Nienstedt, for example, told the priests he had hoped to inform them in person about his resignation at an assembly in Rochester this week, “but the desire of the Holy See to announce this made it impossible to wait.”Essentially, the Vatican showed up at Nienstedt's desk, handed him a few boxes, and told him to take his personal effects and leave. It's an unceremonious end to his time in St. Paul. I'm not sure who will replace Nienstedt, but it's likely to be a bishop who has little or connection to the archdiocese. It would be good to have a fresh start. In the short term, a bishop from Newark, Bernard Hebda, will take over on a temporary basis, but he'll be going back to Newark eventually. Most likely the Pope has a successor in mind; my guess is that it will be a bishop from a diocese in the Midwest, but not necessarily that close to the Twin Cities.
My take on the matter: while Nienstedt himself was not responsible for what happened before him, he did not do a good job of dealing with the crises he inherited. You can't put Leo Binz or John Roach in the dock for the malfeasance that happened on their watch, but it was incumbent upon him to take that history seriously and get to the bottom of it. Nienstedt never seemed to understand the gravity of that past and when the matter of Curtis Wehmeyer came to light, it was clear that Nienstedt wasn't going to figure it out. He had to go.
At this point, being a Catholic is a bit problematic. It's clear that a lot of the leaders of the Church aren't doing a good job. While I appreciate the reforms that Pope Francis is attempting, especially in dealing with the Curia, he's clearly got too much Argentina in him. But that's another post.
2 comments:
Reading the article, if they're anything to those sources that didn't want to be named, it sounds to me like Nienstedt's conscience ought not be clear. And it would explain why his investigation of wayward priests was halfhearted, sad to say.
What does it mean, Catholically speaking, when a bishop is all but fired like this? I'm thinking that there is a bit more significance to firing the "administrator of the sacraments" than there is when a Protestant pastor is fired.
Not sure what being fired means. In the case of Cardinal Law of Boston, they essentially parked him in a sinecure at the Vatican, which has been continuing source of outrage for many Catholics since it happened. This is new ground for us.
I'm skeptical of some of the charges lodged against Nienstedt personally; there were a lot of people gunning for him and the accusation about the kid at the confirmation ceremony was ludicrous on its face — there's no way that Nienstedt would have tried to cop a feel in a public place surrounded by several hundred witnesses. If subsequent investigation on some of the other matters proves out, then I'll have no problem putting him in the dock. I think history will judge Nienstedt as more hapless than evil.
Post a Comment