Monday, 13 August 2018

Rosica says - who needs Jesus, we have Bergoglio!

Gosh, I need to take another shower.


"Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is “free from disordered attachments.” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture." Thomas J. Rosica, CSB


Original: http://saltandlighttv.org/blogfeed/getpost.php?id=72516

Oh, and a warning to my old friend. Don't even dare to interfere again. Got it?

No parents, you should not let your boys sit on Bishop Stika's lap - or anyone's!

The list of those who have blocked Vox Cantoris on Twitter grows. Rosica, Spadaro, Ivereigh, Napier, Tobin, Rocco Palmo and more. To this list can now be added Bishop Rick Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville. What these silly willies don't get is that it means nothing; one can simply use a browser not logged in to Twitter and still read and take screenshots. 

So what is up with Rick Stika?

Until a few hours ago, I had not heard of him. But he sure has made a name for himself on Twitter in the last 24 hours. It seems that Rick has no problem with homosexuals in the priesthood and that, as we know, not all men with same-sex attraction are abusive or sexual predators, though they are deviant. Rick doesn't seem to understand that all those who preyed upon boys, mostly teenaged boys were homosexuals. Rick also likes to deflect, -- that there is more abuse in the home or by people in other professions.

What a pathetic thing to believe and write. One is too many.

One wonders what is up with Rick Stika and what he knew about McCarrick and the nephews and when he knew it.

What else is in Rick's closet?



Oh, Rick thinks a boy sitting on his lap wearing his mitre is promoting vocations.

Sure it is.

But what kind?

He has not restricted access to his page.

Image may contain: one or more people and text

Saturday, 11 August 2018

Peter McLeod - an alleged priest in Bras d`Or, Cape Breton comes out as a homosexualist

Poor old Antigonish and what is left of its Catholic faithful continue to be abuse by its Bishop and its priests.

What did the Catholics of Cape Breton do to deserve this?

More homosexual predation.

More on Antigonish.

More on Bishop Dunn.

https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/04/brian-joseph-dunn-bishop-of-antigonish.html

https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2012/11/alinsky-in-antigonish.html

https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2012/11/dunns-cap-needed-for-sour-cream-of.html


Different kind of church pride in Little Bras d'Or

Father Peter McLeod stands outside St. Joseph’s Parish in Little Bras d’Or, the Catholic church he has presided over for the past 12 years. Behind him is the Pride flag, flying in support of the LGBTQ community. It was put up by two congregation members who asked to have the flag flying. McLeod said it is primarily a sign that this church is “open” and “welcoming” to all.
Father Peter McLeod stands outside St. Joseph’s Parish in Little Bras d’Or, the Catholic church he has presided over for the past 12 years. Behind him is the Pride flag, flying in support of the LGBTQ community. It was put up by two congregation members who asked to have the flag flying. McLeod said it is primarily a sign that this church is “open” and “welcoming” to all. - Nikki Sullivan

Priest allows congregation members to fly Pride flag outside church


LITTLE BRAS D’OR. N.S. — St. Joseph’s Parish in Little Bras d’Or is showing a different kind of pride in its church these days.
There is a Pride flag raised in front of the Catholic church, something Father Peter McLeod, who has presided over the church for 12 years, said is a way to show people it is a church that is “a welcoming community to all people” and it “accepts all members of faith.”
There was a time one kid said to me, ‘why does the church hate gay people?’ When you hear something like that it hits you to the core,” said McNeil, who has been a priest for 27 years.
“You get these people who profess to be the real Christians and what they are saying (about the LGBTQ community) is anything but Christian … change can happen when people speak up.”
The idea to fly the flag came from two congregation members who asked McLeod if they could do so. He agreed to allow them to do and they put it up.
“(One of them) said she thought it was a time to move forward. She even told me if you have any issues over this that she would deal with them,” he said, laughing, but also pointing out he hasn’t had any negative comments yet.
It seems McLeod is a priest who is open to moving forward. He told the Post during a phone interview he has brought up acceptance and inclusion in some of his homilies. These are sermons base on scriptural readings.
“(In the Bible) there are many examples of Jesus breaking down boundaries of people being excluded, being there for them,” he said, adding that in society there are many times when the LGBTQ are the excluded.
But it isn’t just the LGBTQ community that is affected by being excluded and hearing negative comments. It is also the people who love them that can be hurt.
“I get a lot of people saying, ‘my daughter,’ or ‘my brother,’ — they are giving examples of people they love. Every time they hear something negative, it hurts them too. That isn’t part of the gospel.”
McLeod pointed to other things that are against the Catholic church’s teachings, such as having sexual relations before marriage or getting divorced instead of having the marriage annulled, which seem more accepted these days.
“Nobody seems to say anything about those, but they do seem to say things about the LGBTQ community. That’s a form of discrimination that needs to be addressed,” said McLeod, who is also the priest at St. Anne Parish in Alder Point and St. Joachim in Boularderie.
In the past, while presiding over other congregations, the Beaver Cove native said he had asked people of faith in the LGBTQ community why they stayed with the church when some of them treated them badly.
“Their response, which always inspired me, was ‘It’s my church too,’” said McLeod, who thinks the church can make positive changes.
“Being out there, creating bridges, showing inclusion and respect. We can start there.”
nicole.sullivan@cbpost.com
St. Joseph’s Parish
Built: 1912
Where: Church Road, Little Bras d’Or
Saturday service: 6 p.m.
Sunday service: 10:30 a.m.
Name: Father Peter McLeod
Grew up: Beaver Cove
At St. Joseph’s: 12 years
Priest: 27 years
Also at: St. Anne Parish, St. Joachim Parish

Richard Sipe, may he Rest in Peace - Affirms that Bergoglio`s San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy knew about the pervert predator Theodore McCarrick

Richard Sipe has passed away. The therapist and one-time priest wrote about the homosexual predator Theodore McCarrick years ago. 

May he rest in peace.

Recently, he published a letter which he sent to Robert W. McElroy, Bishop of San Diego. McElroy is one of Bergoglio's leftists, Marxist, homosexualist bishops along with Cupich, Farrell and Tobin.

We must conclude that these Christ-hating prelates, these treasonous priests are not priests of Jesus Christ but of Satan. 

McElroy knew they all knew.

Bergoglio wears this. He did this. The Church is in crisis, a crisis brought about by the infiltration of homosexuals.

Out them all.


