Posted on 04/15/2002 8:31:13 PM PDT by Slyfox
I attended the protest at my church, St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Dallas, TX, where our pastor, Fr. Stephen Bierschenk, was relieved of his duty on a trumped up charge of non-compliance with the diocesean "no tolerance" policy intended to weed out child abusers.
Fr. Bierschenk was given one month to come into full compliance, and as of today, well within the one month deadline, every background check has been completed. Being unjustly fired from his post at our church and after the urging of parish leaders and a multitude of the faithful, he has decided to take his case to Rome,
Fr. Bierschenk has a strong case. Two other priests in the Dallas diocese in the last two years, who were also inappropriately treated, have taken their cases to Rome and have won. According to Canon Law, a priest may not be removed from his post during his appeal.
During the Confirmation service tonight, with the bishop in attendance, every young person being confirmed took the name of Stephen as their Confirmation name. At the end of the service, as the altar servers and priests and the deacon came down from the altar to exit the church, the bishop took the side entrance so he wouldn't have to face the multitude and EDBCmedia outside.
In the Archdiocese of San Antonio where I reside, I understand that's not really an option. The Appeal begins in September. Each Parish is assigned a certain amount they are expected to pay, and that is what they must pay by December 31st.
If your priest is innocent, I hope he's quickly cleared. Catholics must channel their outrage and resist the temptation to witch-hunt. Of course, I'm personally familiar with cases in which notorious perverts were defended by various parishioners, even in the face of damning evidence, so I hope your loyalties are well-placed.
How childish, if true.
Fr. Bierschenk has a strong case. Two other priests in the Dallas diocese in the last two years, who were also inappropriately treated, have taken their cases to Rome and have won. According to Canon Law, a priest may not be removed from his post during his appeal.
Without more detail, this is meaningless.
This is a background check case in which Bierschenk LIED to the bishop about people who he said were checked who, in fact, were not checked.
If Bishop Grahmann puts checks in place to enforce a sexual abuse policy, and priests who don't enforce it go to Rome and Rome overrules Grahmann, then Rome is complicit in whatever happens when one of these unchecked volunteers abuses somebody. But, they're all over in Rome, so the Dallas DA can't touch them.
Bierschenk should shut his mouth, accept the bishop's transfer, and serve God in obedience.
And so should the pampered parishioners at St. Thomas Aquinas, the wealthiest parish in the Dallas diocese.
What a bunch of crybabies!
When the media began covering sexual abuse among priests, I cautioned on this very forum that it would not take very much for this thing to somehow affect innocent priests. This is one such priest. He is being tainted by the scandals.
He is the type of priest who a hundred years ago, a bishop would have counted on to develop parishes in the middle of nowhere. And he would've accepted the job joyfully. I can't tell you how devastating this is for him and our parish. His face is being dragged though the mud. And the liberals are clicking their collective heels over it.
If this priest was not the man I know him to be, if he were guilty of abuse, the entire parish would have run him out on his ear. We wouldn't have waited for a lay woman in the chancery to make the final decision.
Bierschenk is not, of course, guilty of abuse, nor has anyone implied that.
He is, however, guilty of telling Bishop Galante that certain people had background checks done on them when, in fact, they had not.
Is lying to the bishop sufficient for getting a transfer?
He's going to the fastest growing parish in the diocese, St. Michael's in McKinney. Not exactly a slug assignment.
You folks at Thomas Aquinas are spoiled. You get a pastor and you think he ought to stay in place like a pope.
If I were your bishop and a priest lied to me, I'd have busted him to St. Edward's, downtown.
This is not about "liberal" or "conservative."
A priest who lies to his bishop over a zero tolerance issue deserves what Steve's getting.
From this story, Diocese won't change decision on Dallas priest it appears that there were more than a few missing background checks. I wonder if the bookkeeping records are as well documented.
"The on-site audit, completed March 19, said the parish business manager reported that the church implemented the Safe Environments Program in 1999. The assessment also found no documentation of criminal background checks, interviews, screening forms, reference contacts, acknowledgement forms or Safe Environment training for employees or volunteers." (emphasis added)
On the same note, George W. Bush was totally within his right to address a grievence and have a court rule in the matter. It is no different in this case. There was no lie except in the fact that HE was lied to when he said he would be given one month to complete the checks.
As a third party observer, it sounds like those protesting the Bishop are the real liberals. In the Western Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (this is a Catholic dispute, right?), priests serve at the pleasure of the bishop. To attempt to change this would be the "liberal" effort. Any parishioners who are protesting this, especially to the point of pressuring catechumens to pervert their sacrament of confirmation, are the real liberals.
