On July 19, the Apostolic Nunciature in the United States issued a statement informing the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston that Pope Francis has decided on disciplinary measures against Bishop Emeritus Michael J. Bransfield of West Virginia, following an investigation by Vatican officials.
According to the statement, Bishop Bransfield is no longer allowed to reside in the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, nor is he allowed to “preside or to participate anywhere in any public celebration of the Liturgy.” Finally, Pope Francis commands him “to make personal amends for some of the harm he caused,” though the exact nature of those amends are to be determined “in consultation” with Bishop Bransfield’s official successor as Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston.
Pope Francis commands him “to make personal amends for some of the harm he caused."
Pope Francis accepted Bishop Bransfield’s official letter of resignation on Sept. 13, 2018, following allegations of sexual harassment and improper handling of diocesan funds. On June 5, Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore detailed the extent of Bishop Bransfield’s activities in a public letter. “Regarding allegations of sexual harassment of adults by Bishop Bransfield,” Archbishop Lori said in the letter, “the investigative team determined that the accounts of those who accused Bishop Bransfield of sexual harrassment are credible. The team uncovered a consistent pattern of sexual innuendo, and overt suggestive comments and actions toward those over whom the former bishop exercised authority.”
Additionally, Bishop Bransfield “engaged in a pattern of excessive and inappropriate spending” of diocesan funds. This included renovations to his private residences and the purchase of expensive food, drinks, gifts and other luxury items.
In the statement made public on Friday, the Apostolic Nunciature in the United States said that the Vatican “expresses its sincere concern for the clergy, religious and laity of the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston” through its punishment of Bishop Bransfield.
Has “credibly accused” replaced “proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt”?
No. One is the language of a Church erring on the side of caution by removing priests whose documented behavior suggests that priest is a risk to the safety of the Church's members, and the other is the language of the criminal justice system. One is preventive, the other is punitive.
In the Church's effort to safe face, due process is being violated for sure. If a State prosecutor issued a public statment like this before a trial, how could you possibly have a fair trial?
Timing is everything!
Do you think it's just a coincidence that the Vatican released this decision on the tails of the "NOT A DIME FOR THE DIOCESE" movement among West Virginia's Catholics?
http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2019/07/catholic-groups-response-not-a-dime-to-the-diocese/
God forbid such a movement go NATIONAL based on previously gathered data from Voice of the Faithful ranking American dioceses' financial TRANSPARENCY:
http://www.votf.org/2018FWGReport.pdf
MM, whatever prompted the Vatican to move, IT WORKED. I am inclined to give credit to everyone involved --- except Bishop Lori. What we now know about him is that he is willing to get away with what he can get away with to save his own skin. We have been there, done that and it is destroying the Roman Catholic Church as I write. If he worked anywhere else - had he been caught amending his report to shield himself and then been caught by the Washington Post at any other job - he would have been offered the choice of resigning or being fired the day the article was published. He can be offered all the forgiveness in the world; SHOULD be offered that forgiveness and then removed from his position of leadership ASAP. Forgiveness and accountability and effective problem-solving are not contradictions and every Catholic learned that from the RCC and has now watched the RCC refuse to practice all three at once when a cleric's conduct required all three.
Until now. Once McCarrick was publicly exposed on a national scale, he was gone quickly. The Vatican just stripped a prelate in Europe of his diplomatic immunity so he can be prosecuted. As soon as Bransfield was publicly exposed on a national scale, he was gone quickly.
What this all means is this: DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME CALLING THE USCCB-FUNDED SHAM OF 3rd PARTY REPORTING HOTLINE. CALL YOUR NEWSPAPER.
What this all means is this: DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME CALLING THE USCCB-FUNDED SHAM OF A 3rd PARTY REPORTING HOTLINE.
CALL YOUR NEWSPAPER. Sin sells papers. The RCC leaders are rotting from the inside out. Let the papers help us out by exposing them.
CALL THE NYTIMES, THE WASHPOST, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, BOSTON GLOBE, SEATTLE TIMES, LA TIMES, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, DENVER POST, TAMPA BAY TIMES, OR ANY OF THESE https://www.infoplease.com/arts-entertainment/newspapers-and-magazines/top-100-newspapers-united-states
Once McCarrick was publicly exposed on a national scale, he was gone quickly. As soon as Bransfield was publicly exposed on a national scale, he was gone quickly.
What this all means is this: DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME CALLING THE USCCB-FUNDED SHAM OF 3rd PARTY REPORTING HOTLINE. CALL YOUR NEWSPAPER.
If you've got a weird holy man named Ted (or whatever) sleeping in your bed, don't call 1-800-BISHOPS. Call 911.
It’s easy to be angry and point fingers. The better way is to suggest and work for solutions to the process and organization that allowed this to happen
The first reform that is needed is transparency and a partnership among the laity, religious, and clerics in selecting and retaining bishops. Second, there has to be reform in how dioceses are managed and administered. Again, a strong partnership is needed to provide proper oversight. Only then can the risk of such wrongdoing be minimized and, in the event it does happen, it can be promptly exposed
Wow! Bishop Bransfield made a lot of mistakes.
Such "discipline?" How do we know he does ANYTHING that the Vatican stipulated? The proper discipline is to be found in a penitentiary (and not a Roman one).
Certainly, Bransfield's conduct was despicable and reprehensible. Unfortunately, his conduct may not be indictable in a civil court. Although, if the diocese paid him back for his many "gifts,"perhaps he and the diocese may have to do some explaining to the IRS. His only punishment may well be that given out by the Pope. At least, he'll have to stay away from the kind people of "almost heaven," West Virginia.