Image result for bishop mcelroy



A.W.Richard Sipe
2825 Ridgegate Row /La Jolla /CA 92037
July 28,2016
Bishop McElroy:
I received your note postmarked July 19.
I
It was clear to me during our last meeting in your office, although cordial,
that you had no interest in any further personal contact. It was only after
that I sent you a letter copied to my contacts in DC and Rome.
The new Nuncio, Archbishop Pierre, told my colleague he is interested in
the care of and reaction to victims of clergy assault: and I am assured that
the Papal Commission for the Prevention of Abuse is also dedicated to this
aspect of the crisis.
I will as I was asked, put my observations in the form of a report. Your
office made it clear that you have no time in your schedule either now or “in
the foreseeable future” to have the meeting that they suggested.
Bishop, I have been at the study and research of the problem of clergy
abuse since 1960. In 1986 I wrote to Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk,
president of the USCCB at the time, with my preliminary conclusions. His
response was negligible, although he passed the substance onto the
USCCB office who gave my figures to a NEWSWEEK reporter.
In 1990 before my study A Secret World; Sexuality and the Search for
Celibacy was published I agreed to meet with the entire staff at their DC
offices.
Institutional resistance is understandable, if surprising to me. So much of
my work has been validated and in many quarters now taken for granted.
2
The number of priests and bishops having sex with minors was not the
primary or central focus of the study. But my calculation of 6% (six percent)
clergy abusers as a base line has held up very well. [ the most recent
validation is between 6 ½ and 9% in the U.S. Some dioceses have
registered 23%. Some religious houses have recorded 25%.]
Sexual violation within the RC clergy is systemic. I say that on the basis of
observation and scientific conclusion. And I say that with empathy and
concern.
Now that aspect of the sexual crisis is well known around the world. The
crisis behind the scandal will be the next phase of reality with which to
come to terms: Namely: the broad range and frequency of sexual behaviors
registered in the clerical system. “At any one time no more than 50% of
priests are practicing celibacy.”
That was the hypothesis and thrust of A Secret World (1990) and repeated
in Celibacy in Crisis (2003)
In May 1993 at the Vatican International Conference on Celibacy in Rome
Cardinal Jose Sanchez then Chairman of the Dicastery on Clergy fielded
questions about my study and conclusions and a similar sociological
statistical report by Fr. Victor Kotze of South Africa. Father Kotze concluded
that in any three-year period only 45% of priests were practicing celibacy.
When asked directly by reporter Mark Dowd, and a reporter recording for
the BBC TV what the Cardinal thought of those studies he said, “I have no
reason to doubt the accuracy of those figures”.
II
During the first National Survivors Conference in Chicago, October 1992, I
addressed the group with these words: “The crisis we are facing today—
sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy—is the tip of an iceberg. And if
we follow it to its foundations it will lead to the highest corridors of the
Vatican.”
3
Sooner or later it will become broadly obvious that there is a systemic
connection between the sexual activity by, among and between clerics in
positions of authority and control, and the abuse of children.
When men in authority—cardinals, bishops, rectors, abbots, confessors,
professors—are having or have had an unacknowledged-secret-active-sexlife
under the guise of celibacy an atmosphere of tolerance of behaviors
within the system is made operative.
Many of the sexual patterns are set up during seminary years or in early
years after ordination when sexual experimentation is initiated or sustained.
The 2009 Vatican Report (in English) on American seminaries invented a
new term—transitional homosexuality. I believe this is due to the
awareness of the frequent activity in the homosocial structure of seminary
and religious life.
I was on the staff of three major seminaries, one Pontifical, from 1967 to
1984. I served as a consultant for seminaries from 1966 to 1996. That gave
me a broad contact with several other seminaries, their Rectors and staffs.
I was aware, from information shared by their partners, that a number of
rectors (at least three) and also some staff members, were having periodic
sex with students.
At one seminary fully one-fourth of the professors had ongoing sexual
contacts with men or women in more or less consensual arrangements.
It is credibly established that thirty percent (30%) of U.S. bishops have a
homosexual orientation. This is not a condemnation nor an allegation of
malfeasance. The list of homosexual Popes and saints is long and
illustrious. [This is obviously false.  Homosexuality, even the inclination, is diametrically opposed to sanctity in every sense. -AB]
A serious conflict arises when bishops who have had or are having sexually
active lives with men or women defend their behavior with denial, cover up,
and public pronouncements against those same behaviors in others.
Their own behavior threatens scandal of exposure when they try to curtail
or discipline other clerics about their behavior even when it is criminal as in
the case with rape and abuse of minors, rape, or power plays against the
4
vulnerable. (Archbishops Harry Flynn, Eugene Marino, Robert Sanchez,
Manuel Moreno, Francis Green, etc.)
III
I will record instances that demonstrate the systemic dynamic that forms
and fosters sexual violations among the clerical culture. All of this
information is culled from records (civil or church). In addition, I have 50
years’ participation or contact with the clerical culture of the RCC.
I have reviewed several hundred thousands of pages of records of clerical
sexual activity and been involved as a consultant or expert witness in 250
civil legal actions against clergy offenders.
None of the following information is secret. It is reviewed here in an effort to
demonstrate how the sexual system works in the clerical culture.
Archbishop John Neinstedt (1947—) I reviewed the 138-page report of
the Ramsay County MN Attorney’s report on the sexual activity of
Neinstedt.
I have interviewed priests from the Detroit Archdiocese who had personal
contact there with Neinstedt and had first-hand knowledge of his presence
at gay bars. The affidavits in the report speak for themselves.
Bishop Thomas Lyons (1923-88) priest of Baltimore and auxiliary bishop
of Washington, D.C. I have personally interviewed adult men who claim that
they were sexually abused by Lyons when he was a priest in Baltimore and
a monsignor and pastor in D.C.
One of the reporters was on probation for abusing minor members of his
own family. He claimed that Lyons abused him from the time he was seven
to seventeen years old. Also Lyons himself said that this happened to him
(by a priest) when he was growing up and that “it was natural.”
One important element in this behavior is the three generational pattern of
sexual abuse of minors involved: Priest abuser of child who becomes a
priest and child abuser. Behavior is justified as natural. This is a pattern
seen often and termed the genealogy of clerical sexual abuse.
5
Bishop Raymond J. Boland (1932-2014) was a priest and pastor also in
Washington, D.C. until 1988 when he was appointed bishop of Birmingham
AL, and subsequently, in1993 bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph.
I was involved for several years in advocating for several victims that
Boland violated when he was a pastor. The accounts of the victims are
among the most horrendous from the point of view that exemplifies how
deeply sex even with minors is integrated within the clerical culture.
Cardinal James Hickey and bishop William Lori fought with particular fury
the allegations that ended in the suspension of several priests and a
