Meeting with Bishop

I have been summoned through the bishop's secretary to a meeting with the bishop on Wednesday morning at 10:30 am. When I asked what the meeting was about the bishop's sec. responded that the bishop wants to talk to me about my blog and "other matters." Since I have four blogs (this one, Orthony, theBigQuestions and Illustrations), I'm going to have to guess at this point that this is the blog that is in the bishop's sights. This is the blog where I post information about what is going on in the Diocese of Central NY.

Why might the bishop be concerned about what is posted here? My perception of the bishop's practices is that he likes to keep things secretive. He doesn't want people to know the details of his persecution of David Bollinger. He doesn't want people to know that he is spending diocesan money on an expensive public relations firm or an expensive law firm. He'd rather that people not be reminded of the $4.35 million law suit that is pending against himself, the diocese and Gael Sopchak because of his persecution of David Bollinger. He probably doesn't like it that I pointed out how a section of an article in the diocesan newspaper on the diocesan convention was factually incorrect. These are my guesses.

My position is that the truth doesn't need to be hidden and that things done under the cover of darkness are generally not good. The bishop has continued to say that he has kept things secretive to protect the parties involved, but we have to ask, which parties need protecting? David Bollinger, to my knowledge, has no problem with the facts of his case being aired in this forum or elsewhere. It is the diocese who won't release the church attorney's report. It is the diocese that told David Bollinger not to talk to other priests. It is the diocese who has tried to maintain secrecy on all the details of their persecution of him. So, who is protected by the secrecy?

My answer is that the diocese doesn't want people to know about the shabby process that they have employed against one of their own priests. The diocese doesn't want people to know about how they have violated David Bollinger's rights to due process. The diocese wants to pretend everything is on the up and up when nothing could be further from the truth, and here we are again at that word - truth.

The reason that anyone hires a p.r. firm is because they want to control and manage public perceptions. I maintain that an open and fair airing of the truth does not need control or management. I have been told by another diocesan priest that this view is naive. My response is that we are the church; we have been called by God to serve Jesus Christ. If we are doing that essential work, we don't need any p.r. firms or high priced law firms. It is when we have stepped outside that work, as the diocese has done, that we have to resort to the world's tools.


I have served in four dioceses and have seen disciplinary action taken against priests in three of them, including this diocese. In the other cases, a letter was sent out explaining the action taken; no emergency meeting of clergy was called during which an attempt was made to bring clergy into the diocesan veil of secrecy as was done in this diocese in January last year. After priests objected at that meeting to this a letter was sent out with talking points detailing what priests could say about what was spelled out at the emergency meeting. This whole mess as well as other messes in the diocese just don't pass the smell test.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your prayers for my meeting on Wednesday morning. I am guessing that I will be told in no uncertain terms that I cannot continue this blog.