Then, I'll go shower.
A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Friday, 10 August 2018
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.
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.
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."
Bergoglio's Confidant Maradiaga - Manipulation, Intimmidation and Cover-up
Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9,
please Tweet my posts.
please Tweet my posts.
We have written before on this confidant of Jorge Bergoglio. A more pompous and arrogant prelate, one can hardly imagine.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/search/label/Cardinal%20Maradiaga
The situation in Honduras seems to be near desperate. Seminarians faithful to the Church have written of the homosexual infiltration in the seminaries and the intimidation that they have received.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/honduran-seminarians-allege-widespread-homosexual-misconduct
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/students-letter-denounces-homosexual-epidemic-in-honduran-seminary
This arrogant malefactor Maradiaga has gone so far as to slander and threatened them.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-top-reform-cardinal-slams-seminarians-for-exposing-homosexuali
Now, Edward Pentin is reporting that this scoundrel is actually protecting the homosexuals in the seminary in the same diocese where a homosexual predator bishop was just removed.
Jorge Bergoglio has protected this man. He has surrounded himself with scoundrels, homosexuals and heretics.
He will not run away from this with any diversion. It is up to the lay faithful to continue to report and educate on the evil presence that has infiltrated the Church of Christ and which seeks our destruction.
The bishops and cardinals must act no matter the cost to their careers.
The financial and homosexual mafia must be exposed and removed.
Sunday, 5 August 2018
What is going on in Oklahoma that faithful Catholics should be so abused?
Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9,
please Tweet my posts.
A guest post from Mr. Laramie Hirsch on the continuing saga of insult and attack on Catholics faithful to the tradition of the Church and Her liturgy.
After reading Mr. Hirsch's column, I am asking myself, "Does this priest suffer from "gay-rage?"
If you attended Mass at a certain parish in Tulsa early this July, you'd be pleased to see a good sized group of people at a diocesan Traditional Latin Mass. While the priest there hardly spoke English at all, being a man from Ecuador, he nevertheless did his utmost to worship the Almighty. Latin is the universal high language of the Church. It was such a beautiful service, as it always has been ever since the TLM was brought to the parish about a decade ago. The people there have been taught the beauty of the Church's tradition like never before. This is all thanks to now-retired Bishop Emeritus Slattery and the former parish priest who has now left the state.
On that, the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, the parish's Extraordinary Form would feature a reading from Matthew 7:15-21 . Only it wasn't read by the Hispanic priest. He dutifully stepped aside, and the passage was instead read by the parish priest himself:
If only the Hispanic priest gave the homily. By all accounts, he appears to love the Latin Mass. Or, dare we dream, wouldn't it have been nice if the homily came from the former parish priest who introduced the Latin Mass in the first place? (It seems that he was actually in town that day) Or even the retired bishop who always protected the Catholic Tradition in this part of Oklahoma? No. The homily was given by the current parish priest. Yet, surely after a full year of shepherding over the Traditionalist laity, this priest would have grown some kind of fondness for the flock beneath him. Right?
The congregation waited for the kind-hearted instructions from their shepherd.
After reading from Matthew, the sermon took a strange turn. At first, the priest didn't seem to make sense. It was as though his words melted into typical post-Vatican II gobbelty gook language. While he initially seemed to be deconstructing St. Paul's writing style, it all seemed one big incoherent ramble. After that, the priest then talked about people's athletic ability. He commented about how the people of Christ's day didn't need to go to the gym because they walked everywhere.
Suddenly, just when it seemed his sermon (?) should be wrapping up, he capped off his ramble by bringing up zip codes. He talked about the parish' s own poor neighborhood, and that local income was not very high. This was a common, perennial problem, he explained, as it's been a low-income neighborhood since the 1950s. But then, he unmistakably complained about laity who drive in from widely divergent locations. He appeared to scoff at those who would drive one to two hours every Sunday from other towns and counties. And, of course, the only people doing this were the parishioners attending that diocesan Latin Mass.