financial settlement with some victims.
The victim quoted here from his report to the Archdiocese refused the
settlement offered by the Archdiocese. The whole process from 1994 to
2004 spanned the reigns of Hickey, Mc Carrick and Wuerl.
Fr. Frank Swift (+1974) and Fr. Aldo PetrinI (+late 1980s) were named as
abusers.
Msgr. Paul Lavin was named as an abuser of several minor victims and
was finally removed from the ministry by Cardinal McCarrick in 2002.
These D.C. priests formed a coterie of sexually active clerics from the
seminary to connections with officials in Vatican offices.
Some of the victims were assaulted together. Two victims refused financial
settlements. Others were constricted by confidentiality clauses.
This tangle of clerical sexual abusers demonstrates the operation that
infests the systemic operation of sexual activity from top to bottom.
Many more facts about this group are on record.
Following are quotes from the reports in files submitted to the offices of the
D.C. Archbishops and their lawyers:
A 10-year-old boy at Mount Calvary Catholic Church in Forestville, MD in
1967 was sodomized by Fr. Raymond J. Boland and then deacon Paul
Levin.
6
The boy asked Boland why they were doing this and he responded, “God
makes special boys and girls for pleasure, and you are certainly one of
them.” When he saw the erect penises of his abusers he was told, “See
what you have done”.
They said they were going to make him a “big boy” and show him how
much God loved him. And breathlessly told him that it was, “the ultimate
sign of love when a man ‘came’ with a special boy; that gave him, “the seed
of life”.
Lavin said, “when I was 12-years-old that I would be taken on retreats were
spiritual bonding between older men and younger boys took place.”
They assured him the pain would go away, gave warnings to keep secret
and delivered threats of dire consequences if he told anyone. (He did tell
his mother who slapped him and told him never to talk that way about a
priest or nun.)
He made a first suicide attempt with aspirin.
Three weeks after the assault by Boland this boy contacted a priest in his
home parish—Fr. Perkinson. (who was ultimately a patient at St. Luke’s
Institute Suitland, MD.)
When he told the priest his name Fr. Perkinson said, “Oh, you’re the
special little boy Fr. Boland told me about.” He said he had been in the
military and “sex between two guys was normal”.
The priest then proceeded to expose his penis and forced it into the boy’s
mouth. “He told me to lick it like a popsicle and swallow the precious gift he
was going to give me.” He added later how special a boy I was and
encouraged me to swallow the semen that was “the seed of Christ and the
source of all life-—and a sin” to refuse. “God loves you and so do I.”
[This victim spent several years in the major seminary where he
experienced and recorded the sexual connections between seminary,
parish priests, chancery and Rome. The string of abusers was reported to
Cardinal Hickey. Some were retired or left the area.]
7
While this assault was in progress the pastor opened the door, simply
looked and closed it. (this behavior by other priests is reported in other
instances—e.g. Gaboury, litigated in Fall River, MA; in a case litigated in
D.C. the pastor seeing the boy bound and being sodomized simply said,
“you will have to repair that wall”. (The victim had punched a hole in the
wall while bound and thrashing around.)
Boland’s victim made a second suicidal attempt and was treated in a
hospital.
This is by no means the most horrendous of the records I have reviewed,
but its elements of seduction, assault, sexualizing spirituality, and selfjustification
under a “celibate” mantle and cover up are paradigmatic of a
system of behaviors in the Catholic clerical culture.
The record of one priest abuser relates how he anointed the foreheads of
his boy victims with his semen.
Another priest who was having sex with a13-yer-old of girl touched her
genitals with what he said was a consecrated host to show her “how much
God loves you”.
The credibility of the documents is unquestionable and recorded in church
and legal documents. The reporter in Boland’s case is a respected
professor.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been reported by numerous
seminarians and priests of sexual advances and activity. A settlement with
one priest was effected by Stephen Rubino, Esq.
In that record the operation of McCarrick in sexual activity with three priests
is described. Correspondence from “Uncle Ted” as he asked to be called, is
included. One of the principals is now a lawyer who left the priesthood, two
men remain in the priesthood, but refuse to speak publicly despite the fact
that the settlement document is open. One priest was told by the chancery
office, “if you speak with the press we will crush you”.
Priests or seminarians who speak up about a sexually active superior are
threatened with the loss of everything—employment, status, etc. Those
8
who report are greeted with disbelief or even derision if they know but were
not personally involved. If they were a partner in the sexual activity and
“come out” they become a pariah and labeled a traitor.
I have interviewed twelve seminarians and priests who attest to
propositions, harassment, or sex with McCarrick, who has stated, “I do not
like to sleep alone”.
One priest incardinated in McCarrick’s Archdiocese of Newark was taken to
bed for sex and was told, “this is how priests do it in the U.S.”. None so far
has found the ability to speak openly at the risk of reputation and
retaliation.
The system protects its impenetrability with intimidation, secrecy and
threat. Clergy and laity are complicit.
Abbot John Eidenschink, O.S.B. (1914-2004) I knew John Eidenschink
from the time I was a student in Prep school (1946) until the time of his
death. He served me as a theology professor, confessor for six years,
superior, and traveling companion in Europe (summer 1956), and principal
speaker at my first mass in 1959. I served with him as an assistant master
of ceremonies.
It was only in 1970 that monks and former monks came forward to tell me
about how Fr. John, under the guise of offering instructions how to make
them more comfortable with their body, and that during spiritual guidance,
had them stretch out nude on his bed while he touched them; he
penetrated some.
At least two of these men sought legal advice and received substantial
financial settlements from the abbey. At least five men reported this
behavior. Others who remained in the monastery did not publicize their
encounters.
I have heard this manner and mode of relationship described in other
religious houses and seminaries.
Like many other members of dioceses and religious communities I was
blind to these and other sexual activities among the group. This is not an
excuse. Lack of vigilance, adequate sexual education and simple ignorance
9
contributed to the blindness instilled by institutional absorption and
dependency.
On record maintained by a former victim of the system recorded sixty
members of the St. John’s community who were sexual violators and 260
“known victims”. (Patrick Marker [Behindthepinecurtin.com])
John Eidenschink was a prominent and productive member of the
community. He influenced every segment of this large institution. His
sexual conditioning was formed and fostered in the two years of his
novitiate under the tutelage of Fr. Basil Stegmann, O.S.B. who repeatedly
took novice John on his lap while instructing him.
John was an orphan and lived with relatives near the campus of the abbey.
His sexual identity and his remarkable talents were conditioned and
fostered by the total institution. The homosocial structure of the abbey and
schools influenced his adjustment.
The homoerotic component in Roman Catholic theology and in the social
construct of training and in the power associations fosters sexual
expression as “natural” in ordinary male relationships. This is in direct
contradiction to the official teaching that homosexuality is “unnatural” and
