1997 July 6 -’Fr.’s Special Proposal’ Where does it stand? (Bulletin Letters)
Dear Friends;
’Fr.’s Special Proposal’ Where does it stand?
To tell you the truth, I don’t know. Bishop Charron’s June 27th letter to me which I shared with you last weekend was neither clear nor conclusive.
In it, Bishop Charron wrote, ‘the Personnel Board has recommended to me that we maintain the original understanding made between you and Bishop Dingman at the time of your ordination to the priesthood. In a letter to you in June 1985, Bishop Dingman asked you to look at your commitment to social justice issues in relationship to ordained ministry. The bishop indicated that your first and primary commitment is to your pastoral works as a diocesan priest.’
Bishop Dingman’s June 1985 letter is a great starting point to measure my priestly life. Yet, it is only a starting point. The questions and concerns that Bishop Dingman raised in June of 1985 must be seen through the experience of my last twelve years of priestly ministry.
This being the case, I believe I have been following Bishop Dingman’s original understanding all along and that our ‘Special Proposal’ to bring Fr. Morlan to Holy Trinity of SE Warren Co. is an extension of that original understanding.
I’m not saying that Bishop Dingman’s 1985 questions and concerns are not still important and foundational for me and my priesthood today. What I am saying is that we have the last twelve years of my priestly ministry to measure my fidelity to Bishop Dingman’s original questions and concerns. To this extent, I believe I have live within the parameters and spirit of Bishop Dingman’s June 1985 letter.
I know it is a comfort to to you to read in Bishop CharronÕs letter that the Priest Personnel Board )and Bishop Charron will be responsible to find a priest to cover my pastoral duties the next time I’m in prison and away from the parish.
But finding a priest to cover in my absence because I’m heading back in jail next Spring is not what Fr. Morlan and I are proposing to do’
Fr. Morlan and I are asking to be given a chance to do develop a parish based model of priestly ministry that allows us to continue to do active nonviolent resistance.
Both Fr. Morlan and I feel deeply called to this dual ministry. Our call to active nonviolent resistance comes from our personal histories in peace and justice work and our basic baptismal promise to be faithful to the Spirit of Jesus. And our call to priestly ministry comes from the Church in
which were were ordained to serve.
As I have written on so many occasions, the major stumbling block in this ministry has been the time I’ve been away from the parish because of being in prison. Fr. Morlan and my proposal addresses this concern. It also offers much more. It allows for growth and development of this special model of priestly parish life and Gospel witness.
I also believe that our proposal falls well with in the original understanding made between Bishop Dingman and myself at the time of my ordination in 1985.
For these reasons Fr Morlan and I are asking that Bishop Charron and the Priest Personnel Board to clarify their June 27th directive and reconsider Fr. Morlan and my proposal.
We are also asking that before any final decision is made, Fr. Morlan and I will have a chance to meet personally with Bishop Charron and with the Personnel Board to further explain our proposal.
I will of course keep you informed of how the Bishop and the Personnel Board respond to our request.
97 07 06
What would Bishop Dingman say?
At the June 25th Priest Personnel Board meeting, Msgr. Steve Orr asked me if I had any sense on how Bishop Dingman would advice me in this situation.
I told them the story about how Bishop Bullock sent me to seek Bishop Dingman’s advice in St. Paul IA. Bishop Bullock and I were in the mist of the same discussion we are having now, about how I should balance my dual calls to priestly ministry and non violent resistance.
Bishop Dingman was living in St. Paul IA with his sister, who was taking care of him after his stroke. I called ahead of time to let them know I was coming and that I would be seeking Bishop Dingman’s advice.
As you might remember, Bishop Dingman was in terrible physical condition. Suffering the full effects of a major stroke, Bishop Dingman was in constant pain, with no bowl control and no mobility to do even the simplest of task. He was completely dependent on others to feed, cloth and clean himself. He spent the better parts of his days in bed in pain.
When I arrived in St. Paul, Bishop Dingman was in his bedroom in bed awaiting my arrival. At that time, it was extremely difficult for Bishop Dingman to have a conversation. His ability to speak was very limited. And everything he did was done in the context of the constant pain and discomfort.
I went into the bedroom to talk to him. I told him that Bishop Bullock had sent me to him to seek his advice. I told him of the struggle and tensions I was experiencing between my dual calls.
After I talked, Bishop Dingman took his time in responding. He closed his eyes and paused. Than he opened his eyes and look straight at me and said, ‘Compromise!’.
And than closed his eyes again. There was a z long pause here. It felt like an eternity to me and I began to think that that we were at the end of our conversation and the extent of Bishop DingmanÕs advice to me.
Than Bishop Dingman opened his eyes again and looked me straight into the eyes and said, ‘Do both!’
I thanked Bishop Dingman for his wise counsel and for his long standing love and support of me and my ministry.
Bishop DingmanÕs advice to ÒcompromiseÓ and Òdo bothÓ have been my guiding light in these matters through the years.
I genuinely believe that Fr. Morlan and my ÔSpecial ProposalÕ is in keeping with Bishop DingmanÕs wise advice.
Both Fr. Morlan and I are hoping that Bishop Charron and the Priest Personnel Board will come to this same understanding. Please join me in my prayers that they do.
___________________
ÒCompromise
& Do Both!Ó
Bp. Dingman’s wise console.
Frank Cordaro's Writings and Archives 