That said, I will pray for all involved.
I know the head of the CCD program. She was surprised to hear them announce to her while they were waiting to go over to the church for the Confirmation that they had all decided to take the name Stephen. There was no pressure from any of us. I didn't know about it until afterwards. And I was one of the organizers.
Yes, that is true but bishops are also held to account when it comes to Canon Law. The are not supposed to be petty dictators.
Look for the "parish organizations". You will see that we are not a liberal parish.
We are in fact considered the most conservative large parish in the whole diocese.
My dear parish family, Many of you have read the press reports about the decision of our Diocesan officials to remove Fr. Ephrain Ortega as pastor of St. James Church because he had not properly implemented the Safe Environment program required by our diocese.Judging from the above, it sounds like this priest has the proper Catholic attitude towards obedience. Of course, I know nothing of this situation other than what's been written here, so I have no opinion on the subject, but I trust all will work out for the best.On March 19, our parish was visited by the independent agency that is auditing each parish to evaluate their compliance with this program.
Last Tuesday I was asked to meet with Bishop Grahmann, Bishop Galante, and Mary Edlund at the Chancery Office. During this meeting they told me that our school received very good marks for their compliance, but that the people who work in the church office and others who work in the CCD program and Youth Ministry and as parish volunteers had not had the proper background checks, so we had not followed the requirements. I accepted their assessment as accurate and take full responsibility for this fact.
At that time they told me that I would have to be moved from St. Thomas Aquinas because our parish was not in compliance with the Safe Environment policies. As our discussion continued, Bishop Grahmann stated that our parish had 30 days to be in full compliance, and at that time an audit would be conducted again. At that time, it was my understanding that if our audit was acceptable, I would not be moved.
On Friday, I was called to a meeting with Bishop Galante and Mary Edlund, and told that after more checking of facts, I was to be moved after all. On May 3, I will be appointed Pastor of St. Michael Church in McKinney, Texas.
This is not my decision, nor is it my choice. But, on the day I was ordained, I promised obedience to our bishop, to accept whatever assignment I am given and fulfill it to the best of my ability. I have done this for 26 years, and intend to continue doing so.
Today’s gospel reminds us that we cannot always see the face of Jesus as we walk down the road. But he is always there. I trust that he will continue to bless and guide the wonderful people of this parish, and pray that he will give me the strength to continue loving and serving him for many years to come.
Thank you for your care and support. As this Mass continues, may our special prayer be that we will keep the example of Jesus before our eyes, “Father, not my will, but your will be done.”
[Source]
Gee, I wonder if they did a background check on me. I am a volunteer in the choir.
(1 Corinthians 6:1-8)
It is not the same thing. Bush never took a vow of obedience. Your Priest did and no matter how much you people want him to stay on he should obey his bishop and leave.
There's quite a disparity between a few and none.
I find it hard to believe that they would spontaneously do this without first having heard others in the protest (you are an "organizer" right?) gripe about the situation in a non-Catholic like way. In addition, the head of the CCD program clearly has failed to properly catechize these students for them to abuse a sacrament in this way.
Yes, that is true but bishops are also held to account when it comes to Canon Law.
Not by lay Catholics they aren't. If you want to write a letter to the Vatican, fine. But you, as a lay person, are not authorized or qualified to "organize" dissent against the bishop just because you happen to think he is a "petty dictator".
You will see that we are not a liberal parish. We are in fact considered the most conservative large parish in the whole diocese.
Your actions in this case appear to be well beyond liberal. It doesn't matter what the average income is in your parish, organizing dissent against your bishop is nonproductive, immature, and probably sinful. As a former protestant, I will point out that you are not the first to treat the Church Christ founded in this way. Others before you have fomented dissent against Her and ultimately ended up starting their own denominations. I encourage you to closely examine what it you are doing and discern whether or not you really want to be (or still are) Catholic. I hope that you will back down and work constructively within the Church. Remember, the Reformation was lead by the political conservatives of the era, not the liberals.
Any proof of this? I'm trying to understand what is fact and what is not in this situation.
Peace, TS
Way before the Rudy Kos fiasco, my son's kindergarten teacher at St. Thomas was fired within the first semester of his hire. There were rumors going around about his "love" of children, although nothing untoward had happened. I was upset that he had been fired because he was an excellent teacher. Shortly after his firing, I started to recieve phone calls from this teacher. He wanted to take my son fishing. Then he'd call back and want to take my son to the mall. I gained a tremendous amount of respect for our pastor for firing this pervert before anything happened to any child.