“intrinsically disordered”.
I observed similar constructs in Vatican contacts with confreres when I was
a student in Rome. I could only register facts that I could not put together at
the time.
Students with some ambition would make contact with secretaries of
various Vatican officials, usually a Monsignore. This could assure them an
invitation to “tea” or some reception. Those who made the cut had social
access to a certain group of minor officials with prospects of wider and
more exalted contacts. (The book I Millinari written by 5 Vatican officials
also records variations on this pattern.)
Sexual liaisons become common for men conditioned to homosexually in
the system when women become available for social contact usually after
ordination. The Vatican term “transitional homosexuality” (2009) I
believe is based on the observation that a portion of priests pass through a
10
phase of sexual bonding with men (or even boys) before setting into
heterosexual behaviors.
Bishop Robert H. Brom: I have talked with the man who made allegations
of misconduct against Brom and with whom he made a $120,000
settlement. The history is well recorded by several responsible reporters.
(http://www.awrsipe.com/brom/bishop_brom.htm)
Significant here is the operation of the National Conference of Bishops who
in their 2002 Dallas Charter made provision for “zero tolerance” of clergy
abusing minors but neglected to address violations by bishops. Instead
they appointed Brom, when allegations were known, to make “Fraternal
Correction” to other bishops accused.
This type of operation is typical of the pattern of cover up from the top of
the institution. (Reflected in the destruction of documents by the Papal
Nuncio in the Neinstedt case. Cf. Documentation provided by the Ramsey
County District Attorney)
Cardinal Roger Mahony. I have served as an expert witness in a sufficient
number of abuse cases in the LA Archdiocese to conclude it is not
outlandish to ask if Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is a criminal for
“knowingly endangering the children he was supposed to defend.”
There is ample evidence already in the public forum that Mahony has
known of priests who abused minors, reassigned them and allowed them to
minister only to abuse other minors. He has not informed parishioners or
even parish staffs, that the priests he was assigning had a record of abuse.
Mahony who has a Masters in Social Work did not report known priest
abusers to social services even though he was obligated to do so by civil
law and by reason of the profession’s Code of Ethics. All of this vast
evidence is recorded in countless depositions on record from litigations1 of
abuse cases and from Mahony’s own testimony under oath.2
1 Depositions by Bishop Curry and Judge Byrne are illustrative of how priests were assigned and the
oversight board operated.
2 Mahony depositions, January 25, 2010; November 23, 2004; also Cf. Mahony trial testimony Fresno,
CA March 17, 2009.
11
I received reports from two men about Mahony’s sexual life and orientation;
one a former (St. John, Camarillo) seminarian who was dying of HIV
related complications; the other a long time LA church employee. The men
were credible reporters unwilling to go public or draw on corroboration.
I have served as an expert on a number of cases of confirmed sexual
abuse by priests of the LA Archdiocese from 2002 onward. Several are
remarkable: (i.e. the case of Lopez y Lopez and the controversy between
Mahony and the Cardinal of Mexico City. One of the principals in the latter
had to be lying.)
Judge Jim Byrne touted by the cardinal as a poster boy for the integrity of
the sexual abuse review board said in deposition that in all the years he
served on the Board he “never thought” of helping the victims.
Lawyer, Larry Drivon, who has litigated many California cases of clergy
abuse stated that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mahony with
perjury after letters he signed when he was bishop of Stockton, were
produced in his 2004 deposition and showed—black on white—that he had
clear knowledge of events that he denied under oath in deposition and on
the witness stand in the 1998 trial of Fr. Oliver O’Grady.3
I attended the Nov. 2004 deposition of Mahony and know the history of the
O’Grady trial. I saw Mahony’s signed letters. As a layperson I witnessed the
cardinal lying. His lawyer claimed, as did the cardinal that “he forgot.” (in 2
depositions and on the witness stand)
Three Los Angeles Grand Juries have been impaneled over nine years to
determine the real picture of abusing priests in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles. Their problem is not the lack of evidence, but the monumental
legal impediments and roadblocks the cardinal has sponsored to obstruct
the investigation and the release of documents needed to pinpoint facts of
the cardinal’s knowledge and involvement in complicity and obstruction.
California law does not allow Grand Jury reports to be made public unless
indictments result.
3 Don Lattin. December 11, 2004. The San Francisco Chronicle.
12
Mahony claimed that communications between him and his priests have a
special privilege, not unlike that of confessional secrets. His claim was
included as the central argument advanced by his attorneys for refusing to
disclose files ordered by the courts. His arguments were rejected by the
appeal court, the California Supreme Court. Not deterred he had his
lawyers even try to have the case reversed by the United States Supreme
Court. The highest court in the land could not swallow his theory. His
obstructionism seems unbounded.
He claimed that he was a member of the therapeutic team treating priest
abusers and therefore documents involving him enjoyed a privilege of
medical confidentiality. In actuality he was never a member of any
therapeutic teams for several reasons not the least of which is the fact that
he is not qualified.
It has not yet been revealed how many millions the cardinal spent in
pursuing facetious claims. He has employed for his defense not merely
several lawyers but several law firms as well as Sitrick and Company, a
public relation firm used by Enron, the Tobacco industry and the Keating
Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s. Fortune magazine called the
company’s founder “one of the most accomplished practitioners of the
dark arts of public relations. The Financial Times called him, “The spin
doctor’s spin doctor.” Should any Catholic entity much less an
archdiocese take any pride in resorting to the services of such an
organization? Truth and transparency seem secondary if important at all.
These and myriad other stories are to be told from documents and records.
These records show Mahony’s, and other bishops pattern and practice that
reflect institutional defenses of its ministers’ sexual behaviors.
I will not belabor the more than 250 abuse cases of clergy abuse I have
served on as an expert witness or consultant.
I served the Attorney General of Massachusetts in the formation of their
Grand Jury investigation of clergy abuse in that State (2002). And I was an
expert witness to the first of three Grand Juries empaneled in Philadelphia
and I reviewed 135 clergy abuse files then. Since that time I have been
able to follow the working and operation of the Archdiocesan offices’
13
dealing with victims of clergy abuse. That is a paradigm of the malfunction
of the American church in response to clergy.
You are well aware that your diocese has settled with many victims (144 in
2007 alone).
I have tried to help the Church understand and heal the wounds of sexual
abuse by clergy. My services have not been welcomed.
My appeal to you has been for pastoral attention to victims of abuse and
the long term consequences of that violation. This includes the effects of
suicidal attempts.
Only a bishop can minister to these wounds.
Enclosed you will find a list of bishops who have been found wanting in
their duties to the people of God.
Respectfully
A.W.Richard Sipe
August 30, 2016