Then, just as he did last year, he stated that the Latin Mass group in particular was not giving their proper share of money during collection time. He told the congregation that he preferred having only a Spanish and English Mass. They were reminded that the FSSP is across the river on the West side of town. And then, to qualify himself, he said that he had done his job and kept all of his promises to them for the past year, ever since he took over the parish.
In other words: "I've done everything I was supposed to do for you people. But really, you're not welcome"
He ended his "homily" abruptly and walked off. He did not assist the Hispanic priest with distribution of the Eucharist after that. I have to wonder, was the Hispanic priest aware of the American priest's statements?
Parishioners later noticed that the side chapel had its statues removed, and it looked blander and more Protestant.
So, did this priest think he appropriately tied his "homily" to the gospel reading from Matthew? Was he comparing a good tree that produces good fruit to an evil tree that produces bad fruit? More to the point: does this priest think the Latin Mass produces bad fruit? After all, according to him, the Traditional Catholic community wasn't generating enough income for the parish. So, shall we also conclude that, in this priest's mind, good fruit = money? Bad fruit = less money? Is money the objective? Is it cash that should concern us? Do diocesan Traditionalists produce bad fruit in the form of inadequate collection amounts? If so, how much more do they need to fork over until they are good and worthy in this priest's eyes?
I always thought that, in post-Vatican II Catholic Church, good fruit = happiness, togetherness, community, fraternal charity, good feelings, and all that emotional hippy dippy stuff. If so, this tradition-hating priest certainly doesn't value these aspects when it comes to interacting with the Latin Mass parishioners. Certainly, dare I say, it does not appear as though this priest considers "good fruit" to be wholesome, clean, confessed souls in a state of grace. (That's just a dusty, triumphalist, pre-Vatican II novelty). Not in this "homily." Allegedly, he does not even consistently hear confessions from the Latin Mass group on a monthly basis--as he said he would in the beginning of his tenure. But even assuming these reports to be wrong: is confession once a month enough?
And what of those poor English and Spanish Mass parishioners, living in that low-income zip code? Are their contributions inadequate and deserving of a scolding? Do those communities produce bad fruit as well? Or are they somehow exempt? Are those poor folks mystically holy because of their poorness? Do their low incomes make them virtuous, while the assumed higher incomes of the Traditionalists make them less virtuous? Is it even accurate to assume the traditionalists have higher incomes, or is that a blanket assumption by the priest?
Did the priest even mean any of this? Or was he simply ignoring the Sunday gospel reading, preferring to instead deliver a reckless, harsh message to a group of people who've done nothing to him?
What This Does To A Community
There once was a strong community at this parish. In fact, it was rather famous, regionally speaking. People had always praised the good things Bishop Edward Slattery had done, and a lot of it took place in this very parish under a good priest. But after the retirement and replacement of the good bishop, and after the installation of Pope Francis' new bishop, it has been demonstrated that there has always been a cabal of priests in this town who, under the surface, always vehemently opposed what Bp. Slattery did. There have always been priests in Tulsa's diocese who have hated Tradition. At best, these priests view Tulsa's traditionalist laity as an inconvenience. Judging from the abuse this particular parish has received in the past year, we can conclude that some priests view this group of laity with contempt. They have therefore tried to destroy this community--and not without results.
If we are going to refer to the fruits of good or bad intentions, then let's see this situation for what it is. The fruit of this priest and the new bishop is the scattering of Tulsa's Traditionalist community in many directions. The fruit of their work is angst, both in this community and beyond. The fruit of these New Order clergymen has been to instill a deep sense of abandonment in laity in Northeast Oklahoma. Those who hold on to their faith amidst these sorts of trials feel as though the Sword of Damocles hangs over their head. These people have not been uplifted; they have been tolerated. They have not been embraced and welcomed; they have been alienated. They have no intrinsic worth to the local Catholic community. No one dares ask them what they think. They are an elephant in the room. If a priest in the diocese dares to offer to learn the Latin Mass, he becomes a marked man. Traditionalists are avoided. They are shunned. It wouldn't surprise me if they were given their own drinking fountains.
If this is the fruit of the new bishop, the new priest, and those who agree with their agenda, then let us ask: is this good fruit or bad fruit?