There were many people choking back tears. The media never did report on that did they?
Then you all should look at their act as a sad, unintended consequence of your dissent.
Father is well within his rights to seek a hearing from Rome.
But you are not within your rights in the Church in attempting to help instigate one.
The media has not shown this to be the respectful protest that it is.
Respectful or not, this kind of protest has no place in any church. If you don't like the situation, work productively to fix it within the system. Attempting to undermine a bishop's rightful authority through mass dissent undermines Christ's entire Church.
The diocese decided to make it a media circus. You do not know this parish. You do not know this diocese.
I've seen nothing of this case in the media and am only going by what you have said here. By your own words, you appear to be behaving more like a Protestant than a Catholic. Please rethink your actions and your priorities. Christ and His Church do not appear to be at the top of your list.
There was no protest in the church. There would have been no protest at all had the bishop
honored his decision to give Father until the end of the said month for total compliance.
As for informing the media, I don't see what the diocese would have to gain by alerting the media. It would seem to me with the recent scandals, that any publicity would be bad publicity for them. Do you agree?
TS
The person in charge of alerting the media was the woman chancery officer. I wonder how she feels now that it has become a media circus and has embarrassed the bishop.
None of us at the church had any intention of protesting in the face of the world. In fact, we had no inclination to protest until we were made aware that Father had been truly wronged and was deserving to have the matter looked at by Rome. But, we have had to deal with what has been given us. We are not a parish who has been chomping at the bit to protest.
What we have here is a good man who is having his face dragged through the mud for no reason. That is why we are upset. A good man does not deserve to be treated in such a manner.
Sounds like somebody put them up to this.
It appears, in the article Smedley-Butler referenced, that any record of anybody being checked was missing.
In a showdown with the bishops, who have dug in their heels, you're not going to win.
I'm not aware of anything in Canon Law that forbids a bishop from moving a priest at any time, for any reason.
Peace, TS
It is my understanding that Dallas had a HUGE problem with sexual abuse and homosexual priests a few years ago. Appparently it had to do with the liberal attitudes of the Bishop, his staff members and the folks in charge of the seminaries. Is this a NEW Bishop? If so, then people should be thrilled he's trying to do something to change the past.
Let me guess, this Fr. Biershcenk isone of those 'relevant priests who can talk to the young'.
After reading a few more posts, I'm willing to be 'corrected' in my original opinion if this Bishop is the same as was there during the scandals. Maybe he just doesn't like this particular priest. But parishoners should be careful about talking down the Bishop in front of their kids. The kids don't have the same level of judgement as adults, and it could hurt their practice of the Faith. Heck, it could hurt the Faith of adults as well!
Well, Bishop Tschoepe wasn't liberal, he was just clueless. He wasn't a very smart man, and liked to go around blessing parking lots and animals and meeting parishioners, but he wasn't one for getting involved in a lot of administrative issues. He left that to the Vicar General, Msgr. Robert Rehkemper, who was a liberal, but ended his career in the diocese when he infamously blamed Rudy Kos' victims for their involvement with the pederast priest.
There are actually two bishops in Dallas, and it is the coadjutor who will take the old bishops' place who is being hardline in getting these background checks done.
Let me guess, this Fr. Biershcenk isone of those 'relevant priests who can talk to the young'.
Actually, Fr. Bierschenk is one of the most conservative priests in the Dallas diocese. I don't know how he does with young people.
That is what has us all baffled. On a related note, I was involved in a dioceasan sex ed fight in 1984. We NEVER went to the media with it. We dealt directly with the bishop. It was at one point leaked to the media through, again, a feminist when she realized she was losing her fight to sexualize the kids in all of our school and CCD programs. We miraculously won that fight and we felt it was wrong to bring scandal to the church. However, in this case, what else can we do when we are dragged into a media circus at Sunday Mass?
I suspect the feminist in charge of this one counted on the fact that we are such a reserved parish that we would be silenced by the media involvement. What she didn't count on was the fact that a number of us have been bruised in other fights in other churches. St. Thomas has been a refuge for us. Well, she pulled the media in, now she will have to deal with embarassing the bishop.
The bishop is not the one who is embarrassed in this whole fiasco. In the end, Steve will still have to go to McKinney.
Most Catholics believe the bishop, especially given how tough this looks in light of the wimpiness of the Northeast bishops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.