(Hand Delivered)

Bishop Peter Doyle, James Martin, S.J. Affirm Homosexual Predators

Well, what do we have here...


A poster for a conference in Lincoln, England featuring Jim Martin and Peter Doyle, the alleged Bishop of Northampton.  Joseph Sciambra writes about it and has brought forward this poster for all to see. God bless him. 

http://josephsciambra.com/disturbing-image-accompanies-lgbt-conference-featuring-james-martin/#post/0

Look at the poster.

On the right, a Vatican flag, on the left, the "rainbow" sodomy promoting flag.

Now, look at the hands. On the right, the hands of a man, on the left, a teenaged boy.

At a time when the Church is rocked by scandals with the McCarrick scandal and the cover-ups, these filthy, disgusting, Christ-hating homosexualists show their hands The abuse "crisis" has not ended, it continues on. These sodomite predators have been emboldened and shown their hand for all to see.

James Martin must be a homosexual. Peter Doyle must be a homosexual. Real men, Real men who believe in God and Our Blessed Lord would not do this. These men are evil. They are filthy. They will burn in the lowest pits of Hell, forever. 

More on Peter Doyle here.

https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-deformed-and-malformed-conscience.html

Every homosexual priest. Every homosexual bishop must be outed. 

What are you victims waiting for?

In truth, there is healing.


Monday, 6 August 2018

Father James Haley - A priest persecuted for exposing the filth in the priesthood

Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, 
please Tweet my posts.

This post was originally published on March 16, 2015. It is timly to repeat it.

This post has nearly 4,500 direct hits and still receives comments. People obviously search for Father Haley on the Internet and end up here. Perhaps he will read this post or those who know him will read it. Perhaps it will be a means for people to reach out and assist him. Perhaps it may encourage him to fight again and expose those who covered up the filth.

The history of abuse is primarily a homosexual problem. The erudite such as Marie Collins and those behind the John Jay Report and the secular and most Catholic media will not admit this. 

Every bishop that covered up this filth must be outed. Priests and former priests and even existing seminarians must come forward.

Other links:


Father James Haley, Bishop Loverde and the Boy's Club - a story retold

March 16, 2015.

Please pray for Father Haley. I've been in touch with someone that knows him. His faith has been shaken and he needs to know that Catholics care what happened to him and are praying for him!
A recent post on the persecution of priests lead to a comment about Father James Haley, formerly of the Diocese of Arlington. I had not heard of this case prior until now. I have heard today from someone who knows Father Haley; he is still "suspended" and has been shaken by this ordeal. He is living in a trailer near a nursing home where his elderly father resides. He picks up odd jobs where he can to support himself. 

Let us pray for him and that God will bring justice to him and restore his priesthood to him and bring good out of this evil.


All of us need to understand the intricate connections of what is happening now with the Synod and those who manipulate and undertake machinations, including what Edward Pentin called on Saturday, a stacking of the deck." The roots of the last October's Relatio by Archbishop Bruno Forte with the full knowledge of the Bishop of Rome as confirmed by the Secretary of State run deep. One can only recall the admission of Bella Dodd and conclude that we are living in the School of Darkness.


I am sure that John Vennari at Catholic Family News won't mind this reprint from the Daily Catholic where permission was once given for its publication.  What struck me was that one of the priests which Fr. Haley had complained about to Bishop Loverde was later removed because his collection of pornography was discovered.

Image result for bishop paul loverde
Originally posted at The Daily Catholic the Editor's notes include: We have received the gracious permission of John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News to reprint various articles that have appeared in his publication that would be of interest to our readers. We urge you to subscribe to John's excellent monthly publication for only $20 a year by calling 1-905-871-6292 or e-mail them at CFN.


Bishop Paul Stephen Loverde turns seventy-five in September and will submit his 
resignation to the Bishop of Rome. This story was covered significantly in its day. It is a story worth retelling lest any of us think that the infiltration into the heart of the Church is not well-established and very, very deep. Let us pray that his successor in Arlington will bring justice to Father Haley and the have the courage to do what needs to be done there. The article below does not make for easy reading, but it is necessary reading to further highlight the struggle that we are in to preserve our own faith and protect our families and to fight for our Holy Mother, the Church.



Father Haley and "The Boys Club" 
by Mark Fellows


For years governments have had laws protecting whistle-blowers, These laws shield from retaliation those employees who come forward with evidence of illegal or immoral practices within their agency. The case of Father James Haley makes it evident that the Catholic Church in America offers no similar protection to its priests.

Father Haley, a priest in the diocese of Arlington, Virginia, has been permanently suspended by Bishop Paul Loverde for testifying in a legal deposition about the immoral practices of his fellow diocesan clergy. In a formal notice to Haley, given on October 28, 2002, Bishop Loverde stated that Haley was guilty of violating an order for him not to publicize priestly wrongdoing in order "to avoid scandal, to maintain ecclesiastical discipline and to protect the reputation and privacy of both the faithful and priests of this diocese." 1. As quoted in The Washington Times, November 13, 2002.]

In fact Father Haley never went public with any of his incriminating information. For years he went privately to Bishop Loverde, not just with his complaints, but with indisputable evidence of clergy immorality in his diocese. Bishop Loverde's reference to Haley "publicizing priestly wrongdoing" concerns deposition testimony given by Father Haley pursuant to a law suit brought against Bishop Loverde and his diocese by a parishioner, James Lambert. The suit alleged diocesan negligence in failing to remove an obviously unfit priest who had given public scandal for years. 2. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed for failing to comply with the statute of limitations.

After failing to get a judge to keep the contents of the deposition sealed, the Arlington diocese claimed Haley was not legally required to give testimony, but did so voluntarily. This, according to Bishop Loverde, meant that Haley had violated a "no talk" rule the Bishop imposed upon him a year previously. But the deposition, which is reproduced in its entirely on the Roman Catholic Faithful website, 3. See www.rcf.org. In addition, Father Haley's attorney, Greg Murphy, has sent me a copy of the original subpoena requiring Father Haley to testify. Although the Arlington diocese publicly maintains Haley was not subpoenaed, in their legal efforts to seal his deposition testimony diocesan lawyers admitted that Father Haley was testifying "in response to this subpoena." Letter to Bishop Loverde, from Greg Murphy, Esq., January 3, 2003, p. 5. clearly reveals that Father Haley was subpoenaed. 4. Deposition of Father James Haley, conducted by Gregory L. Murphy, Esq., on July 24, 2002, pursuant to the civil lawsuit Lambert v. Bishop Paul Loverde and the Diocese of Arlington, p. 4. (Hereinafter cited as "Deposition, p. __"). This means he was legally required to answer questions under oath about certain priests and practices in his diocese. Consequently, even if one considers deposition testimony "publicizing", Haley did not do so voluntarily. Since Haley was legally and morally obligated to tell the truth, Bishop Loverde's treatment of Haley strikes many as retaliation.