As you can see, the Latin Mass congregation was contributing twice the amount that they represented for the pleasure of having this priest spit in their face. Today, thanks to a steady diet of nasty, passive-aggressive discouragement, the Latin Mass community has been reduced to 60% of what they once were. Yet, these people continue to provide more money than they actually represent.
Even more interesting is the fact that some of the Hispanic laity have also witnessed this priest's actions. After all, it was a combination of the English, Spanish, and Latin Mass congregations who helped to build and complete the St. Toribio Shrine. Yet, this new priest is undoing many of the Catholic reforms the former priest brought to the parish. This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Hispanic community. No es bueno. They don't like it. Some have even left for another Tulsa Spanish-speaking parish. Some tried attending the TLM at one point--perhaps longing for traces of their former shepherd. I can't help but wonder what changes took place in that congregation since last year.
If money truly was the end goal of this priest, he would stop being ugly to the Latin Mass laity. Why? Because they've been carrying a large portion of the parishes' finances on their shoulders. If and when they go, the parish will be all the poorer for it. In effect, this new priest will have driven out a large source of income. But ultimately, does he really care about the money? Or does this priest value the removal of those Trads over everything else?
please Tweet my posts.
A guest post from Mr. Laramie Hirsch on the continuing saga of insult and attack on Catholics faithful to the tradition of the Church and Her liturgy.
After reading Mr. Hirsch's column, I am asking myself, "Does this priest suffer from "gay-rage?"
Catty Priest Insults Minorities In Homily...
By Laramie Hirsch
...And, by minorities, I don't mean brown-skinned people, immigrants, or homosexuals. Instead, the minorities I mention are the most hated minorities in the Catholic Church: Traditionalists.
By Laramie Hirsch
...And, by minorities, I don't mean brown-skinned people, immigrants, or homosexuals. Instead, the minorities I mention are the most hated minorities in the Catholic Church: Traditionalists.
If you attended Mass at a certain parish in Tulsa early this July, you'd be pleased to see a good sized group of people at a diocesan Traditional Latin Mass. While the priest there hardly spoke English at all, being a man from Ecuador, he nevertheless did his utmost to worship the Almighty. Latin is the universal high language of the Church. It was such a beautiful service, as it always has been ever since the TLM was brought to the parish about a decade ago. The people there have been taught the beauty of the Church's tradition like never before. This is all thanks to now-retired Bishop Emeritus Slattery and the former parish priest who has now left the state.
On that, the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, the parish's Extraordinary Form would feature a reading from Matthew 7:15-21 . Only it wasn't read by the Hispanic priest. He dutifully stepped aside, and the passage was instead read by the parish priest himself:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
If only the Hispanic priest gave the homily. By all accounts, he appears to love the Latin Mass. Or, dare we dream, wouldn't it have been nice if the homily came from the former parish priest who introduced the Latin Mass in the first place? (It seems that he was actually in town that day) Or even the retired bishop who always protected the Catholic Tradition in this part of Oklahoma? No. The homily was given by the current parish priest. Yet, surely after a full year of shepherding over the Traditionalist laity, this priest would have grown some kind of fondness for the flock beneath him. Right?
The congregation waited for the kind-hearted instructions from their shepherd.
What Took Place
After reading from Matthew, the sermon took a strange turn. At first, the priest didn't seem to make sense. It was as though his words melted into typical post-Vatican II gobbelty gook language. While he initially seemed to be deconstructing St. Paul's writing style, it all seemed one big incoherent ramble. After that, the priest then talked about people's athletic ability. He commented about how the people of Christ's day didn't need to go to the gym because they walked everywhere.
Suddenly, just when it seemed his sermon (?) should be wrapping up, he capped off his ramble by bringing up zip codes. He talked about the parish' s own poor neighborhood, and that local income was not very high. This was a common, perennial problem, he explained, as it's been a low-income neighborhood since the 1950s. But then, he unmistakably complained about laity who drive in from widely divergent locations. He appeared to scoff at those who would drive one to two hours every Sunday from other towns and counties. And, of course, the only people doing this were the parishioners attending that diocesan Latin Mass.
