Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Parishioners Speak out in Dallas
April 15, 2002 | Slyfox

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

1 posted on 04/15/2002 8:31:13 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
every young person being confirmed took the name of Stephen as their Confirmation name.

well ... using the occasion of receiving a sacrament to 'send a message' is clever, but I've got mixed feelings about it.

Has anyone begun a boycott of the 'annual appeal' or whatever it's called down in your archdiocese? That may have a more lasting impression, since it indicates your perseverance.
2 posted on 04/15/2002 8:42:15 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko
Withholding funds is going to take place. The people I talked to are not going to give to the Bishop's Appeal.
Our parish was one of his best supporters.
3 posted on 04/15/2002 8:48:35 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko
Has anyone begun a boycott of the 'annual appeal' or whatever it's called down in your archdiocese?

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.

4 posted on 04/15/2002 9:00:46 PM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Well at least they didn't take the name "Sebastian."

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.

5 posted on 04/15/2002 9:06:13 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
During the Confirmation service tonight, with the bishop in attendance, every young person being confirmed took the name of Stephen as their Confirmation name.

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!

6 posted on 04/15/2002 9:18:24 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
I hope your loyalties are well-placed.

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.

7 posted on 04/15/2002 9:22:33 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
What does it feel like to be a liberal Catholic? Please tell us all about it.
8 posted on 04/15/2002 9:23:54 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
His face is being dragged though the mud.

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.

9 posted on 04/15/2002 9:28:19 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
What does it feel like to be a liberal Catholic? Please tell us all about it.

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.

10 posted on 04/15/2002 9:31:18 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
What does it feel like to be a liberal Catholic?
11 posted on 04/15/2002 9:31:54 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
You're reduced to stuttering.
12 posted on 04/15/2002 9:33:16 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
For the record, Fr. Bierschenk did not lie to anyone. Through the diocesean audit it was found that a few members of the staff, were missing their background checks. Father was told to bring the matter into compliance and he agreed to comply within the one month set by the bishop. However, before the month was up, he was called into the bishop's office and relieved of his duty at our church. He was told that his last day would be May 9th. As of today, well within the one month, he has completed all of the background checks. He will take the matter to Rome. He will stay at his parish throughout his appeal. Hopefully, we will be able to keep our good pastor.
13 posted on 04/15/2002 10:11:23 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
For the record, Fr. Bierschenk did not lie to anyone. Through the diocesean audit it was found that a few members of the staff, were missing their background checks.

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)

14 posted on 04/16/2002 7:40:37 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
The Safe Environments Program in 1999, from what I understand, was instituted by the parish itself. St. Thomas was the first parish to do anything like that in the wake of the Rudy Kos fiasco. The March 19th audit was conducted by the diocese and found, through an oversight, that a few staffers had not been checked. Father was given one month to complete the checks and was working on them when he was called to see the bishop in order to be fired. The bishop claims that it was tough-love, but it was actually a point used to dislodge a conservative priest from a successful parish.

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.

15 posted on 04/16/2002 8:03:13 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
What does it feel like to be a liberal Catholic?

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.

16 posted on 04/16/2002 8:03:31 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
Any parishioners who are protesting this, especially to the point of pressuring catechumens to pervert their sacrament of confirmation, are the real liberals.

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.

17 posted on 04/16/2002 8:08:08 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
priests serve at the pleasure of the bishop

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.

18 posted on 04/16/2002 8:14:19 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
The St. Thomas web page

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.

19 posted on 04/16/2002 8:25:16 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
See Also
20 posted on 04/16/2002 8:34:19 AM PDT by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
To Romulus and All: For what it's worth, here is Fr. Bierschenk's farewell message:
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.

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]

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.
21 posted on 04/16/2002 8:43:50 AM PDT by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
parish volunteers had not had the proper background checks

Gee, I wonder if they did a background check on me. I am a volunteer in the choir.

22 posted on 04/16/2002 8:54:28 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

(1 Corinthians 6:1-8)

23 posted on 04/16/2002 9:27:31 AM PDT by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
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.

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.

24 posted on 04/16/2002 9:34:48 AM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
that a few staffers had not been checked

There's quite a disparity between a few and none.