The Outsider

Although Father Haley has been silenced, his story is told in his deposition testimony. Here we learn that James Raymond Haley was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1987 at St. Thomas More Church in Arlington, Virginia. "Homosexuality within the priesthood is something that I did not know about when I was ordained," the forty-six year old Father Haley testified, "but from my very first assignment at Saint Mark's (in Vienna, Virginia) became more and more aware of." Haley "started to see associations between those who were exhibiting homosexual behaviors and friendships." Homosexual priests supported each other, and adopted "a defensive attitude towards anyone who might threaten them." 5. Deposition Testimony, p. 139

Haley was also troubled by what he heard about the homosexual priest network in the confessional, but the list of priests he could confide in was getting shorter. One of his seminary classmates was also a priest in the Arlington diocese. He told Haley about entering the rectory at St. Mary's and finding his pastor having anal intercourse with the maintenance man, and the time he visited another parish where the priest had an eighteen year relationship with another homosexual man. Haley's former classmate complained to the diocese, became depressed when they did nothing, and left the priesthood. 6. Deposition, p. 146.

Determined not to leave the priesthood, Haley sought out Bishop John R. Keating, then bishop of the Arlington diocese. Over the course of many meetings Haley recounted to Keating "a whole list and litany" of homosexual activity in the diocesan clergy. Like the "extraordinarily gay-looking masseuse" who regularly came to the rectory to give closed door massages to Haley's pastor. Or the event that occurred a week after Haley began his first parish assignment. There was a knock on the back door. A man asked for Haley's associate, calling him by his first name. Haley knocked on the pastor's door. The priest, expecting his friend, surprised Haley by answering the door naked. Haley told him a man was downstairs, and the priest said, "Send him up." 7. Deposition, pp. 141-142.

Bishop Keating confirmed Haley's alarm over the homosexual network in the Church. According to Keating the problem went higher. "He indicated a problem existed even among the bishops and cardinals, naming some that surprised me," Haley testified. 8. Deposition, p. 140. Although he was sympathetic, in the end Keating was no help. According to Haley, Keating said "he could not do anything about homosexual priests or their activities." 9. Ibid

Haley was stunned to learn that  "A bishop would knowingly ordain a homosexual man…I thought that they would want to know that a man or a seminarian or a priest was homosexual. And they couldn't care less, so I started to feel like the outsider, like maybe I was the unique guy. That it wasn't the gay men that were unique, it was the straight men that were unique." 10. Deposition, p. 144.
 
Adding to his discomfort was what he was hearing in the confessional: "I was becoming aware of some significant sexual problems among our priests, which I could not say to anybody." In 1995 Haley began seeing a psychologist, "to help me deal with the emotional burden of knowing what I did not want to know about my fellow priests through confession." 11. Deposition, p. 118.

"The Boy's Club"

In 1997 Father Haley was transferred to All Saints Church, the largest parish in Virginia. He joined two other associates to Pastor Jim Verrechia, an up and coming priest who seemed destined for bigger and better things than parish life. Father Verrechia was on the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities and St. Mary's Seminary; a Judge on the Diocesan Tribunal; a frequent columnist for the Arlington Catholic Herald; the Bishop's Master of Ceremonies, and so on. 12. See Arlington Diocese Racked By Sex Scandals, by James Bendell, Esq., www.rcf.org. He also liked to visit homosexual pornography cites on the Internet, a fact Father Haley discovered while using the rectory computer. 13. Deposition, p. 18. Another discovery was over three hundred e-mail letters Verrechia had written to a married female parishioner.

This last discovery was less a surprise than Verrechia's appetite for homosexual pornography. Father Verrechia had for some time conducted a very public romance with Nancy Lambert. The two spent hours together, sometimes socially, like the parish party where they sat together in a hot tub drinking wine, Verrechia's arm around Nancy. Other time was spent privately, like the time Haley ran into Nancy coming out of Verrechia's bedroom very late at night. It was called "the Father Verrechia show," and was a source of scandal to All Saints parishioners, and a source of pain for Nancy's husband and children, who were also parishioners.

"It was a full-blown scandal by the fall of 1998," Haley testified. 14. Deposition, pp. 211-212. Numerous parishioners and one of the associate pastors complained to the diocese about Father Verrechia and Nancy, but nothing changed. Bishop Keating died in 1998, and in 1999 Pope John Paul II appointed Paul Loverde as Arlington's diocesan bishop. That same year Father Haley presented to his new bishop indisputable evidence of Verrechia's misconduct: he downloaded Verrechia's letters and visits to gay porn sites onto compact disc, and presented it to Loverde. According to Haley, Loverde told him he was going on vacation and didn't have time to look at it. 15. Deposition, pp. 70-71.

Haley stressed the importance of the situation, and Loverde repeatedly said he was going on vacation first. According to Haley, Loverde did not seemed surprised by anything Haley told him about Verrechia, and was not happy to receive hard evidence concerning the bad priest. Haley testified that when Loverde finally found time to look at Haley's evidence, he suggested that Haley authored the e-mails. When Haley laughed aloud at the idea that he had composed hundreds of e-mails, Loverde implied that Haley had "doctored" the e-mails.

Word got back to Verrechia far more quickly than Loverde got back to Haley. The day after he delivered the evidence to Loverde, Haley discovered that Verrechia had deleted all his e-mails to Nancy Lambert from the rectory computer. Shortly after this Haley was transferred to St. Lawrence Church in Alexandria.

Here he met Father Erbacher. One of the first activities the two priests shared was Erbacher going through the St. Lawrence picture book and showing Haley "the boys of the previous pastor." 16. Deposition, p. 145. By this he meant altar boys the former pastor had paid $500 or $1000 to continue as his altar boys, a duty that included, among other things, vacations at the pastor's beach home. 17. Deposition, p. 153, which includes a similar story concerning a different priest. Erbacher was either very careless or very confident, for he also told Haley how he regularly embezzled funds from collection baskets. The trick to embezzlement, according to Erbacher, was that "you have to be consistent" in how the money is taken. According to Haley, "there were conversations that indicated Father Erbacher had been trained by certain priests of the diocese on how to handle and obtain money." 18. Deposition, p. 149-150. Some of the stolen money was used to increase Erbacher's collection of homosexual pornography, which featured young boys. 19. Deposition, p. 225-226. Pictures of much of this evidence were marked as Exhibits at the deposition. In addition to evidence of embezzlement, there are also photos of a large pornography collection. One of the titles is "Merry Christmas."

