pope John Paul II for not sufficiently consulting with them before appointing a bishop. But the most glaring dividing line comes between orthodox Catholics and "progressive" Catholics. Though there are exceptions, generally the orthodox Catholics respect and follow Braxton while the 'progressives' rage against him. It was 17 years ago that I converted to Catholicism. It would have come much earlier except there was so much public misinformation about what Catholicism actually is and authentically teaches. It was a great shock to me once I started seriously examining the faith to discover that, while Catholics have one of the most extensive networks for catechism of any church, they are among the most poorly catechized. Most priests, and many Bishops, have utterly failed to transmit the fundamentals of the faith for many decades now. The turmoil in Belleville is, in many respects, a direct result of that failure. First among the errors is the interpretation of 'social justice.' Most "progressives" claim they are following Christ's example in helping the less fortunate and that that is what animates them. But Christ's message was not that we are to help the less fortunate as a form of condescension of the greater to the lesser. Rather, His message was that we are all the less fortunate, burdened down by the weight of original sin, and that we are to help each other as loving brothers and sisters in human solidarity. The religious officials of Christ's time had their own poor boxes. Many would make great public shows of generosity. Jesus said they already had their reward and that it was not heaven. In the early days of his ministry, many of the religious elites demonstrated eagerness for Jesus to join their ranks. But he scandalized them by refusing to treat the poor and sinners as pets, some sort of blighted subclass of humanity. Instead he took his own place among their ranks, firing the fury of the elites against him. In Chicago over a decade ago I listened in shock as a nun in an informal group explained that she didn't much believe in all the religious stuff, but had become a nun because it was a marvelously effective way to do social work. It is a terribly impoverished view of Christianity. Yet it is the great flaw in modern social work. Many involved are more interested in self-actualization than in human solidarity. They want to show how noble and enlightened they are and buy their warm, fuzzy feeling of nobility at the expense of the dignity of those who they purport to serve. As Christ said about their predecessors 2,000 years ago, they have their reward. Second among the errors is a misunderstanding of the nature of sin. There are two common public images of God: as either a wrathful spirit eager to smite the slightest error or an enabling father, ever tolerant of the grossest abuse. Both are wrong. Sin is, of its very nature, mutilating. Most of God's prohibitions are the warnings of a loving father against behaviors that, themselves, will damage us. Imagine for a moment a property owner who has a rickety bridge over a deep and sharply rocky gorge. He puts up a sign warning people not to use that bridge. If someone ignores the sign, goes onto the bridge, falls and injures himself it is not a case of the property owner punishing him for disobedience. Rather, the property owner was trying to protect him from predictable consequences. And if that property owner finds the stricken man, he will attempt to bind up his wounds. This is how God is in dealing with the sins of weakness. There are different types of sin. Some theologians have made marvelous and extensive explanations. But for our purposes we will stick to three. First are the sins of weakness. These are the sins that, because of human frailty, we often find ourselves prey to. They include most sexual sins. They are both the most chronic in human nature and the most easily forgiven. God knows our frailty. He always responds with real tenderness to our repentance, even as he knows how prone we are to succumb again. Yet the media and popular culture treat these as if they were the only or at least the most serious sins. Second are the sins of malice and pride. These are often more subtle and involve a vengeful nature or self-exaltation. These do inspire divine contempt. Pride is even more dangerous than malice because those who engage in it so easily convince themselves they are better than other men and are a force for good. But good is not possible without reference to God. Third, perhaps most dangerous of all, is the sin of deception, misleading others about the nature of sin. This is most often manifested today by people who teach that certain dysfunctions are not sin at all. Thus the man who teaches that active homosexuality is acceptable in the sight of God is in far more danger than the one who actually is homosexual and falls, even frequently, but recognizes it for the sin it is. Jesus said that it would be better to have a millstone put around one's neck and drowned than to lead his little ones astray. Serious stuff here. The third major error is the misunderstanding of what Christian obedience is. It is not the submission of the lesser to the greater, nor is it a function of power. In Christianity obedience is a means of opening channels of grace. Those who are teachers (bishops, priests, ministers) are called to carefully consider what they direct their flock to. Those who are part of the flock are called to carefully consider the advice they are given, differentiating between what is advice and what is defined teaching that is absolute. Above all, we are called to lift each other up, acting in solidarity with each other and with mutual respect. Over the years I have often entered into disputes with priests and, occasionally, with bishops. Except for my coverage of this Belleville story, those disputes have always been private. It has been my habit, when particularly angered or offended, to write a letter to the priest outlining my objections. Within days, I make it a point to go to confession to the priest in question. I could not credibly demand that he submit to the lawful authority of Mother Church without demonstrating my commitment to submitting to his lawful authority over me. Make no mistake, I have been rebuked as often as I have rebuked and am grateful for it. This is what fraternal correction is. Once, a bishop with whom I had collaborated with on some matters read of something I was involved in in the papers. He called me to rebuke me. If you have never received a call from an angry bishop informing you what a dumb ass you have been, well, trust me, it is a bracing experience. But it did not hinder our mutual collaboration on other Church matters. Respecting each other's dignity does not mean you never dispute with each other, but you do go to great pains to avoid publicly humiliating each other. The greatest fundamental of the Catholic faith that is most seriously under taught is the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I have found far too few priests who take this seriously. Of those who do, I have never found one who is not charitable, pastoral, and a fountain of good direction. The laity have rights; the right to demand meat from their priests and not mere fluff. We have the right to demand fidelity on the part of our priests and Bishops to the authentic teaching of the Magisterium. We are obligated to exercise those rights. But we are obligated to do so in Christian charity. I have neither met nor spoken with Bishop Braxton. I have intentionally not yet spoken with any of the priests involved about this matter, relying on statements already in the public record. Each day, as part of my rosary, I pray for 17 priests by name, seven of them from the Belleville diocese, several of whom signed the resignation demand. This is a practice I have engaged in for well over a decade. It sickens me to have to publicly deal with this. My hope is not to stir the pot, but to give priests time to recollect their calling and its demands. If you Google Bishop Braxton and read some of what he has written, he is solid on the fundamentals of the faith, often beautifully and movingly so. How he interacts socially, I don't know. The priests and nuns of the diocese, at this juncture, cannot know either. They were screaming for his head fully three months before he arrived. Again, by every measurable standard, Braxton has not just been a good Bishop: he has been an outstanding Bishop. It is the duty of the religious in the diocese to recollect their calling and act accordingly. It is the duty of the laity to demand the same. It is the duty of all to act with mutual solidarity and charity. And it is the duty of the laity to refuse to treat this as some mere political squabble; to demand that public charges not be made until all private attempts at resolution have failed and that those charges be substantial and not so much fluff or mere resentment. If a pastor is determined to be a mere political agitator, the laity should demand his removal and, failing that, remove themselves to another parish. Hopefully, the next time I write about the diocese of Belleville, it will be to report on the harmony and mutual charity that has replaced bitter dispute.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.