The following is a comment from TitusOneNine about the situation at St. Paul's, Owego

Susan Peterson Says:
September 17th, 2005 at 9:15 pm

My husband is a member of St. Paul’s and on the vestry. I attend St. Paul’s every Sunday (although I am a Roman Catholic and also attend a vigil mass on Saturday evening.) I know something, but not everything, about this situation.

While Fr. Bollinger’s theological bent is really irrelevant with respect to the injustice being done to him, I do want to say that his preaching has always been sound Christianity. He preached the Gospel and it was clear that he understood the creeds in the way the church has always understood them. He did say he agreed with the ordination of Robinson. I believe that this came from a desire not to have to condemn, from wanting to accept the self understanding of gay people, from knowing and respecting gay people as parishioners, friends, and family members. This may mean that he let his heart overrule his basic orthodoxy on this one issue, that he was less than completely consistent theologically. I know that he worked hard to give all parishioners including those who very much disagreed with the ordination of Robinson, a chance to express their views, and that he treated those who disagreed with him with respect. He has given some indication that he is in the process of working on rethinking this issue. All such rethinkings take time and prayer and I believe people should be allowed to take that time and not have to speak before they are ready.

In any case, even if he were a “liberal” he ought not to be slandered nor be deprived of his priesthood for no good reason.

The summary by Matt Kennedy, above, seems fairly accurate. The priest who has been accused by several men of having abused them as young teenagers was not Fr. Bollinger’s immedicate predecessor but the one before that. It is my understanding that Fr. Bollinger tried to do the right thing by the alleged victims, that he was unsatisfied with the bishop’s response, especially that the bishop took no action against the accused abuser, and that Fr. Bollinger, with some others, became angry at a diocesan convention when it was stated that there were no abuse issues in the diocese. I wasn’t there but I have heard people who were say that there was a public confrontation between Fr. Bolliner and the bishop over this.

It was shortly after that that this investigation into the financial affairs of the parish began. My husband assures me from his knowledge as a vestry member that Fr. Bollinger did nothing improper with parish money at any time, and nothing with any discretionary fund moneys which was not first run past the vestry. Explainations of some of the details are available in the letter the vestry wrote to answer the inhibition, which is at VirtueOnline (and maybe at the Living Church also?) I don’t think Bishop Adams actually believes himself that Fr. Bollinger misused any money, which makes what he is doing the more evil. If you are someone who thinks “where there is smoke, there’s fire,” ask yourself if your parish could stand up to a “forensic audit” (Which by the way, cost the diocese $45,000!)

It is possible that Fr. Bollinger became unwisely overangry when an employee of the diocese improperly accessed his retirement account. But wouldn’t you be angry? First this person called the bank and tried to get the information over the phone and was told she had no right to the information. Then she went on line, and used information she had (probably from diocesan personnel records) to answer the “forgot your password?” clue question, you know, like “What is your mother’s maiden name?” , and reset his password. In the context of an already tense conflicted situation, I think an angry response is understandable. I don’t think it is evidence of any psychiatric illness, as that memo implies. This strikes me as a sleezy tactic for discrediting someone.

Fr. Bollinger is a good priest. His devout celebrations of the Eucharist and his sermons had become an important part of my spiritual life, even though I belong to the RC parish up the street and was supposedly just there to worship with my husband. It boggles my mind that his priesthood could be taken from him. Essentially what he did was to refuse to accept a coverup of past sexual abuse in the diocese. Perhaps he ignored unspoken institutional rules about not embarrassing one’s boss, and conceivably a way existed to advocate for the victims without doing so-I don’t know, I am not any good at that sort of thing myself. A person who does this, maybe doesn’t get a promotion, maybe has a word spoken against him when he applies for a large wealthy parish…this sort of thing one expects even if it isn’t really right. But to take away his priesthood takes away his spiritual identity, his lifework, and his livlihood, and is just beyond what the church ought to accept.

I hope this situation won’t be ignored because it isn’t a theological dispute. It is still about right and wrong, truth and untruth. It also repeats the theme of the unjust and manipulative use of power which has been repeated over and over again in the conflicts which do have their origin in theological disputes.

Please pray for Fr. Bollinger and for St. Paul’s.
Susan Peterson