Erbacher also voluntarily revealed to Haley many more of the homosexual priests in the Arlington diocese. He called the gay priest network "the boy's club." Erbacher's chattiness may have come from the security of being well connected to "the boy's club." One of Erbacher's best friends was Chancellor of the Arlington diocese, and rumored to be, like Erbacher, a homosexual. This did not stop Haley from presenting to Bishop Loverde:  "pictures of his (Erbacher's) homosexual pornography collection of basically young boys, very similar to what Father Verrecchia had been looking at, but much more extensive…And so I had gone to Bishop Loverde and told him he had a significant problem at Saint Lawrence. That there was immoral and criminal activity occurring and that it was very obvious and that he needed to go and see it." 20. Deposition, pp. 155-156.

Bishop Loverde did not visit St. Lawrence. The only immediate change in the parish was Father Haley's transfer, to St. Mary's parish in Fredericksburg. Two months later word of Erbacher's activities was leaked to the media. After Father Erbacher's activities became public knowledge, Bishop Loverde immediately removed Erbacher and ordered a financial audit of St. Lawrence. The Washington Post reported that Fr. Erbacher stole approximately $320,000 from parish collection baskets. 21. Washington Post, December, 28, 2002.

Father Haley had noticed a pattern. He was being transferred shortly after each conversation he had with Bishop Loverde about immoral priests. Upon arriving at St. Mary's, Haley testified that the parish priest, Father Daniel Hamilton, was "involved in extraordinarily graphic and incredibly disturbing sadomasochism, sexual torture, cross-dressing, transgender pornography that involved she-males. He (Hamilton) was completely addicted, daily immersed in this kind of sexual horror." 22. Deposition, p. 183.

In September 2001 Father Haley went to Bishop Loverde again. He asked Loverde for a leave of absence "to find a place in the Church outside the diocese of Arlington, where a true respect for priestly holiness and morality and some sort of policy against homosexuals and homosexual activities was to be found." 23. Ibid After requesting leave to find another diocese, Haley also mentioned that there were "problems at St. Mary's." According to Haley, Loverde replied "he was tired of me telling him these vague references to people - priests with problems - and unless I gave him substantial, credible information he couldn't do anything about it." 24. Deposition, pp. 184-5

Haley had presented Loverde with substantial, credible evidence concerning Fathers Verrecchia and Erbacher. Loverde's response with Father Verrecchia was to suspect Haley of manufacturing and doctoring the evidence. While Loverde stated he had told Verrecchia to stop seeing Nancy Lambert, Verrecchia was not suspended or evaluated for his unpriestly behavior. His relationship with Lambert - and the public scandal it caused - continued until Spring of 2000, when Verrecchia voluntarily and abruptly left the Church to marry the newly divorced Lambert (on Holy Saturday), after impregnating her earlier that year.

Bishop Loverde was equally ineffectual with Father Erbacher. He never visited St. Lawrence's parish to investigate the evidence Haley had given him, and only acted after Erbacher's activities were publicized. Loverde appeared more effective at transferring good priests than disciplining bad ones. "It seemed," said Father Haley, "that the only person that was getting into trouble was me."

The trouble continued one week later, when, in response to Bishop Loverde's complaint that he couldn't do anything without evidence, Haley presented to the bishop evidence of Father Hamilton's perversity. "At the end of that meeting," Haley testified, "which was basically a slide show of the pictures of his (Hamilton's) incredible collection, the bishop told me that I had better watch out, that I did not know what he (Loverde) was capable of doing." 25. Deposition, p. 190.

One week later Father Haley was summoned to the chancery. Loverde handed him a letter of resignation and told Haley to sign it. Haley refused, and asked Loverde what he was going to do about Father Hamilton. Loverde thrust forward another piece of paper, which according to Haley, read: "I hereby instruct you to get out of Saint Mary's parish by 7 o'clock this evening." 26. Deposition, p. 192. Haley persisted in asking about Hamilton, and Loverde said Hamilton was being told of Haley's allegations. He did not say that Hamilton was being investigated, evaluated, or suspended. 27. The Washington Post article (previously cited) reported that Bishop Loverde ordered Hamilton to undergo treatment. Father Hamilton resigned from St. Mary's parish in August, 2002, and appears to have left the priesthood. The Post article is interesting for the fact that it scrupulously referred to "pornography" rather than homosexual pornography that was beyond stomach turning. Then Bishop Loverde produced another piece of paper, which Father Haley describes thusly:

"If you tell anybody by any means what has happened to Father Hamilton or anybody you will be immediately suspended from the priesthood without any warning. And (Loverde) gave me a further document that (sic) if I said anything about any priest, past, present, or future, in any behavior (I suppose it would include criminal behavior or child rape), that I would be suspended. And I said you mean I'm going to get suspended if I tell the truth to anyone but you, but if I tell you the truth you don't seem to do anything about it. So he took away my faculties, he took away my ability to preach." 28. Deposition, pp. 193-194.

Diocesan spokeswoman Linda Shovlain confirmed that Haley's right to celebrate Mass and administer the sacraments was revoked in October, 2001. 29. The Washington Post, December 28, 2002. Bishop Loverde has referred to this episode as granting Haley a requested "period of discernment" to discover whether he had a vocation to the priesthood, but very few priests in the history of the Church have begun a period of discernment by being stripped of their priestly faculties, forbidden from any type of pastoral ministry or preaching, and slapped with a (seemingly immoral) penal precept of silence. Loverde's period of discernment sounds more like a prison sentence.

Moreover, according to his sworn testimony, Haley had requested a leave of absence to find another diocese to be a priest in, not to decide whether or not to be a priest. He claims he told Loverde "emphatically, that I have never in the whole course of my priesthood asked to leave the priesthood." 30. Deposition, p. 206. In a June 14, 2002 letter, Haley told Loverde: "I have never requested a departure from the sacred priesthood." 31. Letter to Bishop Loverde by Greg Murphy, p. 4.

