Emotion prevails in letters about Radloff

Judging from recent letters regarding the dismissal of Father Radloff from St. Francis of Assisi Church, it appears that ignorance and emotion have prevailed over reason. One can understand, and perhaps excuse, the comments made by a non-Catholic, but not so with those of Catholics, who should be better informed about their church.

Clearly, Radloff was a popular pastor, but popularity is not the only, nor most important, factor by which a pastor is judged by his bishop and church authority. Two major considerations apply to Radloff’s dismissal.

First, Canon Law, by which the church is governed, prohibits a bishop from disclosing details related to disputed matters, such as this, for the privacy and protection of all parties. This requirement is frustrating to many but must be honored, just as the confidentiality of critical information in secular trials and litigation must be honored.

Secondly, Radloff, as do all priests, made a vow of obedience during his ordination. It was apparent to me and others that Radloff was challenging the decisions and/or directives of the bishop, who is his superior. In direct opposition to the bishop’s plan to reassign his assistant priest, he encouraged parishioners to petition the bishop to retain that priest. This challenge and refusal to immediately comply with a directive were a manifestation of disobedience, for which some disciplinary action would be appropriate.

To further escalate and exacerbate the once-private conflict with the bishop, Radloff took the unusual and rare actions of creating and conducting his own parishwide survey of his performance as pastor. One can easily conclude that his motivation for doing so was to boost his capital with the bishop by demonstrating his acceptance and/or popularity among parishioners.

In light of these considerations, it is unreasonable to call the bishop’s decision unfair, especially when Radloff’s visible actions suggest the opposite. Offended parishioners should supplant their emotional reactions about his dismissal with their core convictions in the holy Mass, and they should support their new pastor.

James Strelchun

Bend

Radloff worth fighting for

I am freshman in college, and when home for Christmas break I was extremely upset to hear of the abrupt and unexplained removal of Father Jim Radloff. After reading the article in the National Catholic Reporter dated Nov. 22, I had many questions. If Radloff has done nothing “illegal and is in good standing with the church,” then why was he removed? Why is he not only being banished from this parish but from giving Mass anywhere? There are a lot of problems within the Catholic Church that need to be resolved, but Radloff is clearly not one of them. He was successfully rebuilding our Catholic community.

I was born in Bend, baptized at St. Francis and attended elementary school there. I have known Radloff for over 10 years because my family chose to attend in Sunriver, where he was pastor when I was about 8 years old. Radloff was different than other priests I’d experienced. He was engaging, thoughtful and humorous. He was able to make the scriptures relatable and interesting. His sermons would come up in conversation at the dinner table days after Mass. He is simply a great priest; he truly cares about and connects with his parishioners.

As members of the St. Francis church, I believe it is our duty to demand transparency, as the pope himself has recently called for. If there is any priest worth fighting for, it’s Radloff.

Allison Daley

Bend

Dam owners are responsible

Regarding your Jan. 12 article, “Projects aim to help fish through Bend”: It’s time that the builders of these dams take responsibility for the damage they have done. What I don’t understand is why the Bend Park & Recreation District keeps coming to the rescue! Why aren’t the owners of the Mirror Pond dam (PacifiCorp) and the Colorado Avenue dam (Bill Smith) taking responsibility for their own dams?

At least the Central Oregon Irrigation District is stepping up to its responsibility and working with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide fish passage on the North Canal dam. Local tax dollars that go to the Bend park district should be spent on joint proposals with existing dam owners and state agencies to address issues created by the dams. It is not the job of the park district to pay to fix the damage done by these dam owners. We all want more fish passing through Bend, but the cost should be shared by the existing dam owners, state agencies and local taxpayers.

Deb Brewer

Bend