Then, just as he did last year, he stated that the Latin Mass group in particular was not giving their proper share of money during collection time. He told the congregation that he preferred having only a Spanish and English Mass. They were reminded that the FSSP is across the river on the West side of town. And then, to qualify himself, he said that he had done his job and kept all of his promises to them for the past year, ever since he took over the parish.
In other words: "I've done everything I was supposed to do for you people. But really, you're not welcome"
He ended his "homily" abruptly and walked off. He did not assist the Hispanic priest with distribution of the Eucharist after that. I have to wonder, was the Hispanic priest aware of the American priest's statements?
Parishioners later noticed that the side chapel had its statues removed, and it looked blander and more Protestant.
What Was The Sunday Message?
So, did this priest think he appropriately tied his "homily" to the gospel reading from Matthew? Was he comparing a good tree that produces good fruit to an evil tree that produces bad fruit? More to the point: does this priest think the Latin Mass produces bad fruit? After all, according to him, the Traditional Catholic community wasn't generating enough income for the parish. So, shall we also conclude that, in this priest's mind, good fruit = money? Bad fruit = less money? Is money the objective? Is it cash that should concern us? Do diocesan Traditionalists produce bad fruit in the form of inadequate collection amounts? If so, how much more do they need to fork over until they are good and worthy in this priest's eyes?
I always thought that, in post-Vatican II Catholic Church, good fruit = happiness, togetherness, community, fraternal charity, good feelings, and all that emotional hippy dippy stuff. If so, this tradition-hating priest certainly doesn't value these aspects when it comes to interacting with the Latin Mass parishioners. Certainly, dare I say, it does not appear as though this priest considers "good fruit" to be wholesome, clean, confessed souls in a state of grace. (That's just a dusty, triumphalist, pre-Vatican II novelty). Not in this "homily." Allegedly, he does not even consistently hear confessions from the Latin Mass group on a monthly basis--as he said he would in the beginning of his tenure. But even assuming these reports to be wrong: is confession once a month enough?
And what of those poor English and Spanish Mass parishioners, living in that low-income zip code? Are their contributions inadequate and deserving of a scolding? Do those communities produce bad fruit as well? Or are they somehow exempt? Are those poor folks mystically holy because of their poorness? Do their low incomes make them virtuous, while the assumed higher incomes of the Traditionalists make them less virtuous? Is it even accurate to assume the traditionalists have higher incomes, or is that a blanket assumption by the priest?
Did the priest even mean any of this? Or was he simply ignoring the Sunday gospel reading, preferring to instead deliver a reckless, harsh message to a group of people who've done nothing to him?
What This Does To A Community
Modernist post-Vatican II priests have 20th Century liberal values. They want to sweep the "old dusty Catholic Church" under the rug. They want to shove all those un-hip, stubborn losers who "can't get with it" into a ghetto. They are in the middle of transforming the Catholic Church into "a new thing," and laity holding onto how it's always been are in the way. The New Order uses a sort of federal-government-eminent-domain tactic that runs over communities such as this.
There once was a strong community at this parish. In fact, it was rather famous, regionally speaking. People had always praised the good things Bishop Edward Slattery had done, and a lot of it took place in this very parish under a good priest. But after the retirement and replacement of the good bishop, and after the installation of Pope Francis' new bishop, it has been demonstrated that there has always been a cabal of priests in this town who, under the surface, always vehemently opposed what Bp. Slattery did. There have always been priests in Tulsa's diocese who have hated Tradition. At best, these priests view Tulsa's traditionalist laity as an inconvenience. Judging from the abuse this particular parish has received in the past year, we can conclude that some priests view this group of laity with contempt. They have therefore tried to destroy this community--and not without results.
If we are going to refer to the fruits of good or bad intentions, then let's see this situation for what it is. The fruit of this priest and the new bishop is the scattering of Tulsa's Traditionalist community in many directions. The fruit of their work is angst, both in this community and beyond. The fruit of these New Order clergymen has been to instill a deep sense of abandonment in laity in Northeast Oklahoma. Those who hold on to their faith amidst these sorts of trials feel as though the Sword of Damocles hangs over their head. These people have not been uplifted; they have been tolerated. They have not been embraced and welcomed; they have been alienated. They have no intrinsic worth to the local Catholic community. No one dares ask them what they think. They are an elephant in the room. If a priest in the diocese dares to offer to learn the Latin Mass, he becomes a marked man. Traditionalists are avoided. They are shunned. It wouldn't surprise me if they were given their own drinking fountains.
If this is the fruit of the new bishop, the new priest, and those who agree with their agenda, then let us ask: is this good fruit or bad fruit?
Conclusions: Money, Money, Money...?
Let's recap what the three congregations were contributing last October, the last time this very same priest complained about money. According to that church bulletin, the figures were as follows:
Anglos (28% of the parish) contribute 40%
Hispanics (60% of the parish) contribute 46%
Latin (12% of the parish) contribute 24%
(The term "Anglos" is the priest's terminology, not mine.)
As you can see, the Latin Mass congregation was contributing twice the amount that they represented for the pleasure of having this priest spit in their face. Today, thanks to a steady diet of nasty, passive-aggressive discouragement, the Latin Mass community has been reduced to 60% of what they once were. Yet, these people continue to provide more money than they actually represent.
Even more interesting is the fact that some of the Hispanic laity have also witnessed this priest's actions. After all, it was a combination of the English, Spanish, and Latin Mass congregations who helped to build and complete the St. Toribio Shrine. Yet, this new priest is undoing many of the Catholic reforms the former priest brought to the parish. This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Hispanic community. No es bueno. They don't like it. Some have even left for another Tulsa Spanish-speaking parish. Some tried attending the TLM at one point--perhaps longing for traces of their former shepherd. I can't help but wonder what changes took place in that congregation since last year.
If money truly was the end goal of this priest, he would stop being ugly to the Latin Mass laity. Why? Because they've been carrying a large portion of the parishes' finances on their shoulders. If and when they go, the parish will be all the poorer for it. In effect, this new priest will have driven out a large source of income. But ultimately, does he really care about the money? Or does this priest value the removal of those Trads over everything else?
In this situation, at best, we can assume that this priest is materialist. But what is more likely is that this priest is acting in malice towards these people. He wants them gone. Period.
Saturday, 4 August 2018
The "Pope" Called Francis, this Jorge Bergoglio is a Heretic, a Danger to the Faith and an Enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ
Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9,
please Tweet my posts.
As tough and strong a man as I may be, I am scandalised in the classic and theological sense. My peace and the peace of my wife and my close friends have been disturbed. The peace of many of you readers has been disturbed. The fact that this has been brought about by the man chosen by the Cardinals of the Catholic Church to be the Vicar of our Sweet Christ on Earth is what is most profoundly sad and distressing.please Tweet my posts.
Whether he has been tried or not; whether those with the authority to act or not declare it, Jorge Bergoglio, - the man known as Pope Francis - is, in my opinion, a heretic, a likely antipope and may, because of his varied actions and words, have lost the papal office. He certainly acts and behaves as if he has no papal charism, no grace of office.
Look friends, and I point this out mainly to the papal positivists and apologists out there engaging in papolatry - Popes are not infallible in everything they say or do. Their statements are infallible and decisions are only infallible on matters of faith and morals, and only when they declare it. Period.
This change in the catechism regarding capital punishment is a disgraceful abuse of power and pompous arrogance.
I can not, -- I will not accept what was not always the teaching. What was true yesterday is still true today. You may choose in your own conscience to disagree with capital punishment, that is your right. You may think it is not the duty of the State, today. that is fine, you may hold that opinion, that belief. The problem is that the Church cannot compel you or me to believe that it is wrong when it has always taught that it is permissible. You cannot be compelled to assent in mind and heart and belief to something that was okay yesterday but not today.
This is a really a red-herring, or as if something is shouting to a dog, "squirrel." You can easily research capital punishment statistics. It is not public policy in Europe or Canada or most "western" countries. It is on the books in Russia, but it has not been used in decades. China, Iraq, Pakistan, mostly Muslim countries and oh, yes; the United States of America still have capital punishment as an option in sentencing. There are fewer than 2000 people per year executed. This is not the most pressing issue in the world.
Remember, this Francis has also said that "life in prison is like a death sentence." So, is that next? Does the State, legitimate authority, have any right to protect its citizens and punish guilty criminals. Criminals, who conduct the most heinous crimes? Mass murderers, killers of police or prison guards, child murderers? Sure, lock them up, throw away the key; - once could argue that 30 or 40 years of solitary confinement may be worse than an execution, I get it. It is in civil discourse and politics a debatable point, it is also permitted by Holy Scripture and the Church throughout history.
This is a really a red-herring, or as if something is shouting to a dog, "squirrel." You can easily research capital punishment statistics. It is not public policy in Europe or Canada or most "western" countries. It is on the books in Russia, but it has not been used in decades. China, Iraq, Pakistan, mostly Muslim countries and oh, yes; the United States of America still have capital punishment as an option in sentencing. There are fewer than 2000 people per year executed. This is not the most pressing issue in the world.
Remember, this Francis has also said that "life in prison is like a death sentence." So, is that next? Does the State, legitimate authority, have any right to protect its citizens and punish guilty criminals. Criminals, who conduct the most heinous crimes? Mass murderers, killers of police or prison guards, child murderers? Sure, lock them up, throw away the key; - once could argue that 30 or 40 years of solitary confinement may be worse than an execution, I get it. It is in civil discourse and politics a debatable point, it is also permitted by Holy Scripture and the Church throughout history.
There is more.
The wider problem is this is not only a smokescreen that over the pervert crisis of homosexuals in the priesthood, episcopacy and cardinaliate, but it is what it portends for the future.
If this heretical monster, this malefactor gets away with this, then he may very well attempt it again, but the next time the chopping block will include the teaching on same-sex attraction and behaviour and then Humanae Vitae.
From the night that this malefactor Bergoglio walked out on the loggia my peace has been disturbed. My urge to vomit was a warning to be mindful of what was coming. It went on for hours, my unsettlement for days and weeks.
The time has long since past for this man named Pope Francis to be called out by the bishops and cardinals for his errors and is heresies.
We are alone against the cowards. Half of our shepherds are cowards and the others are wolves.
May they repent, lest they are damned.
Predator Pervert Theodore McCarrick's work goes on
Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness reports that disgraced Archbishop and homosexual predator pervert Theodore McCarrick ordained to the sacred priesthood, the dissenting and homosexualist, Daniel Horan whom we have written of previously.
Who else of has been ordained by Pervert McCarrick?
America's Political Left Will Now Use Heretic Bergoglio's Capital Punishment Edict to Whip Support for Democrats
Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, please Tweet my posts.
In a post below, I opined that one of the reasons Bergoglio did this catechetical change, which remains an abuse of his authority, is to undermine Donald J. Trump and support the Democrat Party in the mid-term American elections. Remember, it was the fraud on the Chair of Peter who, returning from a trip to Mexico said about Mr. Trump, "Real Christians don't build walls."
I give you this:
From Wikipedia: Jane Fleming Kleeb is an American political activist. She is the founder and president of Bold Alliance, Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and a board member of Our Revolution.
But killing babies is just fine.
London, Ontario's Victoria Hospital Urges Lucid Patient Asking for Home Care to Kill Himself - With Their Kind Help, of Course!
Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, please Tweet my posts.
CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, August 2, 2018 10:00PM EDT
Published Thursday, August 2, 2018 10:00PM EDT
An Ontario man suffering from an incurable neurological disease has provided CTV News with audio recordings that he says are proof that hospital staff offered him medically assisted death, despite his repeated requests to live at home.
Roger Foley, 42, who earlier this year launched a landmark lawsuit against a London hospital, several health agencies, the Ontario government and the federal government, alleges that health officials will not provide him with an assisted home care team of his choosing, instead offering, among other things, medically assisted death.
Foley suffers from cerebellar ataxia, a brain disorder that limits his ability to move his arms and legs, and prevents him from independently performing daily tasks.
AND
Friday, 3 August 2018
Count Your Days, Mr. Wuerl - You're next!
Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, please Tweet my posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)