In spite of this, in all the letters Loverde has addressed to Haley since imposing a "period of discernment" upon him, the Bishop repeatedly writes: "Since it is your intention to leave the priesthood…I am more than happy to help you in your laicization from the priesthood." Haley believes that Bishop Loverde "is trying to strangle me out of the Church." 32. Deposition, pp. 205-206. He maintains Loverde has insisted that Haley enter treatment before he can regain his priestly faculties. He also states that Loverde "indicated to me in the letter of June 28th that on his part, he would not give approval for a transfer to any other bishop. So even if a bishop would want me, Bishop Loverde will not allow me to be transferred." 33. Deposition, p. 209. Father Haley presently subsists on a modest stipend from the Diocese of Arlington, which has required him to relocate several times. In January of this year he was back in Arlington, trying to meet with Bishop Loverde. His perseverance is noteworthy, particularly in light of his testimony concerning bishops and "boy's clubs":

"If everybody in these stories (about homosexual priests) gets together we're going to find out one little center and it always is the bishop in the diocese…they seem to know, but they will protect every single other person from knowing what they know." 34. Deposition, p. 173.
Bishop Loverde

Paul Loverde was born in Massachusetts in 1940, and ordained in the diocese of Norwich, Connecticut in 1965. He earned a Licentiate in Canon Law from the Catholic University of America. Father Loverde was an instructor in Canon Law and Bishop's Delegate for Clergy, as well as Chairman of the Presbyterial Council and Diocesan Pastoral Counsel. He became Auxiliary Bishop of Hartford in 1988, and was Bishop of Ogdensburg, New York, when Pope John Paul II appointed him Bishop of the Arlington Diocese. 35. From the USCCB Office of Communications announcing appointment of Bishop Loverde to the Arlington Diocese, January 25, 1999 (http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/99-005.htm).

Bishop Loverde cannot be blamed for the condition of the diocese he took over. His predecessor appears to have allowed "the boy's club" to become firmly entrenched before Loverde arrived. In these circumstances it is understandable that a new bishop might, in prudence, take some time to familiarize himself with the homosexual order in the diocesan power structure. In this respect Loverde appears to have been very prudent. Initially, however, his actions pleased Arlington Catholics. Shortly after his installation the new bishop held prayer services outside several abortion clinics. Over 400 Catholics attended, and Loverde led small groups in the recitation of the Rosary. 36. Arlington Catholic Herald, April 8, 1999, reproduced online at www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/4152/loverde.htm". Loverde also canceled an event at a Dominican retreat house when he learned that radical feminist speakers, including Mary Hunt, had been invited to speak to retreatants. 37. Arlington Catholic Herald, reproduced at http://www.petersnet.net/browse/2581.htm. In his decision Loverde quoted Mary Hunt referring to herself "as a Catholic feminist liberation theologian, pro-choice and lesbian."

But under Bishop Loverde the Arlington diocese was also home for many "mini-Assisi" events, like the inter-faith prayer service Loverde hosted in February 2001, where care was taken to present the Bishop as an equal among equals with his separated Protestant brethren. 38. Arlington Catholic Herald, February 1, 2001, which features a picture of Loverde in the background, while in the foreground a Protestant minister leads a "Litany of Thanksgiving" at St. Bernadette's Catholic Church. I am in the possession of numerous other flyers and parish bulletins indicating that the insipid and dangerous drivel known as post-conciliar ecumenism - including inter-faith Good Friday services and petitions "For the Jewish people to enjoy a New Year" - is flourishing in the Arlington diocese. 39. These materials, too numerous to cite here, were provided to me by RCF attorney James Bendell.

Then there is the apparent belief of Bishop Loverde that unity in liturgy bars kneeling to receive Communion. This was enforced in his Cathedral during the same week Loverde permanently suspended Father Haley. The Cathedral rector not only refused Communion to Virginia Delegate Richard Black, he chased Black to the back of the Cathedral, shouting that Black was "a conservative idiot" and a "liar." 40. This incident was widely reported in the electronic press. I am quoting from an eye-witness, Joseph Strada, who wrote Loverde a letter of complaint. This lesson on how unity at all costs only causes disunity appears unheeded. 41.The Director of Seton School in Manassas, for instance, has declared that the custom of receiving Communion standing is "the custom and posture in every parish in the Diocese…we should avoid confusion and disunity…The fostering of unity in the Diocese of Arlington is one of Bishop Loverde's hopes since his arrival…" Sentinel, Thursday, January 25, 2001. Also unheeded is a Vatican statement declaring that "any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful…" 42. Statement of The Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Responses to Questions on Kneeling, published in the November-December 2002 edition of Notitiae.

As miserable as these anecdotes are, they only support the remarkably unremarkable conclusion that Arlington Catholics are victims of the usual post-conciliar muddle. But Bishop Loverde's treatment of Father James Haley has definitely raised the bar. Instead of acting like a shepherd by promptly investigating Haley's evidence in order to protect his flock, Loverde disbelieved Haley's proofs, transferred him twice, failed to give him promotions due a priest of his tenure, threatened him, stripped him of his faculties, publicly discredited him, blocked his transfer to another diocese, and permanently suspended him. Some of his public statements appear knowingly false, like his claim that Father Haley was not subpoenaed. The diocesan attorneys knew this, and surely Loverde either knew this as well, or should have investigated the matter before making his public statement. It is very probable that he also knew that diocesan lawyers tried repeatedly to postpone Father Haley's deposition, then declined to appear at the deposition to question Haley. 43. Deposition preamble by Greg Murphy, Esq.

Bishop Loverde appears unmoved by the protests of Arlington Catholics over his treatment of Father Haley. He maintains that he has acted properly in disciplining Father Haley, and in his treatment of the priests Father Haley exposed as unfit. "I expect every priest to live a virtuous life in keeping with his sacred calling, including his commitment to celibacy and chastity," he affirmed recently. 44. As quoted in Whistle-Blower Priest In Trouble With Diocese, ABC News Report, December 2, 2002.

This public statement conflicts with testimony Haley gave concerning statement Loverde allegedly made to him regarding homosexual priests. According to Haley, Loverde told him "there was nothing wrong" with homosexual priests, that "he never asks" if a priest is homosexual: "He said 'I have no right to ask.'" 45. Deposition testimony, pp. 157-158, p. 187. If true, this is a curious attitude not only for a bishop, but for the NCCB Chairman of the Vocations Committee, another position Loverde currently holds. 46. See U.S. Catholic Bishops, Secretariat for Vocations and Priestly Formation, Interview With Bishop Paul S. Loverde, at http://www.usccb.org/vocations/ordination/loverde.htm.

"When he consecrated the Sacrament, his voice would just tremble with emotion," a parishioner said of Father Haley. "We were bitterly sorry to lose him." 47. ABC News, Whistle-Blower Priest In Trouble With Diocese, December 2, 2002.

In the upside down world of the American Catholic Church, it appears that to have a vocation to the priesthood is grounds for suspension, and questioning whether a priest is a homosexual is morally abhorrent. As the rays of sunlight from the New Springtime of the Church fail to provide warmth, as we behold bare branches unadorned by the green leaves of renewal promised from the "New Pentecost of Vatican II," may Father Haley and other faithful Catholics gain consolation from the prophet in Wisdom:

"For the creature serving thee, the Creator,
Is made fierce against the unjust for their punishment…
Afflicted in a few things,
In many they shall be well rewarded,
Because God hath tried them,
And found them worthy of Himself…"
"The souls of the just are in God's hands,


and the elect find grace and mercy."