25 posted on 04/16/2002 9:35:11 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Our pastor had no intention of gathering the media. In fact, he was told the media was not to be contacted before a formal announcement was made. But, guess what? We went to Mass on Sunday and the entire place was crawling with cameras and reporters, tipped off by the diocesean office. In an accident where people are killed we bemoan the fact that the family is not notified first, that they have to hear it in the news first. The bishop did not afford us the pleasure of a formal announcement before the media was contacted. It was a dirty thing to do.
26 posted on 04/16/2002 9:56:52 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Every single person who had direct contact with children had been checked. Someone like me who sings in the adult choir and volunteers to make phone calls occasionally was not checked.
27 posted on 04/16/2002 9:58:34 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
So . . . you're saying your Priest was NEVER involved in any cover up, right? Meaning that no innocent child was ever subjected to criminal behavior because your Priest shifted bodies around, right? Seems to me that if the accused is really innocent, then all he/she has to do is continue to fight with head held high. The truth will conquer all. Amen. Good luck. I admire your stand. For victory & freedom!!!
28 posted on 04/16/2002 10:04:38 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
A vow of obedience does not include cowtowing to the the feminist working in the chancery office. Father has never attended the feminazi-led training sessions designed to turn men into wimps and for that reason he is having his face dragged through the mud. This has nothing to do with disobedience. This is payback for being a priest who listens to the Pope. He has a legitimate case that is being looked at right now by top Canon lawyers.
29 posted on 04/16/2002 10:06:40 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
God bless you and all at St. Thomas A. You're on the prayer list.
30 posted on 04/16/2002 10:26:12 AM PDT by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
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.

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.

31 posted on 04/16/2002 11:36:30 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
If the records of background checks don't exist, how can you be so sure?
32 posted on 04/16/2002 11:44:04 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
The media has not shown this to be the respectful protest that it is. We were all surprised at the decision of the students. Father is well within his rights to seek a hearing from Rome. And he is not the first conservative priest to have to resort to such an action. The diocese decided to make it a media circus. You do not know this parish. You do not know this diocese.
33 posted on 04/16/2002 11:44:56 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
the arrogance of the catholic church in regard to their sect of christianity being the only legitimate one has come to fruition. read the bible. Christ died "for all men." reap the whirlwind. the catholic church is nothing but a brand, franchisees wanted.
34 posted on 04/16/2002 11:47:45 AM PDT by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
You stated in # 26
We went to Mass on Sunday and the entire place was crawling with cameras and reporters, tipped off by the diocesean office.

Any proof of this? I'm trying to understand what is fact and what is not in this situation.

Peace, TS

35 posted on 04/16/2002 11:51:39 AM PDT by SelmerTS111281
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
All of the background checks were finished as of yesterday.

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.

36 posted on 04/16/2002 11:51:44 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SelmerTS111281
We arrived at 11:45 on Sunday. Walking in to go to Mass we saw that EVERY local TV station had their satelite uplink van sitting out front, complete with the towering attena's. At least a dozen reporterettes were walking around with pads and pencils searching for somebody to interview. We went to sit at the pew and were followed by a sound tech placing some piece of equipment up on a pillar. He had placed a number of them around the church. Cameras from all angles could be seen. The media was not there because someone at the parish called them. The chancery did that.

There were many people choking back tears. The media never did report on that did they?

37 posted on 04/16/2002 12:01:44 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
We were all surprised at the decision of the students.

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.

38 posted on 04/16/2002 12:13:45 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
I would be the very last person any of my friends and family and associates
and even casual acquaitences would ever accuse of being a liberal or disobedient.
39 posted on 04/16/2002 12:19:13 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
this kind of protest has no place in any church

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.

40 posted on 04/16/2002 12:24:20 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I am not Catholic so forgive me if I offend. I understand your sadness at the thought of losing your Priest. In my denomination (PCUSA) the loss of a beloved pastor is often difficult, but can lead to change and growth of the congregation. One man does not make a church.

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

41 posted on 04/16/2002 12:33:33 PM PDT by SelmerTS111281
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SelmerTS111281
First of all, if the bishop had said to him that he was really needed to help develop a growing parish, Father would've been sad to leave but he would have joyfully accepted his new assignment. But, how it was handed to him was not right. How the diocese involved the media was not right. He is being removed for reasons other than a trumped-up charge of non-compliance of not doing background checks on a volunteers. Liberals have a natural distaste for guys like him. It was just a matter of time before they found something to hang him on.

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.

42 posted on 04/16/2002 12:57:29 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Did the girls take the name "Stephen" for their confirmation names too?

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.

43 posted on 04/16/2002 1:13:18 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Your Priest is fortunate to have followers as passionate as you. I'm afraid I still don't see what the diocese has to gain by involving our friends in the media. I admit, I am on the outside and therefore may require more concrete evidence than you are providing.

Peace, TS

44 posted on 04/16/2002 1:20:31 PM PDT by SelmerTS111281
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
The girls also took the name Stephen. It was not a setup on part of anyone but the kids themselves. We were all stunned.
45 posted on 04/16/2002 1:21:55 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

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'.

46 posted on 04/16/2002 1:29:24 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
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!

47 posted on 04/16/2002 1:41:29 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
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.

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.

48 posted on 04/16/2002 1:45:43 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SelmerTS111281
I'm afraid I still don't see what the diocese has to gain by involving our friends in the media.

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.

49 posted on 04/16/2002 1:47:04 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
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.

50 posted on 04/16/2002 1:54:48 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson