Walter's Goose Was Cooked
From the Globe, stunning new developments from Newton
A friend of mine in Boston always keeps talking about the archdiocesan "Stupid Committee" there that cooks up wild stuff like this that makes the church look horrrrrrrible on the front pages.
Boston's not the only place with such a body of idiots, theirs is just the longest one running.
-30-
Unbelievable. This rates high on the hubris scale.The Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, the priest who replaced the Rev. Walter H. Cuenin at Our Lady Help of Christians parish in Newton, revealed at a meeting with parishioners last week that officials of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston asked him in June if he would be interested in replacing the outspoken Cuenin. That was two months before the completion of the financial audit that archdiocesan officials said led them to ask for Cuenin's resignation.
The news outraged parishioners, who say it shows that the audit was never the real reason Cuenin was ousted.
A friend of mine in Boston always keeps talking about the archdiocesan "Stupid Committee" there that cooks up wild stuff like this that makes the church look horrrrrrrible on the front pages.
Boston's not the only place with such a body of idiots, theirs is just the longest one running.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 12:33
5 Comments:
Talk about a "body of idiots"...
For a diocesan priest to be transferred after serving two six-year terms at a parish, and for the end of such a tenure to be anticipated by his colleagues, is hardly a "stunning new development," except to people who spend more time bitching about something than doing their homework about it.
David, what is strange from my experiences in the midwest is that such a clergy assignment wouldn't be made in June with all the rest. Occasionally, a pastor might request an extra year to finish off a debt or a project.
But for the diocese to say that Cuenin was replaced because of financial improprieties, then be outed for falsehood: this is serious stuff, whether the Boston b-crats realize it or not.
That's not to say I necessarily disagree with Cuenin moving on. Actually, it might be good for the parish. But the least the diocese can do is keep quiet about their reasons rather than lie about it.
"David, what is strange from my experiences in the midwest is that such a clergy assignment wouldn't be made in June with all the rest. Occasionally, a pastor might request an extra year to finish off a debt or a project."
Todd, the practice of extending a term is not limited to the midwest, and it will often apply to an honest debt. What you have here, is a situation in which a pastor was completely misrepresenting Church teaching and practice (in cases where most priests would have been sent packing a helluva lot sooner), to the point where he gathered around him a following that was prepared to excuse anything, including misappropriation of funds. Remember, the parish finance council (where we probably won't see much "accountability" anytime soon) basically gave Cuenin the go-ahead on all this. Where do you suppose their indulgence would have stopped?
There's no "lying" here. The misuse of funds is not only a violation of canon law, but civil law. Unless people in Boston aren't satisfied at the number of lawyers running around the Chancery already, the offense was sufficient reason to remove him. Whether that was the reason the Boston Globe was looking for or not is irrelevant.
Ultimately, they found a just cause to remove him (which means they weren't lying), one with which Cuenin would not argue (and has not, in fact). That alone cuts down on the paperwork.
Then again, perhaps the people of Boston don't think there's enough of that either.
David, we still do it better in the midwest. A pastor has served his six or twelve years and everybody knows he's moving on. In my current diocese, priests apply about six to nine months in advance for parishes they'd like to serve. There's something of a seniority thing, as experienced and well-regarded pastors get the plums, and everything else falls into line for the second-stringers.
Once the assignments are all set, everybody moves on the same day. If Cuenin was due to move, they should've made it clear twelve months ago, given the guy his farewell tour, then brought in the new pastor.
If this had happened in a midwestern diocese, there would've been grumbling the job was being held until Coyne tidied up his tasks at the chancery.
The whole thing seems to have been needlessly complicated. If Cuenin was moved because his twelve years was up, he should've been shipped out on his anniversary date, not a day later. By bringing in charges of financial impropriety (on which you concede his own parishioners signed off) it raises a needless spectre of scandal and retribution. The diocese doesn't need the bad PR. It was a lead-pipe cinch Cuenin would come out of this smelling like roses unless he was caught in a sex scandal with a minor.
My take: the diocese gets an F for sloppy pastoral transfers and for misunderstanding public relations. The parish gets a D for failing to live up to its billing as a Vatican II faith community. Cuenin's GPA comes out to about a 2.75. Not quite honor roll because of his two flaws: not circumventing the Cult of Walter in his parish, and failing basic finances.
Everybody happy?
"By bringing in charges of financial impropriety (on which you concede his own parishioners signed off) it raises a needless spectre of scandal and retribution."
Todd, I don't suppose actually getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar matters once the cameras start rolling. It's all about spin control. Problem is, at some point, you gotta say, hey, so what with who's watching, and do the right thing. I could blame O'Malley for a lot of things (in which case I'd have to get in line), but not for that.
And by the way, you're talkin' to a born-and-raised Midwesterner here. (Ohio. Cincinnati. Go Bearcats!) I know how it plays in Peoria. Fraud is a crime out there too.
Post a Comment
<< Home